The science against metaphysical materialism

[fromderinside]

Looking more and more like a teacher red inking a stubborn student. So tell me guys why does the cat ever say open the box?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

...Yes we are limited, no one disagrees. But limited does not mean completely ignorant. I know there is something in the dark on that path that will stop me, you, or anyone else that tries to walk along the path....

Agreed.

...I know it is massive. I know it occupies position in spacetime....

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

Back to the religious argument. There is a gap in our knowledge therefore we can squeeze whatever the hell we want to believe into that gap, even if what we believe is contrary to what we know outside that gap.

Fair enough, I agree that I am making some assertions about that gap. But do you have a better explanation?

 

[skepticalbip]

Agreed.

...I know it is massive. I know it occupies position in spacetime....

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

“Non-locality” and “singularities” is exactly the kind of nonsense that Deepak throws out that demonstrates that he either knows absolutely nothing about QM or he doesn’t give a shit about making sense if it sells books and his classes to the WOO faithful. If you knew diddly-squat about QM it would be obvious to you too.

You haven’t contradicted the idea. You have only offered terms that science uses to describe well understood phenomena incorrectly and think that your use actually means something – but it doesn’t. If you want to offer some idea then either use words that actually describe it or make up your own words and define them (after demonstrating that they actually describe real phenomena).

Back to the religious argument. There is a gap in our knowledge therefore we can squeeze whatever the hell we want to believe into that gap, even if what we believe is contrary to what we know outside that gap.

Fair enough, I agree that I am making some assertions about that gap. But do you have a better explanation?

Yes. There is no actual gap in our understanding – only that we don’t have a single model that describes both the micro world and the macro world. QM only describes the behavior of individual particles or particle pairs. At this scale gravity is irrelevant since the particles have such little mass and gravity is such a weak force. Electromagnetic and the nuclear forces dominate. On cosmic scales, gravity dominates even though it is the weakest force the masses involved are enormous meanwhile the electromagnetic and nuclear forces are irrelevant because of the distances.

A macro object large enough for us to see under a powerful microscope will have billions of particles so the behavior of individual particles is irrelevant to the properties of a collection of atoms large enough for us to view.

As a very loose analogy: Assume a sociologist models the behavior of individuals in New York city - the behavior of an individual can only be fuzzily predicted. Now that sociologist models the behavior of the people of New York as a group - the behavior of large groups of people as a whole will be much easier to accurately predict.


I say your argument is a religious argument because it is exactly the same form as creationists use and you are arguing from unsupported beliefs not actual verifiable knowledge just as creationists do.

Creationists in general don’t understand chemistry or evolution but take the intellectually honest statement that abiogenesis isn’t well understood or explained as a “gap”. They squeeze their creation story into that “gap” and proclaim that this proves that science models for both organic chemistry and evolution are wrong.

The WOO faithful in general don’t understand QM or physics. They take the intellectually honest statement that there isn’t a single theory that ties QM and Relativity together as a “gap”. They then squeeze their SUPER WOO into that “gap” then proclaim that this proves that science doesn’t have a clue about reality.

What I find so ironic is that the WOO faithful claim to cite scientific models as the basis of their WOO (even though it is obvious that they don’t have a clue what those models say). Then after a lot of completely baseless assertions promoting their WOO they attack the science as completely wrong.

 

[skepticalbip]

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

O.K. second try.

I assumed in my first try that you meant the same thing by "non-locality" and "singularities" as Deepak does in his rants because you are saying many of the same things he does - but maybe you didn't Deepak claims that his use is what science means but it isn't. The scientific use is extremely specific and wouldn't apply to a 100 ton granite boulder if that was what was what was blocking that path and certainly not the way Deepak claims.

So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

QM describes the properties of individual particles. Combine those particles into an atom and that atom will have different properties and the behavior of the particles making it up will no longer be like free particles. Atoms are described by a couple fields but chemistry is probably the most applicable. Combine those atoms into molecules and they no longer have the same properties they had as atoms but the molecule will have different properties. Combine those molecules into a lattice structure and they will no longer have the properties they had as free molecules. Keep building to a boulder and the properties of that boulder is far, far removed from the particles that is described by QM.

And yet Deepak and apparently you want to claim that boulders and electrons have the same properties and behavior.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

O.K. second try.

I assumed in my first try that you meant the same thing by "non-locality" and "singularities" as Deepak does in his rants because you are saying many of the same things he does - but maybe you didn't Deepak claims that his use is what science means but it isn't. The scientific use is extremely specific and wouldn't apply to a 100 ton granite boulder if that was what was what was blocking that path and certainly not the way Deepak claims.

