From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >>> God as a concept in poetry, or as a useful concept in psychology or   
   >>> justified by pragmatic grounds I have no quarrel with. I only   
   >>> quarrel with god as something that some people believe actually   
   >>> exists and is proven. There I disagree.   
   >>   
   >> OK I think I mistook your position before as something like   
   >> phenominalism.   
   >>   
   >> As for the proof, I think it would be better to use the word   
   >> 'evidence'. You might ask me to provide evidence that some assertion   
   >> is   
   >   
   > This is the truth! Thank you for pointing that out. I blame me not   
   > being a native english speaker. ;)   
   >   
   >> true, but to ask me to prove it makes it rather difficult, in the   
   >> same way it is difficult to prove that electrons exist, or do not   
   >> exist. But there is evidence that cathode rays are negatively charged   
   >> and have a mass much smaller than atoms.   
   >>   
   >> The fact that we are beings in the world and have to act as if it is   
   >> as it appears to us, does not prove that it is as it appears to us,   
   >   
   > It is strong evidence. And, as I mentioned before... no one has so far   
   > falsified reality. I think empiricism couple with some constructive   
   > empiricism/instrumenta lism/anti-realism is on very solid ground here.   
      
   I am not attempting to falsify reality. I am saying reality is not as it   
   appears.   
      
   >   
   > Not placing the burden of proof (or burden of evidence?) on the one   
   > who insist that reality isn't real, or external, or what ever, leads   
   > to eternal doubt, which, while consistent, is not the most productive   
   > of positions to have conversations from.   
      
   I am not saying reality isn't real. I am saying we do not see it as it   
   really is. And in fact that means we rely on theoretical models. Which   
   might mean true reality is unknowable.   
      
   >   
   >> although it might prove that there is something there. But we don't   
   >> know what it is. And what's really scary (to me at least) is that   
   >> when we keep going down to smaller and smaller particles, we find   
   >> that the building blocks can be 'points', i.e. things which have no   
   >> mass. How can anything be made from such things?   
   >   
   > Constructive empiricism for the win! You could also toy with the   
   > Natural Ontological Attitude, and confine yourself to what we can see   
   > and prove (or get evidence for) empirically. There is no need to   
   > commit to anything beyond that.   
      
   But didn't you already accept electrons as useful theoretical entities?   
   These things which cannot be in one place until they are observed, or   
   have one speed until it is observed? Why not accept other things as   
   useful theoretical entities?   
      
   >   
   > I present to you, one of my philsoophical concoctions... agnostic   
   > monism! I think this is the philosophical sword that will cut the   
   > gordian knot!   
   >   
   >> And as Donald Hoffman shows, our senses are more efficient if we do   
   >> not see things as they truely are, but only as we need to see them   
   >> for survival. It requires less processing power in the brain. This is   
   >> like data compression with error correction. We only have three   
   >> colour receptors in the eye, whereas there is a shrimp (whose name I   
   >> forget, 'Shrimpy' perhaps) which has 12 colour receptors.   
   >   
   > I'm certain there can be some interesting evolutionary explanations   
   > and conclusions here.   
   >   
   >> And then there is the holographic principle:   
   >>   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle   
   >   
   > Nah... let's just shut up and calculate! =D I think trying to   
   > verbalize quantum physics easily leads us astray, since we are   
   > conceptually not equipped to understand what happens at that layer of   
   > reality. That is why you get nonsense as the multiple world   
   > interpretation that a lot of people waste a lot of time on.   
      
   You'll have to find a better word than nonsense. I don't think you would   
   say, for example, that mathematical geometric shapes are nonsense, and   
   yet they are not real, they only exist in abstraction. Pure maths isn't   
   nonsense.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)