From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   But he will wonder why other people do not bump into things. He will   
   theorise. He will ask them and they will talk about light. He will   
   theorise about what it is. He will create a model to understand what he   
   hears. Is he wrong to do that?   
      
   >   
   >> 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).   
      
   But things seen in a telescope cannot be seen with the naked eye. So we   
   are relying on a theory, that the telescope, because it bends light in a   
   lens, shows us things which are really there, but we cannot perceive   
   ourselves because they are too small. You ought to say these are purely   
   theoretical objects.   
      
   >   
   >> 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.   
      
   Ah, so we can theorise about electrons then, and as long as our theory   
   makes predictions in the real world, we can accept them as part of   
   reality?   
      
   But what do we do about optical illusions? And what do we do about the   
   fact that we see the world in three dimensions, but we know the retina   
   is two dimensional? (accepting it is concave). Aren't we seeing a   
   construction, and theoretical interpretation?   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Why do I have to prove that the world is not as it appears? why don't   
   you have to prove that it is as it appears? as we have plenty of   
   examples of the brain deceiving us with optical illusions.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Interesting that you raise the subject of memories in the blind man who   
   could once see. How does he know his memories represent the past? People   
   often disagree about the past, who said what etc. There have been   
   experiments where memories get changed just by suggestion.   
      
   That's not that I entirely disagree with you about this. But we know   
   there is /something/ behind what we see, we just cannot know what it   
   is. So why not theorise, and create a model, is that any worse than the   
   mental model? Is the moon there when you aren't looking at it? How about   
   when nobody is looking at it? You can't define it as it appears then, as   
   it does not appear to anyone. There is no empirical evidence. So what is   
   it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)