So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

QM describes the properties of individual particles. Combine those particles into an atom and that atom will have different properties and the behavior of the particles making it up will no longer be like free particles. Atoms are described by a couple fields but chemistry is probably the most applicable. Combine those atoms into molecules and they no longer have the same properties they had as atoms but the molecule will have different properties. Combine those molecules into a lattice structure and they will no longer have the properties they had as free molecules. Keep building to a boulder and the properties of that boulder is far, far removed from the particles that is described by QM.

And yet Deepak and apparently you want to claim that boulders and electrons have the same properties and behavior.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll concede that I'm using a gap (the fact that we don't have a Theory of Everything) to make an inference but I think it's a reasonably intelligent inference.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

So now we must ask by how much does this "representation" actually differ from the thing in itself? We all experience space as a kind of 3 dimensionality with objects inside of it as per your example of bumping into an object in the dark. So how much of this 3 dimensionality is a property of the representation of space-time to us and how much of that representation is actually a property of space-time as it is in itself (at the macroscopic scale)? We tend to assume that the 3 dimensionality is a kind of property of space-time (or a close approximation at least) to the thing-in-itself but how can we even know? So let's assume the worst case scenario where the 3 dimensionality we experience actually belongs exclusively to the reperesentation of space-time via our senses and cognition and not to objective space-time itself. Now if you look at non-locality at the QM scale and you have entanglement and "spooky" action at a distance - that runs very much counter to our macroscopic perception of 3 dimensionality. I think it's suggestive that the 3 dimensionality is not a property of space-time as it is in itself but rather a property of the representation of space-time to us. The same with a singularity. The idea that a huge mass can occupy an infinitely small "point" once again becomes totally counter-intuitive to our macroscopic 3 dimensionality experience - once again I think it's suggestive that our macroscopic experience of space-time is vastly different from space-time as it is in itself.

It's like the analogy I mentioned a while back of an AI scientist in a 3D game - an actual 3D model scientist that walks around going about his empirical experiments. When he looks really close at the textures they pixelate and become blurry and when he looks at the edge of the map he sees it's not really real 3D geometry anymore, it's just a giant sphere with flat background scenery that looks 3 dimensional from a distance textured onto the sphere. At the extremes the AI scientist's initial idea of the 3 dimensionality of the game map starts to break down. I think it's a good thought experiment because it's comparable to our predicament and it's empirical limits and the implications thereof.

Have I explained myself well enough?

 

[skepticalbip]

O.K. second try.

I assumed in my first try that you meant the same thing by "non-locality" and "singularities" as Deepak does in his rants because you are saying many of the same things he does - but maybe you didn't Deepak claims that his use is what science means but it isn't. The scientific use is extremely specific and wouldn't apply to a 100 ton granite boulder if that was what was what was blocking that path and certainly not the way Deepak claims.

So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

QM describes the properties of individual particles. Combine those particles into an atom and that atom will have different properties and the behavior of the particles making it up will no longer be like free particles. Atoms are described by a couple fields but chemistry is probably the most applicable. Combine those atoms into molecules and they no longer have the same properties they had as atoms but the molecule will have different properties. Combine those molecules into a lattice structure and they will no longer have the properties they had as free molecules. Keep building to a boulder and the properties of that boulder is far, far removed from the particles that is described by QM.

And yet Deepak and apparently you want to claim that boulders and electrons have the same properties and behavior.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll concede that I'm using a gap (the fact that we don't have a Theory of Everything) to make an inference but I think it's a reasonably intelligent inference.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

So now we must ask by how much does this "representation" actually differ from the thing in itself? We all experience space as a kind of 3 dimensionality with objects inside of it as per your example of bumping into an object in the dark. So how much of this 3 dimensionality is a property of the representation of space-time to us and how much of that representation is actually a property of space-time as it is in itself (at the macroscopic scale)? We tend to assume that the 3 dimensionality is a kind of property of space-time (or a close approximation at least) to the thing-in-itself but how can we even know? So let's assume the worst case scenario where the 3 dimensionality we experience actually belongs exclusively to the reperesentation of space-time via our senses and cognition and not to objective space-time itself. Now if you look at non-locality at the QM scale and you have entanglement and "spooky" action at a distance - that runs very much counter to our macroscopic perception of 3 dimensionality. I think it's suggestive that the 3 dimensionality is not a property of space-time as it is in itself but rather a property of the representation of space-time to us. The same with a singularity. The idea that a huge mass can occupy an infinitely small "point" once again becomes totally counter-intuitive to our macroscopic 3 dimensionality experience - once again I think it's suggestive that our macroscopic experience of space-time is vastly different from space-time as it is in itself.

