-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not talking about verifiability. I'm talking about existence independent of humanity. If all humans were to suddenly become extinct, does the universe cease to exist?
Science is not objective.
Posts
Total:
153
-->
@TwoMan
Your question may be beyond our epistemological limits (we'd have to eliminate all humans in order to verify the effect, but at that point there would obviously be nobody left to say either, "it's true" or "it's false").If all humans were to suddenly become extinct, does the universe cease to exist?
However, there is some interesting evidence that observation is essential for certain types of fundamental interactions to occur.
Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
-->
@3RU7AL
The universe existed just fine before humans ever showed up. By your logic, the universe would only be 200,000 years old because it couldn't be verified before that. I'm sure the rest of the conscious beings in the universe will disagree with you too (I know, that statement can't be verified).
Just out of curiosity, does anyone other than 3RU7AL believe that in order for something to exist, it must be verified by a human?
I think just about everybody except Brutal uses the word 'exists' in a way that makes it independent of verifiability. I honestly think it would be much easier if Brutal shifted position rather than everybody else did! I might argue brutal's usage of 'exists' is what most of call 'known to exist'.
Existence is rather a special case amongst properties - indeed there are any number of heated arguments about whether 'existence' is a property at all! But IMO that "problem" is more to do with framing a tidy definition of 'property' than being difficult conceptually; our brains are understand the difference between existence and non-existence intuitively and non-verbally (ie no dictionary definition is needed).
-->
@TwoMan
The universe existed just fine before humans ever showed up. By your logic, the universe would only be 200,000 years old because it couldn't be verified before that.
That's the "delayed choice" portion of the quantum eraser experiment.
If there is evidence post-facto, then it can be inductively reasoned that the universe "existed" before humans evolved.
The data doesn't have to be observed at the point of decision (event), merely gathered at the point of decision and then viewed after the fact.
However, the pre-human universe does not currently exist.
Scientific evidence strongly suggests a hypothetical "chronology of the universe" that is consistent with what we know of physics and chemistry.
There is more reliable evidence in support of this scientific view than any of the alternatives, therefore I would consider this to be plausible and an adequate (sufficient) working model on which to base further exploration, but it is not a final, authoritative fact.
-->
@keithprosser
I think just about everybody except Brutal uses the word 'exists' in a way that makes it independent of verifiability. I honestly think it would be much easier if Brutal shifted position rather than everybody else did! I might argue brutal's usage of 'exists' is what most of call 'known to exist'.
I might argue that keithprosser's usage of 'exists' is what most of us call 'might exist'.
Existence is rather a special case amongst properties [special pleading] - indeed there are any number of heated arguments about whether 'existence' is a property at all! But IMO that "problem" is more to do with framing a tidy definition of 'property' [please define 'property'] than being difficult conceptually; our brains are understand the difference between existence and non-existence intuitively and non-verbally [anti-intellectual/appeal to ignorance] (ie no dictionary definition is needed).
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe in the internal combustion engine or do you understand it?
-->
@3RU7AL
I might argue that keithprosser's usage of 'exists' is what most of us call 'might exist'.
You could - but you'd be wrong! I am very confident a poll would reveal most people don't think verifiability is a condition of existence.
btw, if you do some browsing you can find thousands of pages of argument over whether existence is a property or not.
I might argue 3RU7AL's usage of 'exists' is what most of call 'known to exist'.
I agree. I also agree that for something to be "known to exist" it must be verified. That doesn't mean that something must be verified in order for it to exist.
-->
@keithprosser
So you believe in consensus reality?I am very confident a poll would reveal most people don't think verifiability is a condition of existence.
If a majority of humans believe there are some sort of gods that control our lives, does that automatically mean that gods exist?
-->
@TwoMan
Clearly, existence is merely hypothetical until it is verified.I agree. I also agree that for something to be "known to exist" it must be verified. That doesn't mean that something must be verified in order for it to exist.
-->
@Paul
Do you believe in the internal combustion engine or do you understand it?
I've personally verified the existence of more than one internal combustion engine.
I would say I have a general understanding of the basic functions, capabilities, limitations, and maintenance requirements.
-->
@3RU7AL
Clearly, existence is merely hypothetical until it is verified.
Hypothetical only to a human.
This feels like an ontological reimagining of "Who's On First?"
-->
@3RU7AL
I am very confident a poll would reveal most people don't think verifiability is a condition of existence.So you believe in consensus reality?If a majority of humans believe there are some sort of gods that control our lives, does that automatically mean that gods exist?
What I believe is that the way most people use language the truth/falseness of 'X exists' does not depend on the existence of X being verified. In other words verification reveals but does not change the truth/falseness of 'X exists'.
-->
@keithprosser
What I believe is that the way most people use language the truth/falseness of 'X exists' does not depend on the existence of X being verified. In other words verification reveals but does not change the truth/falseness of 'X exists'.
I would tend to agree with you that most people believe that objects persist (exist) even if they are never observed (either directly or indirectly).
I also would tend to believe that most children imagine the refrigerator light is on all the time, regardless of whether the door is opened or closed.
-->
@TwoMan
How do you propose we verify data without human interference?Hypothetical only to a human.
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you propose we verify data without human interference?
I'll say this again....
I'm not talking about verifying anything. This isn't about what might exist. Existence itself doesn't depend on our epistemological limits. Only our knowledge of existence does. Human knowledge is only relevant to humans, not the universe itself or any of the other life forms contained therein.
