Physics doesn't say anything exists

[Speakpigeon]

I know this story, thanks.

You should be aware that it is just a story, though. You can trust it's true but you should refrain from pretending it's obviously true. It isn't.

Pretending? If it were obviously true I wouldn't have needed to expound upon it.

I think the real interpretation is somewhat more complicated than that as the long story of all the subsequent logicians, philosophers and linguists who commented on this view of Bertrand Russell shows.

You're probably right -- just about anything is somewhat more complicated than theories of that thing -- besides which, the commentary began long before Russell. Kant used it to refute St. Anselm. But I think that's not really what you're here to debate, so let's refocus.

Likewise, to rigorously ask if particles really exist is to ask whether there exists an X such that X is particleish.

If that was what I was asking I would have known the answer and not bothered you on this. I was asking whether you thought the science could be understood a suggesting the existence of any particular things, say, particles, fields, energy etc. as opposed to merely predicting future observations.

I would have thought the OP is clear enough. Are you sure you understood what I said?

I would have thought " But in general, yes, science tells us any particular thing exists. For instance, science tells us Henri d'Orléans is not a figment of our imagination. Put him next to a torsion balance and his gravitational field will rotate it." would let you know that.

I'm also quite sure that a torsion balance cannot prove the existence of such a thing a Henri d'Orléans.

You are wasting my time. Please read again the OP and my other posts before replying, if you are so minded.
EB

I'm sorry you feel that way; I think you feeling that way indicates that you misunderstand what science is. Science is not theories of particles, fields, energy etc. "Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic." - T.H. Huxley

If you want examples of things science tells us exist, advanced physics is the worst possible place to look, because it lives on the leading edge, the borderland between the known and the unknown. The best place to look is in the myriad scientific conclusions all of us derive every day. Every time you observe something ordinary and form an ordinary hypothesis from it and then make an observation that confirms or refutes it, you're doing science. Every time Henri's wife hears a noise, thinks it's Henri puttering in the kitchen, and then sees him there, she's doing science -- science that says he exists and is not a figment of her imagination.

But if you reject that view and are holding out for evidence of existence claims from reputable professional scientists, no problemo. Check out this link.

"our English sphinxes have probosces as long as their bodies; but in Madagascar there must be moths with probosces capable of extension to a length of between ten and eleven inches" - Charles Darwin

"That such a moth exists in Madagascar may be safely predicted and naturalists who visit that island should search for it with as much confidence as astronomer searched for the planet Neptune, -- and I venture to predict they will be equally successful!" - Alfred Russel Wallace​

Forty years later somebody found one. A hundred years after that somebody proved it wasn't just a lucky guess. Watch the video at the end -- it's only 4 minutes long and it's pretty impressive. Irrespective of whether physics tells us particles, fields and energy really exist, biology tells us that Xanthopan morganii praedicta really exists. So does infrared photography. Those are science too.

Thanks. I understand all that. We all do. And most scientists not involved closely with QM have a naive view of reality, one that is not really much different from that of the ordinary quidam.

More to the point, I haven't heard of any scientific experiment that shows conclusively that when we observe an elephant there really is an elephant as opposed to something that looks like one.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Just so we're on the same page here we all know physics doesn't say anything. Only physicists after applying physical experiments say things. Physicists are human. I dare say their existence is not in doubt.

You think as you please but the existence of scientists is not a scientific fact.

It's just a convention: Let's start by assuming we exist blah-blah-blah.

Scientists I think would accept that they are essentially a mental construct. It's what some aspect of the world looks like.

Of course, the question now is: What is it then that does the observing if not the scientists? Well, who knows?

Apparently not the something in question.
EB

Some philosophers certainly do. However I have worked in the sciences all my life and have never known a physicist who didn't say that physical things exits. That is sorta the whole basis of the field.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Personally, I have a different theory, one giving justice to people and the way people speak, something most logicians have never been interested in.

Of course not since such theories will be specific for humans, not for all intelligent beings.

You think that this idea that true logic must be shared with all intelligent beings was what motivated logician?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You think as you please but the existence of scientists is not a scientific fact.

It's just a convention: Let's start by assuming we exist blah-blah-blah.

Scientists I think would accept that they are essentially a mental construct. It's what some aspect of the world looks like.

Of course, the question now is: What is it then that does the observing if not the scientists? Well, who knows?

Apparently not the something in question.
EB

Some philosophers certainly do.

I'm sure there are areas of science where people just don't need to question their own existence and the status of their existence. Maybe most scientists are more naive than I imagine.

However I have worked in the sciences all my life and have never known a physicist who didn't say that physical things exits. That is sorta the whole basis of the field.

It's one thing to uncritically assume that what you think you observe exists as such, say an elephant, but it's something else to prove scientifically that there is actually an elephant rather than something that looks like one. QM scientists have to look into this question. Other scientists can skip it because their copies are not marked on this basis.
EB

 

[skepticalbip]

Some philosophers certainly do.

I'm sure there are areas of science where people just don't need to question their own existence and the status of their existence. Maybe most scientists are more naive than I imagine.

However I have worked in the sciences all my life and have never known a physicist who didn't say that physical things exits. That is sorta the whole basis of the field.

It's one thing to uncritically assume that what you think you observe exists as such, say an elephant, but it's something else to prove scientifically that there is actually an elephant rather than something that looks like one. QM scientists have to look into this question. Other scientists can skip it because their copies are not marked on this basis.
EB

So you have diverted from your original declaration:

We all agree I guess that physics doesn't say of anything in particular that it exists yes?

Now you are opining that physicists should become belly-button gazers? Solipsism so far doesn't seem to have been a very productive way to understand the universe.

 

[Juma]

Just that what we can observe is behavior, relations and structure.