It's like the analogy I mentioned a while back of an AI scientist in a 3D game - an actual 3D model scientist that walks around going about his empirical experiments. When he looks really close at the textures they pixelate and become blurry and when he looks at the edge of the map he sees it's not really real 3D geometry anymore, it's just a giant sphere with flat background scenery that looks 3 dimensional from a distance textured onto the sphere. At the extremes the AI scientist's initial idea of the 3 dimensionality of the game map starts to break down. I think it's a good thought experiment because it's comparable to our predicament and it's empirical limits and the implications thereof.

Have I explained myself well enough?

You have explained yourself and have completely ignored a few detailed explanations as to why it is nonsense.

You also haven't answered my question:

Skepticalbip
So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

You might want to re-read my last two posts before attempting to answer. (that is if you read them in the first place - your response indicates that you didn't)

You also haven't explained why you think that a 100 ton boulder has the same properties and behavior of an electron (the electron being described by QM).

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll concede that I'm using a gap (the fact that we don't have a Theory of Everything) to make an inference but I think it's a reasonably intelligent inference.

No it isn't. I shows an ignorance of what science has explained to us.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

Absolutely not. But it does show that you haven't been reading my posts.

 

[rousseau]

I like the idea that a constant drive toward more knowledge about the material world isn't necessarily useful, although I also think that for many people this drive isn't something they can control: they're just curious and want to know more.

And on the other hand, knowing the world better is helpful in a lot of cases, the alternative being ignorance, it can just be maladaptive when it leads to anxiety and paralysis.

Thanks for the interesting thread.

 

[Juma]

O.K. second try.

I assumed in my first try that you meant the same thing by "non-locality" and "singularities" as Deepak does in his rants because you are saying many of the same things he does - but maybe you didn't Deepak claims that his use is what science means but it isn't. The scientific use is extremely specific and wouldn't apply to a 100 ton granite boulder if that was what was what was blocking that path and certainly not the way Deepak claims.

So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

QM describes the properties of individual particles. Combine those particles into an atom and that atom will have different properties and the behavior of the particles making it up will no longer be like free particles. Atoms are described by a couple fields but chemistry is probably the most applicable. Combine those atoms into molecules and they no longer have the same properties they had as atoms but the molecule will have different properties. Combine those molecules into a lattice structure and they will no longer have the properties they had as free molecules. Keep building to a boulder and the properties of that boulder is far, far removed from the particles that is described by QM.

And yet Deepak and apparently you want to claim that boulders and electrons have the same properties and behavior.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'll concede that I'm using a gap (the fact that we don't have a Theory of Everything) to make an inference but I think it's a reasonably intelligent inference.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

So now we must ask by how much does this "representation" actually differ from the thing in itself? We all experience space as a kind of 3 dimensionality with objects inside of it as per your example of bumping into an object in the dark. So how much of this 3 dimensionality is a property of the representation of space-time to us and how much of that representation is actually a property of space-time as it is in itself (at the macroscopic scale)? We tend to assume that the 3 dimensionality is a kind of property of space-time (or a close approximation at least) to the thing-in-itself but how can we even know? So let's assume the worst case scenario where the 3 dimensionality we experience actually belongs exclusively to the reperesentation of space-time via our senses and cognition and not to objective space-time itself. Now if you look at non-locality at the QM scale and you have entanglement and "spooky" action at a distance - that runs very much counter to our macroscopic perception of 3 dimensionality. I think it's suggestive that the 3 dimensionality is not a property of space-time as it is in itself but rather a property of the representation of space-time to us. The same with a singularity. The idea that a huge mass can occupy an infinitely small "point" once again becomes totally counter-intuitive to our macroscopic 3 dimensionality experience - once again I think it's suggestive that our macroscopic experience of space-time is vastly different from space-time as it is in itself.

It's like the analogy I mentioned a while back of an AI scientist in a 3D game - an actual 3D model scientist that walks around going about his empirical experiments. When he looks really close at the textures they pixelate and become blurry and when he looks at the edge of the map he sees it's not really real 3D geometry anymore, it's just a giant sphere with flat background scenery that looks 3 dimensional from a distance textured onto the sphere. At the extremes the AI scientist's initial idea of the 3 dimensionality of the game map starts to break down. I think it's a good thought experiment because it's comparable to our predicament and it's empirical limits and the implications thereof.

