Dan wrote:
<< Reading through this post, it seems as though it might be interpreted as being written from antagonistic viewpoint. That is not my viewpoint. It is more in the nature of exploring axioms sets to look for inconsistencies and theorems that can be derived from them.
It doesn't sound antagonistic to me.
You cannot do that with even a photon; so do photons have the same type of free will as humans?
Do photons make informed decisions? This sure seems like an apples and oranges argument to me.
I'm asking a much more basic question. Lets take an electron, for example. Does it actually exist, with the charge calculated by QED apart from human observation, or is it an element in a model we use to explain observations.
We are talking past each other. From my perspective it is because you are assuming something I wish to explore...without even taking the step of
deliberately positing it.
What am I assuming?
Yet. I'm sure you are going to be
flabbergasted about this and tell me that physicists are doing everything
possible and that some measurements/predictions can not be made. I'm
saying you don't know how to speak friend and enter. 8^)
So, you believe that hidden variables that secretly violate known laws of physics really exist...even though there is no evidence for them.
I know we've been over this before and I'm not sure how the debate concluded last time, or even if it came to a satisfactory conclusion. In any case, are you insinuating that we are at an end to the understanding of physics? That we know all there is to know? Have we stopped trying to find the answers to phenomenon that we don't understand completely? Is it completely out of the question that a new paradigm will change our understanding of the universe? You talk of hidden variables that secretly violate known laws as if that's the only way we would be able to explain what we don't understand. Should we just throw up our hands, exclaim "FM!" and go eat a banana?
Isn't this the very type of belief you want to guard against. Indeed, its a
belief that is inconsistent with observations...which is not true for a
belief in the existence of human rights, for example.
Indeed, this type of belief is very akin to a belief in literal
creationism. In both cases, it is impossible to disprove that thesis that there will be new observations that show the theory to be correct. But,
both are definitely anti-scientific...in that they violate the rules of
doing good science.
You are talking about things that really really exist, even though there is an abundance of evidence that is inconsistent with their existence. What
type of realism is that?
I am? The idea that there are unanswered questions that will find answers only with new discoveries/understanding is akin to creationalism??? We _must_ be talking past each other.
What's the difference between fabricating an explanation and creating an arbitrary purpose?
How is the purpose arbitrary? Isn't it at least part of the reason that we are as successful a species as we are because we are curious? If I discover that an action produces a desireable result, is it arbitrary that I repeat that action?
How can I see this purpose? What is the experimental
evidence for it? For example, if we didn't have this particular purpose, how would evolution be different?
We would still be swinging from trees, or whatever, I guess.
Why do we need to add an axiom about our purpose to explain what we see?
Explaining what we see is part of a successful strategy. Calling it a purpose is just a way to extend that strategy into the future.
-- Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
