From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   True, but there is a requirement for consciousness. Without any consciousness   
   the questions become meaningless. Also, absent aliens, I just refrain from   
   engaging in that scenario. If aliens visit, then new vistas of research and   
   philosophy will open up, and then I'll happily engage.   
      
   > there maybe only purely practical reasons why something cannot be   
   > observed by a particular observer. What constitutes an observer?   
      
   For me, given the context of our discussion, a human being.   
      
   >>> 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?   
      
   Well, for entertainment purposes I have no quarrel with that. =) But for the   
   purpose of this discussion, and utility, as in experiment,   
   verification/falsification, I don't really see the point.   
      
   >> 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'.   
      
   Noted.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   True.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   Exactly. Yes!   
      
   >>> 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   
      
   Yes! Let's say we tomorroe come up with a device that let's us actually _see_   
   electrons. I would then "admit" them into my world, as real entities, instead   
   of   
   tools that allows us to reason about things.   
      
   > includes theoretical entities, predicted. But we don't disregard   
   > electrons. We use them as tools if you like.   
      
   Yes! While in chemistry class in school, I used electrons as mental models and   
   tools all the time. Actually, at the time I believed they existed, and the   
   teacher never told me. Now I have changed my mind about that. So I think the   
   comparison with math is excellent. I use numbers when I calculate, but that   
   doesn't mean that the number "3" exists in the world.   
      
   >> 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.   
      
   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.   
      
   True. I might object, maybe parallel universes (pu) are not the right   
   interpretation, maybe it's something else, but within the framework of your   
   theory, something (pu or other) was detected, there is a feedback loop between   
   the properties of the entity and the detector. This gives us a starting point   
   from which to explore further.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)