Have I explained myself well enough?

Yes, it is obvious that you just states the... obvious. There is currently no single theory that fits all scales, but: that has nothing to do with "the thing in itself". By science we can get better and better models but "the thing in itself" is not "the best model", it is a conceptual error created by evolution.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You have explained yourself and have completely ignored a few detailed explanations as to why it is nonsense.

You also haven't answered my question:

Skepticalbip
So I'll ask. What exactly do you mean by "non-locality" and "singularity"? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing? Exactly how do those ideas apply to a 100 ton granite boulder?

You might want to re-read my last two posts before attempting to answer. (that is if you read them in the first place - your response indicates that you didn't)

You also haven't explained why you think that a 100 ton boulder has the same properties and behavior of an electron (the electron being described by QM).

I ignored those details because you are basing them on an assumption. In principle I have no argument with what you are saying about macroscopic objects but we have to clarify the assumption first - let's take it one step at a time and be clear - see below.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

Absolutely not. But it does show that you haven't been reading my posts.

So you are saying that we do perceive space-time as it is in itself? Human cognition and sensory input has no influence on how we perceive space-time - so we are seeing space-time as it is in itself? Is that what you are saying? Or what?

 

[skepticalbip]

You have explained yourself and have completely ignored a few detailed explanations as to why it is nonsense.

You also haven't answered my question:


You might want to re-read my last two posts before attempting to answer. (that is if you read them in the first place - your response indicates that you didn't)

You also haven't explained why you think that a 100 ton boulder has the same properties and behavior of an electron (the electron being described by QM).

I ignored those details because you are basing them on an assumption. In principle I have no argument with what you are saying about macroscopic objects but we have to clarify the assumption first - let's take it one step at a time and be clear - see below.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

Absolutely not. But it does show that you haven't been reading my posts.

So you are saying that we do perceive space-time as it is in itself? Human cognition and sensory input has no influence on how we perceive space-time - so we are seeing space-time as it is in itself? Is that what you are saying? Or what?

We have been through that. You take "that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself" to mean that what we are observing only exists because we think it does. I say that things exists even if we aren't here to observe them or things exist that we have have not yet discovered so have never thought of. We are discovering new things all the time that we never knew existed but they have been there for millions or even billions of years Do you really believe that there was no sun until humanity happened to notice it? Yes, we perceive things imperfectly but the fact that we perceive it (even if imperfectly) says it is there - as I have already said.

We were discussing exactly this when you dismissed my example of something existing physically even though we have incomplete (actually only very little) knowledge of it with:

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

Your hand-waving dismissal to the argument to something existing even though we have incomplete knowledge was "non-locality" and "singularities"? Please explain both these terms as you are using them. This seems to be at the core of your whole argument.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I ignored those details because you are basing them on an assumption. In principle I have no argument with what you are saying about macroscopic objects but we have to clarify the assumption first - let's take it one step at a time and be clear - see below.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

Absolutely not. But it does show that you haven't been reading my posts.

So you are saying that we do perceive space-time as it is in itself? Human cognition and sensory input has no influence on how we perceive space-time - so we are seeing space-time as it is in itself? Is that what you are saying? Or what?

We have been through that. You take "that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself" to mean that what we are observing only exists because we think it does. I say that things exists even if we aren't here to observe them or things exist that we have have not yet discovered so have never thought of. We are discovering new things all the time that we never knew existed but they have been there for millions or even billions of years Do you really believe that there was no sun until humanity happened to notice it? Yes, we perceive things imperfectly but the fact that we perceive it (even if imperfectly) says it is there - as I have already said.

We were discussing exactly this when you dismissed my example of something existing physically even though we have incomplete (actually only very little) knowledge of it with:

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

Your hand-waving dismissal to the argument to something existing even though we have incomplete knowledge was "non-locality" and "singularities"? Please explain both these terms as you are using them. This seems to be at the core of your whole argument.

I'll get to those questions once we've fully thrashed through the source of our divergence. Let's be clear and take this step by step so that we can understand one another and then we can proceed. My question is simple: Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

 

[skepticalbip]

I ignored those details because you are basing them on an assumption. In principle I have no argument with what you are saying about macroscopic objects but we have to clarify the assumption first - let's take it one step at a time and be clear - see below.

