On 08 Mar 2014, at 02:39, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
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> 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.
Just to be precise, I never say that "physical reality is not there",
only that we have to explain it by an 1p-statistics on relative
consistent extensions, making comp (and Theaetetus) testable.
Bruno
--
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.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
