0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Would you like to first define what is reality and what is a mistake?I do agree that science is very incestuous (as is any branch of philosophy), and it tends to build on what has gone before, rather than relaying the foundations.The problem is, if modern science explains as well as it does what we perceive of the world around us, then it substantially does the job it is designed to do - to explain observation.It is perfectly feasible that there might be a million different models that could explain the observable universe as well as the present scientific model, but to say that this model or that model will explain the observations is not to say there is any way of saying one model is true and another is false. If they both give equally good explanations of reality, then they are both equally true; if one answers the questions raised by observation better than the other, then tat which gives better answers is the superior model, but it makes neither model either true or false in any absolute sense, it only provides a pragmatically superior or inferior model of the observable universe.
Quote from: another_someone on 15/06/2007 17:24:37Would you like to first define what is reality and what is a mistake?I do agree that science is very incestuous (as is any branch of philosophy), and it tends to build on what has gone before, rather than relaying the foundations.The problem is, if modern science explains as well as it does what we perceive of the world around us, then it substantially does the job it is designed to do - to explain observation.It is perfectly feasible that there might be a million different models that could explain the observable universe as well as the present scientific model, but to say that this model or that model will explain the observations is not to say there is any way of saying one model is true and another is false. If they both give equally good explanations of reality, then they are both equally true; if one answers the questions raised by observation better than the other, then tat which gives better answers is the superior model, but it makes neither model either true or false in any absolute sense, it only provides a pragmatically superior or inferior model of the observable universe. Another S, you raise several interesting points, which I intend to fully entertain after concluding the mental masturbation, which I've referred to as the "Nobody-Here-But-Us-Chickens" theory. However, for your consideration, I submit the possibility that reality does exist, and maybe, just barely maybe, it can be proven somewhere down the line. Thanks for the comeback, btw.
It's been suggested that we see things remarkably accurate, i.e., what we see is very close to what's actually there.
Matter of fact, we scientifically evaluate hypotheses by empirically observing the outcome of tests meant to verify their validity. However, who would think to question their empirical observation that "SOMETHING" exists between objects in space, and another "SOMETHING" exists between events?
But, it is here, exactly here, when trying to understand how matter moves through space and time, the thinker hits the wall. It's like trying to travel from Key Largo to the Virgin Islands by land. It simply cannot be done.
Quote from: DammitDewd on 17/06/2007 16:29:55It's been suggested that we see things remarkably accurate, i.e., what we see is very close to what's actually there.It has been suggested by whom?What is reasonable to surmise is that what we cannot see (more broadly - sense with any of our senses) we cannot know to be there; but this is different from saying that because we see it we must know it to be there.If we do not believe the evidence of our own eyes, then what do we have to believe in. But that is not to say that the evidence of our own eyes are correct, only that we have no superior evidence to work with.Quote from: DammitDewd on 17/06/2007 16:29:55Matter of fact, we scientifically evaluate hypotheses by empirically observing the outcome of tests meant to verify their validity. However, who would think to question their empirical observation that "SOMETHING" exists between objects in space, and another "SOMETHING" exists between events?I am sorry, but I do not understand what this means?There have been many theories (and to some degree, there still continue to be) that suggests a that space is not an absolute vacuum, but has some substance. These may not necessarily be mainstream theories, but they do exist in one form or another, and some are even relatively mainstream within quantum physics.Quote from: DammitDewd on 17/06/2007 16:29:55But, it is here, exactly here, when trying to understand how matter moves through space and time, the thinker hits the wall. It's like trying to travel from Key Largo to the Virgin Islands by land. It simply cannot be done. Again, I am not sure what you are trying to say here?All of this even assumes that motion even exists (one could postulate that motion is no more than an perception of the observer, as time itself is no more than a perception of the observer).
Jesus H Christ! I apologize.Anything I say will only piss people off, but I've made a mistake posting here. I didn't expect to find a great many Enrico Fermis or Isaac Newtons, but I hoped to attract an occasional wannabee theoretical physicist. The mistake was all mine, but I plainly indicated that I was posting ONLY to "thinkers," those who ponder the nature of nature. Perhaps I should've SOMEHOW more plainly indicated who I was posting to. LMFAO. I prepared the mathematical model for the spaceless universe theory and was ready to post it. Boy howdy! What a waste of time lol. Please forgive and thanks for your responses.