From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Thu, 6 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Tue, 4 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> D  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I'm a materialist agnostic, or an agnostic materialist. As such, I   
   >>>> reject any speculation that does not result in empirically verifiable   
   >>>> predictions.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What do you do about inflation theory, which, although it makes   
   >>> verifiable predictions, also predicts parallel universes which cannot be   
   >>> verified?   
   >>   
   >> Easy! They do not, as far as we can know, exist. They are speculation,   
   >> perhaps inference, but ultimately meaningless, since it does not   
   >> result in any empirical proof.   
   >>   
   >> We could be wrong, we might not translate between numbers and language   
   >> correctly, we might not even have the language to correctly understand   
   >> what the nrs are telling us, it could be pink unicorns. You   
   >> see... once you admit anything besides empirical proof, you open up an   
   >> infinite metaphysical landscape that allows all kinds of absurdities,   
   >> and eternal doubt.   
   >>   
   >> I'll stick to the material world and empirical proof. Anything beyond   
   >> the material world, anything super-natural, I can safely disregard   
   >> until empirical proof is presented.   
   >>   
   >> This has not happend for about 2500 years and I expect that it never   
   >> will. =)   
   >>   
   >   
   > I can see some problems with this, like being a blind man who does not   
   > believe in light, how is it he bumps into things, and others do not?   
      
   Excellent question. I'd say it depends on if the man was blnd from birth   
   or not. If not, the man has experience and memories of light. If he was,   
   then light will basically be a meaningless concept that makes absolutely   
   not difference to him as far as he is concerned, and can be disregarded.   
      
   > And do we regard what we see in telescopes and microscopes as empirical?   
   > or should we suspect some deception?   
      
   We should regard it as things seen in telescopes which is reflected light   
   that shows us events in the past (if we're talking astronomy here).   
      
   > And why do we regard the senses as reliable and direct, when we know   
   > that everything which comes from the senses is processed by the brain,   
   > so that we actually live in our own model of the world, not in the world   
   > as it is.   
      
   We don't. That is why we have the method of science to constantly refine   
   our mental models to make better and better predictions. But predictions   
   and effects in the real world is what anchors us to the truth.   
      
   Remove that, and the solipsistic house of cards falls.   
      
   Last but not least, we must remember the burden of proof falls on the one   
   who argues that the world is not, or is something else than it appears to   
   be. They must prove that the world is not, or that something else is the   
   truth (a simulation). Absent that, given the fact that the world "happens"   
   to us, without us trying, it is reasonable to consider the world as fact.   
      
   Should evidence of us living in a simulation appear, we humbly admit our   
   mistake and revise our model of reality. So far, no such empirical proof   
   has been presented to the best of my knowledge.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)