We all seem to more or less agree that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself but rather as it is represented to us through our sense and cognition. Right?

Absolutely not. But it does show that you haven't been reading my posts.

So you are saying that we do perceive space-time as it is in itself? Human cognition and sensory input has no influence on how we perceive space-time - so we are seeing space-time as it is in itself? Is that what you are saying? Or what?

We have been through that. You take "that we don't know "space-time" as it is in-itself" to mean that what we are observing only exists because we think it does. I say that things exists even if we aren't here to observe them or things exist that we have have not yet discovered so have never thought of. We are discovering new things all the time that we never knew existed but they have been there for millions or even billions of years Do you really believe that there was no sun until humanity happened to notice it? Yes, we perceive things imperfectly but the fact that we perceive it (even if imperfectly) says it is there - as I have already said.

We were discussing exactly this when you dismissed my example of something existing physically even though we have incomplete (actually only very little) knowledge of it with:

No, we don't know that. We assume that because it appears that way to us. Non-locality and singularities contradict that idea. This is precisely what I mean about those assumptions.

Your hand-waving dismissal to the argument to something existing even though we have incomplete knowledge was "non-locality" and "singularities"? Please explain both these terms as you are using them. This seems to be at the core of your whole argument.

I'll get to those questions once we've fully thrashed through the source of our divergence. Let's be clear and take this step by step so that we can understand one another and then we can proceed. My question is simple: Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

We have been through this.

Our understanding of anything is limited by our limited sensory facilities and limited mental abilities (as you are fond of pointing out, as banal as it is). So your requirement of "knowing it-as-it-is" requires omniscience to understand anything. But while our limited abilities prevent us from knowing a "thing-as-it-is", our limited abilities allow us to know a thing "is" and to identify some of its properties. Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Sun exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Earth exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that spacetime exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is").

Your argument (as silly as it is) can be applied to anything, even the chair you are sitting in, not just spacetime.

 

[skepticalbip]

modernPrimitive2:

Do you think that you have sufficient information from your limited senses and whatever scientific models you may have understood to explain those sensory inputs to confidently say that any particular thing exists?

If you don’t believe anything exists outside your thoughts then we really don’t have anything to talk about.

If you do believe that objects exist then what do you think is the thing that you think exists for which you have the least sensory evidence? Maybe stars or the Moon or something else? Or maybe there are things that you think exist that you personally don't have any sensory evidence for like the Arctic polar ice cap, or the Suez canal?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

I'll get to those questions once we've fully thrashed through the source of our divergence. Let's be clear and take this step by step so that we can understand one another and then we can proceed. My question is simple: Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

We have been through this.

Our understanding of anything is limited by our limited sensory facilities and limited mental abilities (as you are fond of pointing out, as banal as it is). So your requirement of "knowing it-as-it-is" requires omniscience to understand anything. But while our limited abilities prevent us from knowing a "thing-as-it-is", our limited abilities allow us to know a thing "is" and to identify some of its properties. Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Sun exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Earth exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that spacetime exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is").

Your argument (as silly as it is) can be applied to anything, even the chair you are sitting in, not just spacetime.

You're making far too many assumptions about what I'm saying, like requiring omniscience or knowing the thing-in-itself. I never said that was required and in your post below you're talking about some kind of classical idealism which I have already dissociated myself from. If we're going to progress with this discussion either way we need to break it down step-by-step so we can get to the crux of the matter. Let's try to be clear and simple and not jump to rash conclusions.

My question is simple. Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

 

[Juma]

We have been through this.

Our understanding of anything is limited by our limited sensory facilities and limited mental abilities (as you are fond of pointing out, as banal as it is). So your requirement of "knowing it-as-it-is" requires omniscience to understand anything. But while our limited abilities prevent us from knowing a "thing-as-it-is", our limited abilities allow us to know a thing "is" and to identify some of its properties. Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Sun exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Earth exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that spacetime exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is").

Your argument (as silly as it is) can be applied to anything, even the chair you are sitting in, not just spacetime.

You're making far too many assumptions about what I'm saying, like requiring omniscience or knowing the thing-in-itself. I never said that was required and in your post below you're talking about some kind of classical idealism which I have already dissociated myself from. If we're going to progress with this discussion either way we need to break it down step-by-step so we can get to the crux of the matter. Let's try to be clear and simple and not jump to rash conclusions.

