From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >>   
   >   
   > How would we have any conception of time if we did not recreate the past   
   > from the present?   
      
   My point it theorizing that does not lead to empirical evidence. As for   
   time, it happens, a watch has a movement I can see. I don't really   
   understand this point. Let me read on...   
      
   > Scientists do it all the time. They worked out what had happened all the   
   > way back to the big bang and possibly before, based on the evidence of   
   > cosmic background radiation and quantum theories. Maybe there is no   
   > point, or maybe curiosity is a point in itself.   
      
   True. But it is based on empirical evidence, that is my entire point. The   
   question about moons during the dinosaurs is meaningless from the point of   
   view of empirical evidence.   
      
   > Personally I always thought time was subjective. Scientists have gone   
   > the long way around and concluded it is not fundamental, but an emergent   
   > property. But that certainly saves worrying about why it all started.   
      
   True. I am perfectly happy to let questions of time and space be answered   
   by scientists, rather than philosophers, as long as they can be answered   
   based on empirical evidence.   
      
   >> This is the truth. My theory is that as we "dig deeper" we become more   
   >> and more mathematical and eventually, as in the multiple world   
   >> interpretation, we lose all empirical feedback loops. That's why I   
   >> prefer to say that we hit a limit, and I choose to remain agnostic. It   
   >> becomes unknowable. All we specifically have, are measurements and   
   >> equations, and I think at the moment, we simply lack the language to   
   >> make sense of them at our common day level of experience.   
   >>   
   >   
   > You never know though where a theory is going to take you. Who would   
   > have guessed that quantum uncertainties would explain why there are   
   > galaxies? Who would have predicted something like quantum entanglement?   
      
   That's the beauty of science. I think maybe I am being unclear. As long as   
   theories lead to empirical verification or falsification, that is, they   
   lead to results in the world, I have no problems with theories. My point   
   is, and again apologies for being unclear, that when theories no longer   
   have any empirical feedback loops or way to be falsified or confirmed,   
   they lose all touch with reality and become useless.   
      
   That is my main beef with the multiple world interpretation. When it comes   
   to using theories in chemistry, relying on the tool of an electron, please   
   be my guest and theorize as much as you want. =)   
      
   > And now we have a theory, because of quantum entanglement and its being   
   > apparently inexplicable, that the way we see objects is particular to us   
   > and our relation to the object, and not particular to the object   
   > itself. So it has all gone back in a circle to a subjective/objective   
   > world.   
      
   True... let the scientists continue the word. But as long as there is no   
   empirical evidence, or no effects in this world, I'll consider it   
   unknowable and of no use for finding truth. The use then is entertainment   
   value or what ever you (or I for that matter) get out of it. =)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)