From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Thu, 6 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > Of course not. But there is a distinction here. Light is, at heart a   
   > physical phenomenon in the world. To give a ridiculous comparison, god   
   > is by most definitions completely outside of the world and therefore   
   > emipircal proof. That is why he is definitely not wrong about   
   > speculating, although he can never know what it is like to have sight.   
   >   
   > What he can do... since light is a physical phenomenon, is to feel   
   > heat, instruments could be designed that convert light to pitch, or   
   > some kind of tactile scale.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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.   
   >   
   > This is true. So what we rely on is what we see through the   
   > instrument, we use that to create models, predictions, which we can   
   > then empirically verify. If we want to be strict about it, that is all   
   > we can commit too. The rest, is a matter of, probability. Since what   
   > we see in the instrument results in such great predictions, we use the   
   > "shorthand" of saying that this thing exists. But the shorthand should   
   > not be confused with reality. I think the example of electrons better   
   > illustrates the point. They are models or theorized particles which   
   > work as tools for our understanding. We can never verify the electron   
   > by our senses, and thus we should keep the tool as lon gas it helps us   
   > to predict things in the world.   
   >   
   > But we should not confused the map with the territory, which is very   
   > common when people say that electrons exist. We can never know   
   > that. What we can know is how they work, within the framework of our   
   > models, and that is fine, as long as we remember the distinction   
   > between model and reality.   
   >   
   > The key here is that electroncs represent phenomena in our physical   
   > world. This is why it makes sense to keep them in our mental toolbox,   
   > and not discard them.   
   >   
   > Let's shift outside the scope of our world to interpretations of   
   > quantym physics, like the multiple world interpretation. In some   
   > interpretation multiple world are infered, but they can never affect   
   > our world, nor we them. Therefore this is pure nonsense. They make no   
   > difference what so ever, and are more likely to lead us astray, and   
   > therefore we can happily "shut up and calculate" without having to   
   > bother with the verbal and conceptual interpretations of the equation   
   > of quantum physics.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > True.   
   >   
   >> 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?   
   >   
   > In case of illusions, we acknowledge our mistake and revise our   
   > beliefs and models if it is related to predictions and effects in the   
   > world.   
   >   
   > When it comes to our percetpion of the world, we don't need to do   
   > anything at all about it, since we have no choice but to accept it and   
   > act in the world. So we are perfectly fine in not having any opinions   
   > at all about our view of the world, unless we encounter errors which   
   > stop us from making predictions, in which case we test, think, and   
   > revise our models and predictions.   
   >   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > This is based on the fact that we are beings in the world. Except   
   > suicide, we have no choice but to act in the world, as if, the world   
   > exists. It is hard coded into our nature. Therefore the burden of   
   > proof is shifted onto someone who comes up with the idea that, let's   
   > say, "actually we are living in a simulation".   
   >   
   > Then we say, ok, show us proof of this. If this proof is presented,   
   > our default state would have been falsified, and we update our mental   
   > models of the world.   
   >   
   > Does this make sense?   
   >   
   > Note that acting in the world, as if, it was the physical, material   
   > world, requires no assumption or belief. We have no choice. That is   
   > why claims counter to this have the burden of proof.   
   >   
   > If the reverse were true, anyone could come up with anything ranging   
   > from gods, simulations, pink unicorns, and intellectually it would be   
   > absurd to reason (in my opinion) that we should have to prove the   
   > world over, say, a hidden cabal of pink unicorns.   
   >   
   >>> Should evidence of us living in a simulation appear, we humbly admit   
   >>> our mistake and revise our model of reality. So far, no such   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)