From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I agree! You are a wise man. Since our senses and minds are limited, we can   
   never know 100% of reality. This is the truth, and proven by science! I like   
   constructive empiricism and/or instrumentalism.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   This is either a truism, or a matter of definition. I like to see it as a   
   continuum of probability. The fact that the material, external universe exists,   
   is 100% as long as it is not falsified. It is also the default, in that it   
   "happens" to us. We have no choice, except for suicide of course.   
      
   So we know that there is a material, external world. The ultimate particles or   
   substrate of it, we do not know, and as you rightfully say, might never be able   
   to know.   
      
   I guess you can call me, in my own homecooked language, an agnostic monist. Not   
   a neutral monist, since Russell say the ultimate substrate, if I remember   
   correctly (but please correct me if I don't) says is neither ideal or material.   
   In my opinion, this can almost certainly never be known. We know there is a   
   material world, but at some point the resolution of our intruments stop.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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 do... as long as they result in useful verifiable predictions in the real   
   world, I accept and use these tools. When the tools imply other world, or   
   realities beyond our material reality, I think we are not justified to go there   
   since that is beyond useful and empirical predictions in this world. There is   
   nothing to say that MWI might just be a misinterpretation. At the end of the   
   day, the results are numbers. When we translate that into ordinary language, we   
   are heavily loaded with biases, and since our organisms are evolved to act,   
   understand and think given space and time, our language "breaks down" when   
   trying to translate numbers into everyday concepts.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   See my other reply. You have a good point. I am careless with language when   
   writing online. I am thankful for you, for pointing out this.   
      
   It is also my experience, that once you (and others) force me to be careful,   
   many disagreements dissolve, or we tend to discover that our positions are   
   closer than we first thought.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)