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 <meek...@verizon.net <javascript:>>wrote: > >> On 3/7/2014 12:52 PM, LizR wrote: >> >> On 8 March 2014 01:21, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