You mean "we" as human beings right? That I can understand but I disagree. The notion of structure is operational and it's a fact that it's not what you observe. Rather, you observe what we think are the consequences of there being a particular structure. Look at a human being. Say, yourself in a mirror. You will inevitably believe there's a structure there, say, like bones, muscles and tendons, yet you don't actually see it (or perceive it). Same thing for behaviours and relations. These are extrapolations your brain works out to try to make sense of what you see. As such they are not observation, stricktly speaking.

I really dont get your objection.
If the behaviour is varied then the reason for the behaviour have some variation and thus be stryctured in some way.

We can't say now what an atom really is because scientists have come to think that what they observe doesn't tell them what actually exists that could explain the observations. That doesn't mean the same scientists wouldn't change their minds and regard observations as what really exists provided they had some good reason to believe so.
EB

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?
We do think that we have a good view on what an atom "really is". The problem is that there are idiots (mostly uneducated morons and philosophers) that thinks that the answer can be something simple from their own experience. Like how a tsble can be made of wood or a stove is made of iron.

 

[skepticalbip]

Eh? What the heck are you talking about?
We do think that we have a good view on what an atom "really is". The problem is that there are idiots (mostly uneducated morons and philosophers) that thinks that the answer can be something simple from their own experience. Like how a tsble can be made of wood or a stove is made of iron.

The best I can figure is that Speakpigeon is proposing that the only thing we can know is ourselves, that nothing external can be known, solipsism. It is a tired old philosophical idea that leads nowhere.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thanks. I understand all that. We all do. And most scientists not involved closely with QM have a naive view of reality, one that is not really much different from that of the ordinary quidam.

More to the point, I haven't heard of any scientific experiment that shows conclusively that when we observe an elephant there really is an elephant as opposed to something that looks like one.
EB

Have you heard the old joke, "Historians have discovered that the Iliad was not actually written by Homer, but by a different man with the same name."?

What you're saying appears to be linguistically goofy in exactly the same way. In your alternate scenario, where the thing I saw in a zoo last year wasn't really an elephant and merely looked like one, what's your basis for claiming that the people who coined the word "elephant" intended it to mean this hypothetical other thing you're postulating, this thing that whatever those zoo-dwellers are merely look like?

Do you have in mind some definition of "elephant" that is semantically different from "one of those" <pointing to the thing in the zoo>?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Thanks. I understand all that. We all do. And most scientists not involved closely with QM have a naive view of reality, one that is not really much different from that of the ordinary quidam.

More to the point, I haven't heard of any scientific experiment that shows conclusively that when we observe an elephant there really is an elephant as opposed to something that looks like one.
EB

Have you heard the old joke, "Historians have discovered that the Iliad was not actually written by Homer, but by a different man with the same name."?

Yes I did and it's a good example. Suppose, as is very possible, that there never was a guy who authored all the various works usually attributed to him. Instead, let's say three different guys, all unknown to scholarship on the subject, wrote some, separately. Not one of them could be said to be Homer. So, in fact, no Homer as we think of him. There you have it, in a nutshell.

What you're saying appears to be linguistically goofy in exactly the same way. In your alternate scenario, where the thing I saw in a zoo last year wasn't really an elephant and merely looked like one, what's your basis for claiming that the people who coined the word "elephant" intended it to mean this hypothetical other thing you're postulating, this thing that whatever those zoo-dwellers are merely look like?

Do you have in mind some definition of "elephant" that is semantically different from "one of those" <pointing to the thing in the zoo>?

You free to think there is an elephant somewhere.
EB

 

[Bomb#20]

Have you heard the old joke, "Historians have discovered that the Iliad was not actually written by Homer, but by a different man with the same name."?

Yes I did and it's a good example. Suppose, as is very possible, that there never was a guy who authored all the various works usually attributed to him. Instead, let's say three different guys, all unknown to scholarship on the subject, wrote some, separately. Not one of them could be said to be Homer. So, in fact, no Homer as we think of him. There you have it, in a nutshell.

That's all very well, but that's a different issue from the one I was trying to bring to your attention. The point of the joke is that, supposing there was a historical Homer, and supposing the guy who wrote the poem was named Homer, it's linguistically ridiculous to propose that we're confusing two different people, X and Y; it's ridiculous because writing the poem is precisely what makes its author "the" historical Homer, among all the people named Homer the one who we mean when we say "Homer". That's what you appear to be doing when you hypothesize that the thing we see merely looks like an elephant. You propose in effect that we see X, and X looks like Y, and this causes us to mistakenly imagine X is the elephant when in fact Y is the elephant. It's linguistically ridiculous because X is the one we mean by "elephant". What basis is there for supposing that Y is what we mean by "elephant"?

Do you have in mind some definition of "elephant" that is semantically different from "one of those" <pointing to the thing in the zoo>?

You free to think there is an elephant somewhere.
EB

And you're free to think there isn't; but that doesn't answer the question of why anyone would suppose "elephant" is a word for a noumenal elephant rather than a phenomenal elephant, or whatever distinction it is you're making. Naive anti-realism is conceptually lazy. People imagine that "I think, therefore I am" exhausts the set of things we can prove to exist, give up, and quit investigating whether we can establish the existence of things with any other properties besides myself-ness.

 

[fromderinside]

Answering the question of one's existence seems resolved when one's question is taken up by another. Sure one can suppose this and that. Can one imagine what another is imagining or must they both be seeing something. Even more concrete would be if one's observations were made operations which others could perform so they could measure the same thing and getting results confirming the first one's observations independently.

Saying one is imagining leads one to ask whether it requires more to imagine than to be. Even more ifone is not the one imagining, but, just the imagining of another the issue soon becomes useless and energy wasting.

Ah science.