From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Sat, 29 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >>> 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...   
   >   
   > The evidence is always in the present. The watch is in the present. How   
   > do you know the time on your watch changes? You compare it with your   
      
   Easy, I check my watch. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.   
   If you doubt that, you need to doubt your senses, and then you need to   
   doubt if it's the world, or the particles in your brain that someone is   
   using to trick you, and so on. I think we covered this already.   
      
   > memory, which is in the present. You cannot go into the past and check   
   > what was there. The past is a theory without empirical evidence.   
      
   True. I accept that when it comes to the past, if we want to be strict   
   about it, we talk about probabilities. Thank you for pointing that out.   
   The same goes for the future.   
      
   I think also, studying history is an excellent example of this. But, as   
   you already know, one key ingredient for me is to update my mental model   
   of the world in face of new evidence. This happens all the time, by   
   regulars and scientists, and is exactly as it should be.   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > This is very odd to me. These two are examples of the same thing, in   
   > every way. How do you know that the cosmic microwave background   
   > radiation is evidence of what happened before the big bang? There is no   
   > way to go back and check.   
      
   I think the answer here is to keep it as a theory, in case there is no   
   empirical evidence to back it up. Is that strange? I have no problem with   
   it.   
      
   Oh, I just checked wikipedia:   
      
   "The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe   
   expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature".   
      
   There you go, problem solved! =)   
      
   > How do you know that dinosaur fossils are evidence of dinosaurs? There   
   > is no way to ever go back and look at them. (Don't mention birds). This   
      
   We can only speculate, there is no direct proof.   
      
   > is the same thing in kind as electrons, and parallel universes. Perhaps   
      
   Nope. Electrons have properties which we can measure, and which have   
   effects on the world. Parallel universes do not. Dinosaurs we can theorize   
   about, since it is (or was) a phenomenon in this world. We can for   
   instance, bury an animal carcass, let it sit for 10 years in the ground,   
   and come to the conclusion that it decomposes and bones are left over.   
      
   We can extrapolate from dinosaur bones and we can infer that it was   
   plausible they existed, but can we prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt?   
   No.   
      
   In fact, we have for instance no idea about the color of dinosaurs, so   
   when you see a dinosaur in a certain color, that is pure fantasy and/or   
   speculation.   
      
   > it is because I visualize things. Imagine a screen with a projector   
   > behind it. We can't see the projector, only the screen. We theorize the   
   > projector. You call the screen evidence, but it is the starting point of   
   > the theory. The end point is to go behind the screen and look at the   
   > projector. But we can't do that with dinosaurs, or electrons, or the big   
      
   True.   
      
   > bang, or parallel universes. They are all the same in kind. You can say   
      
   No, I disagree. Parallel universes are by definition, beyond our world and   
   to the best of our knowledge there is no information flow between them.   
   They are "null and void" or completely unknowable and without effects on   
   our world and therefore we can just disregard them when it comes to the   
   project of science, except are theoretical constructs.   
      
   Electrons are effects and porperties in this world, which we can measure.   
   Dinosaurs we can find remains, since they were items of this world, yet,   
   as you point out, they are historic, which means we can infer and   
   speculate, but never know for sure. There are many things we do not know   
   about them. Same goes for history.   
      
   > that dinosaurs are the most likely explanation. All others are too   
   > fantastic. Perhaps the quantum ripples before the big bang are the most   
   > likely explanation for CMBR as there was no explanation before.   
      
   Maybe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)