Brent,

But we CAN see atoms. They are routinely imaged. That's just a matter of 
using a powerful enough microscope. But we can't see empty space no matter 
how good a microscope or telescope we make.

That's why I pointed out it's an ontological difference. Seeing atoms is 
just a matter of using the right observation device, but seeing empty space 
is impossible with ANY observational device no matter how powerful....

Agree?

Edgar


On Friday, March 7, 2014 8:50:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 3/7/2014 4:46 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 8 March 2014 11:03, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>>  On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected] <javascript:>>wrote:
>>
>>> All, 
>>>
>>>  An empty space within which events occur does not exist. There is no 
>>> universal fixed pre-existing empty space common to all events and observers.
>>>
>>>  Why? Because we cannot establish its existence by any observation 
>>> whatsoever. We NEVER observe such an empty space. All we actually observe 
>>> is interactions between particulate matter and energy. In fact, all 
>>> observations ARE interactions of particulate matter or energy, they are 
>>> never observations of empty space itself.
>>>  
>>
>>  Observations are not in fact observations of interactions between 
>> matter and energy, either. They are in fact interactions inside our brains, 
>> hypothetically the reception of nerve signals by our brain cells.
>>   
>>
>>  That seems like an inconsistent way to put it; sort of talking at two 
>> different levels of description and saying one is wrong because I can talk 
>> at the other.  The interactions inside my brain are a lot more hypothetical 
>> than observation of words on my computer screen.  "I'm observing a computer 
>> screen." is pretty concrete and direct.  On a physical model I could say 
>> "Photons from excited phosphor atoms are being absorbed by chromophores in 
>> my retina which are sending neural signals into my brain."  Or eschewing 
>> physicalism, "Information merging into my thought processes via preception, 
>> instantiates the thought "I'm observing a computer screen"."...which pretty 
>> much brings me back to just "I'm observing a computer screen."  A circle of 
>> explanation.
>>  
>>  My point was that Edgar can't use a similar argument to refute the 
> existence of space. He argued that we never observe space directly, and 
> goes on to suggest that therefore we can't assume it exists. I merely 
> pointed out that the same logic applies to all observations, and therefore 
> we can't assume *from observation* that anything exists. The existence of 
> space, matter, etc, are all hypotheses we have formed to account for what 
> happens inside our brains, assuming it does happen inside our brains 
> (another hypothesis).
>
>  His argument is similar to saying "I can't see atoms, therefore they 
> don't exist."
>   
>
> Then I agree with your point.
>
> But it's interesting then to consider what do we "observe".  It's 
> certainly not brain functions.  There seems to be a certain theory of the 
> world that's hardwired into us by evolution such that we see macroscopic 
> objects that have definite positions and we directly experience time 
> lapse.  Since that's what we're given, then theorizing has to start from 
> there.  So I think it's just a mistake of mixing levels to then go back and 
> say, "Well I thought I saw a table, but now I realize that it was *really* 
> just a pattern of neurons firing in my brain."  And Bohr was right when he 
> said that the classical world was *epistemologically* prior to the quantum 
> world.
>
> Brent
> You have to make the good out of the bad because that is all you have
> got to make it out of. 
>    --- Robert Penn Warren
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to