On Saturday, March 8, 2014 12:49:58 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > On 8 March 2014 13:10, Edgar L. Owen <edga...@att.net <javascript:>>wrote: > >> Liz, >> >> No, you are referring to two different categories of ontological >> assumption. >> >> There are some things we don't directly observe that we DEDUCE by logic >> from what we can observe. That is true. >> > > It's true of everything. We don't observe anything directly. Neuroscience > indicates that what actually happens is "something inside our brains" but > even that is a hypothesis. The existence of matter, energy, space, time, > our brains, other people and so on are all hypotheses deduced from logic > plus observation. > I don't think it is true of everything. For example certain concepts like the 'Mirror Pair'
> >> But my point is that everyone assumes we can directly observe empty space >> because our mind makes an internal model of things existing IN such an >> empty space. But those are purely mental constructs based on continuous >> INTERPOLATIONS between actually observed dimensional relationships, and >> there is no evidence that empty space actually exists outside of our >> internal models of it. >> > I acknowledge Russell, you, and whoever else making same point (though different between you) are saying something that contains some sense of being true. But I don't regard the reasoning as inherently substantial or real either, in fact I think worrying about the realness of the external world puts the cart before the horse. First dismiss internal value to reason I should think. Look for a way that takes that non-existence seriously. Firstly because it's harder that way, secondly because what you end up with, if you end up at all, are powerful ways to proceed, that by design stop worrying about externals in any direct sense at all. Another relative sense I'd deal with your empty space insight, is that relative to everything else nothing is more strongly indicated than space. If space isn't real but susbstance isthen we have a major problem of density. We're still in the moment of the Big Bang in fact. In terms of what's real, that means we have to share that moment with the original/authentic moment. If space isn't real, which moment then is real? In the end, isn't this more about preconceived notions of what 'real' has to arrange like? It's like Bruno's idea that physical reality is not primatively real. That's plausible enough, but then if it isn't, what we are left with is a proxy-effect indistinguishable from the dimensional previous known as physical reality. So it's actually a trivial point in context of where we are, and what's around us. There's substance in terms of origins. But it's very easy to use such things out of context. For example Bruno at one point dismissed an argumnent I was making that drew on consistency of his model to translate to physical layers, by saying such things didn't matter because physical reality wasn't there. > >> > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
