From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   >> Empiricism isn't about any particular 'us', otherwise I might assert   
   >> that mount Everest doesn't exist because I have never seen it and   
   >> can't afford to go there. Truly objective theories about reality   
   >> would be for   
   >   
   > I think you have a naive way of empiricism. You must keep apart what   
   > you can possibly see and verify, and what you can never see and   
   > verify. Everest you can possibly see and verify. I think you're   
   > building quite a strawman there.   
      
   What I am trying to show is that it is no good choosing a particular   
   observer. You chose 'us', i.e. human beings on earth, but there is no   
   scientific requirement for observers to be human beings on earth. And   
   there maybe only purely practical reasons why something cannot be   
   observed by a particular observer. What constitutes an observer?   
      
   >   
   >> any observer, human or non human. Did quasars exist when dinosaurs   
   >> roamed the earth?   
   >   
   > Meaningless question, there weren't any humans then. For us, there is   
   > evidence that they did. Beware of counterfactuals, they tend to lead   
   > you astray and I avoid them unless they help me investigate something   
   > which produces empirically verifiable results.   
   >   
      
   It really isn't a meaningless question. You only need to theorise a bit,   
   just in the way you do about electrons. We use tools to predict the   
   future, why not use tools to recreate the past?   
      
   > You have a point. Yes, things change. This is the scientific method,   
   > and completely acceptable. The key is empirical grounding   
   > though. Without that, everything falls to pieces and no conversation   
   > is possible due to eternal doubt.   
   >   
   > What word would you like me to use?   
   >   
      
   'Unknowable'.   
      
   > As for cause and effect, all we have is observation. We observe one   
   > thing, and results in another thing. It repeats, often, without fail,   
   > and therefore we rely on it.   
      
   Yes, if you want to put it like Hume, we observe one follows the other,   
   we don't even know if it is a result.   
      
   > Well, you could say that what exists is something that gives rise to   
   > the blip on the screen. We don't actually "see" electrons, we see   
   > something on a screen that is the result of something reacting with a   
   > detector. That's all.   
   >   
   > We describe something reacting with the detector, generating a blip on   
   > the screen, as an electron. But that does not commit us to actually   
   > believing the electron is a spherical object that exists. So   
   > empirically, we can only draw conclusions based on the blip on the   
   > screen, or the result the system achieves.   
   >   
   > The electron is a "thought tool" that helps us think about the   
   > effect. But it only that, a tool for thought.   
   >   
   > Maybe that makes things a bit more clear?   
   >   
      
   Yes, that is clear. A thought tool is like mathematics, or theory. It   
   helps us think about what we observe. It helps us predict when we will   
   next observe it.   
      
   >> cannot be observed directly, only the effect can be observed. Now if   
   >> the electron were a parallel universe, this would be a show stopper   
   >> for you, saying it can never be observed or have an effect. But you   
   >> don't   
   >   
   > Yes, regardless of the entity, if it has no effect on the world, I   
   > would disregard it.   
      
   Oops, it was going so well. ;] We don't know that electrons have an   
   effect on the world. If we made that assertion for definite, then we   
   would have to say they are definitely more than just theoretical or   
   tools. All we know is we observe something which our theory, which   
   includes theoretical entities, predicted. But we don't disregard   
   electrons. We use them as tools if you like.   
      
   > True. As per above, I consider it a tool for thought. But not an   
   > actual thing, that would be confusing the map with the territory.   
      
   Yes.   
      
   >   
   >> You could make it easier just to say the electron is maths, and part   
   >> of a mathematical model which predicts CRT images (among other   
   >> things). But this case is not in principle different from the   
   >> parallel universe case. You can never observe a parallel   
   >> universe. You can never observe an electron. They are both   
   >> 'nonsense'. Only the CRT is real.   
   >   
   > Yes, the effect on the tool is real, possibly, there might be some   
   > visual confirmation at the detector level (?) but I don't know.   
   >   
   > As for a parallell universe, if it generated a blip on the screen,   
   > then we'd have ground for talking about it. We have something, X, that   
   > generated an effect on a screen, what is X? We could devise it   
   > theoretically in any of numerous ways, but it would only be an   
   > equation, most likely, and we wouldn't need to take it beyond an   
   > equation. It is just a tool, a mental tool, and we build machines,   
   > that give specific results based on applications of the mental tool.   
      
   Yes. I could do a thought experiment: I devise a parallel universe   
   detector. The way it works is if it detects a parallel universe it   
   produces a blip on the screen. (CRT). (I re-purposed some parts). I   
   switch it on, there's the blip. Now parallel universes are elevated to   
   the status of electrons.   
      
   > I have no quarrel with electrons as mental tools or models, my quarrel   
   > is only with asserting they exist as real entities, in the real world,   
   > which I believe we can probably (but, as you _rightly_ point out,   
   > science has surprised us before and will surprise us again) never   
   > know.   
   >   
   > Despite my empiricism, I also believe that it is important to revise   
   > our mental models of the world, in light of new evidence, if science   
   > opens up new frequencies or wave lengths, or at some unspecified point   
   > in the future, allows us to peak into parallel world dimensions. Then   
   > we have ground for talking about it in the form of blips on the   
   > instruments.   
   >   
   >> There is also something problematic around the idea of an   
   >> observer. In quantum experiments, the observer has an effect on the   
   >> results. But it   
   >   
   > This is only according to _some_ interpretations of quantum physics,   
   > not all interpretations. The multiple world interpretation does not   
   > deal with collapse of the wave function, it just postulates that all   
   > options happen, in different worlds. There is also the Böhm   
   > interpretation, that talks about pilot waves, but since I didn't pass   
   > my electromagnetism and waves physics course, I am not good enough at   
   > math to talk about this. Apologies!   
   >   
   >> would be strange if only scientists or people could be observers. In   
   >> fact what affects the results is other objects which are   
   >> affected. So,   
   >   
   > My personal opinion is that the idea that observation affects   
   > measurement is a flawed interpretation. I'm not fond of it. But I   
   > believe it is only one interpretation.   
      
   'Observation' can be re-interpreted as 'information leak'. In order to   
   build quantum computers, they have to go to great lengths to prevent   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)