-->
@3RU7AL
We clearly have to interact with something to gain knowledge of its existence - I don't think that is being disputed. My position is that it is not necessary for me to know that X exists for X to exist. If I step on a landmine I may never know of its existence - but exist it did.
-->
@3RU7AL
The universe is like an engine, it's mechanical and how it works can be understood, but it takes work because you have to learn it to understand it.
-->
@TwoMan
Baloney. Other intelligent life forms in the universe will discover mathematics, physics, chemistry, evolution and a wide array of knowledge humans possess. And, they may know things we don't, but we will also find that relevant.Human knowledge is only relevant to humans, not the universe itself or any of the other life forms contained therein.
-->
@Goldtop
Baloney. Other intelligent life forms in the universe will discover mathematics, physics, chemistry, evolution and a wide array of knowledge humans possess. And, they may know things we don't, but we will also find that relevant.
How does any of what you wrote prove that human knowledge is relevant to them? Whether or not another life form discovers the same phenomenons that humans have is irrelevant. Why would another life form care what a human thinks? Are you aware of some bilateral partnership with an alien species? And what does any of this have to do with the nature of existence?
-->
@TwoMan
Master Po, whether it's human or alien intelligence makes no difference, the universe is homogeneous so no matter who's looking at it, they're looking at the same things we look at. As long as the intelligent alien knows what we know today they may as well be us (or even better than us).
A universe never seen by us or anything else would be a terrible terrible waste, but that doesn't mean it never existed.
-->
@Paul
You are both missing the point.
What humans know does not matter to an alien species unless we are communicating with them, which we are not.
If they see and discover the same things or more than we do, it is irrelevant to my point. More power to them.
Human knowledge has no impact on an alien species accumulation of knowledge and vice versa.
The functional/practical issue i can see with not holding scientific pursuits above most other subjective realms, is that to hold science as subjective overall would put it akin to what most people consider "subjective" in meaning just a matter of opinion.
Though fundamentally it's true that "objectivity" in observations on an individual level given both the imperfections of the senses and innate biases is out of the realm possibility, a lack of differentiation would overall imho just result in a populace that overwhelmingly agrees "unicorns exist" is of equal veracity to "obiects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force".
-->
@Paul
The universe is like an engine, it's mechanical and how it works can be understood, but it takes work because you have to learn it to understand it.
"Energy" = ability to do work
There exists no objects at rest. All of occupied SPACE is dynamic i.. motion ergo and some we refer to as Observed{ quantised } Time aka reality.
Spirit-2, fermionic matter and bosonic forces and most often expressed via sine-wave pattern frequencies /\/\/ or as ^v^v or as <><><><>
...3} positive shaped ( ) geodesic gravity ( ) has not been quantised nor quantified ergo metaphysical-3,
...4} negative shaped )( geodesic dark energy )( has not been quantised nor quantified ergo metaphysical-4.
Scientific method is both objective{ observed } and subjective { applied }.
Objective = IN ---><---- ergo inversion as Observed Time
Subjective = OUT <---> ergo outversion Observed Time
( )( ) = what goes around comes around as a geodesic SPACE
(>*<) i (>*<) = texticonic expression of consciousness * * with access to metapysical-1 mind/intellect/concepts via geodesic Space and Observed Time.
/////////// = spiral ex slinky toy of constant geodesic curvature
None of this answers the question, of why speed-of-radiation { photon } is a constant to all observers, irrespective of their speed towards or away from photon.
..."So eventually objectivity comes in?
...."I hope it does. Ultimately I view QBism as a quest to point to something in the world and say, that’s intrinsic to the world. But I don’t have a conclusive answer yet. Quantum mechanics is a single-user theory, but by dissecting it, you can learn something about the world that all of us are immersed in."......
-->
@Buddamoose
The functional/practical issue i can see with not holding scientific pursuits above most other subjective realms, is that to hold science as subjective overall would put it akin to what most people consider "subjective" in meaning just a matter of opinion.Though fundamentally it's true that "objectivity" in observations on an individual level given both the imperfections of the senses and innate biases is out of the realm possibility, a lack of differentiation would overall imho just result in a populace that overwhelmingly agrees "unicorns exist" is of equal veracity to "obiects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force".
Instead of pretending that science is "objective", wouldn't it seem better to explain to people what are considered adequate (sufficient) standards of evidence?
Large numbers of people already think that science is simply a matter of opinion and decide to believe (for example) that creationism is a perfectly valid alternative.
-->
@Paul
How does this statement relate to objectivity vs subjectivity or existence vs non-existence?The universe is like an engine [your personal opinion], it's mechanical [no quantum physics?] and how it works can be understood [at least in part but perhaps not in whole], but it takes work because you have to learn it to understand it.
-->
@keithprosser
We clearly have to interact with something to gain knowledge of its existence - I don't think that is being disputed. My position is that it is not necessary for me to know that X exists for X to exist. If I step on a landmine I may never know of its existence - but exist it did.
This is a good example.
I am only interested in the scope, nature, and definition of "existence" for the purposes of conversation.
We can only say "something exists" if there is adequate (sufficient) evidence.
Do landmines exist in this particular field?
Seeing your friend blown to bits would probably qualify as adequate (sufficient) evidence of the existence of at least one landmine.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about in a 2.5 minute clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m92yvNscIAo
"Are there any species like this hostile organism on LV-426?"
"No, it's a rock. No indigenous life."