My question is simple. Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

Space is not 3 dimensional. Thats just the 3 dimensions that we can relate to. (The other 12, or wathever, are too "small" to interact with)

And yes, these dimensions are not a fidgment of our imagination. They are confirmed by effects that are completely disconnected with our sense of space and movement. (How the energy of electromagnetic fields are radiated from pointsources, how sound is radiated in air. Temperature dustribution (from statistical mechanics) etc. The dimensions have a major inpact on physics as a whole.

 

[skepticalbip]

We have been through this.

Our understanding of anything is limited by our limited sensory facilities and limited mental abilities (as you are fond of pointing out, as banal as it is). So your requirement of "knowing it-as-it-is" requires omniscience to understand anything. But while our limited abilities prevent us from knowing a "thing-as-it-is", our limited abilities allow us to know a thing "is" and to identify some of its properties. Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Sun exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that the Earth exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is"). Our limited abilities allow us to know that spacetime exists (even though we can't "know it-as-it-is").

Your argument (as silly as it is) can be applied to anything, even the chair you are sitting in, not just spacetime.

You're making far too many assumptions about what I'm saying, like requiring omniscience or knowing the thing-in-itself. I never said that was required and in your post below you're talking about some kind of classical idealism which I have already dissociated myself from. If we're going to progress with this discussion either way we need to break it down step-by-step so we can get to the crux of the matter. Let's try to be clear and simple and not jump to rash conclusions.

My question is simple. Is 3 dimensionality a property of space as it is in itself or is it a property of how we perceive space through our sense and cognition (as a species)?

You keep throwing in "knowing a thing-as-it-is-in-itself" as a criteria for us knowing that spacetime exists. I am just explaining that we can't "know anything-as-it-is-in-itself" even your desk chair but we can know a thing "is". Then I decided to ask what you think your limited senses allow you know exists in an attempt to try to understand what you consider sufficient for anyone to know that something exists. But, for some reason, you don't seem to want to give me a clue what your criteria is. What is the minimum you need to know about something for you to have a fair confidence level that it actually exists?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You keep throwing in "knowing a thing-as-it-is-in-itself" as a criteria for us knowing that spacetime exists. I am just explaining that we can't "know anything-as-it-is-in-itself" even your desk chair but we can know a thing "is".

Ok, fair enough. Can I use the term "spacetime as it is independent of human sense and cognition" (rather than as a thing-in-itself)? If I've understood you properly that is more or less the "space-time" you are referring to.

Then I decided to ask what you think your limited senses allow you know exists in an attempt to try to understand what you consider sufficient for anyone to know that something exists. But, for some reason, you don't seem to want to give me a clue what your criteria is. What is the minimum you need to know about something for you to have a fair confidence level that it actually exists?

I'm not disputing the existence of "something impressing upon the senses and/or cognition", rather whether the properties of said object belong to the object or to human sense / cognition. More below...

Space is not 3 dimensional. Thats just the 3 dimensions that we can relate to. (The other 12, or wathever, are too "small" to interact with)

String theory will get wild in this discussion and the number of dimensions are theoretical and undecided by the various models. Can we keep it simple for now and use classical physic's model of Euclidean / Minkowski space, 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension (I just wanted to keep it simple and relate it to space only, but we can add time if you want)?

And yes, these dimensions are not a fidgment of our imagination.

Bear in mind that I never used the term "imagination", rather I said "sense and cognition". But ok, I'll take that as a "yes" to my question. Then the next question must necessarily be: how do you know?

They are confirmed by effects that are completely disconnected with our sense of space and movement. (How the energy of electromagnetic fields are radiated from pointsources, how sound is radiated in air. Temperature dustribution (from statistical mechanics) etc. The dimensions have a major inpact on physics as a whole.

But how can you know this since it is human scientists (who are necessarily subject to their sense and cognition of space-time) making these observations?

 

[skepticalbip]

Ok, fair enough. Can I use the term "spacetime as it is independent of human sense and cognition" (rather than as a thing-in-itself)? If I've understood you properly that is more or less the "space-time" you are referring to.

Then I decided to ask what you think your limited senses allow you know exists in an attempt to try to understand what you consider sufficient for anyone to know that something exists. But, for some reason, you don't seem to want to give me a clue what your criteria is. What is the minimum you need to know about something for you to have a fair confidence level that it actually exists?

I'm not disputing the existence of "something impressing upon the senses and/or cognition", rather whether the properties of said object belong to the object or to human sense / cognition. More below...

You are still using special pleading (a logical fallacy) for spacetime. How do we know anything actually exists (even your desk chair, stars, the moon, etc.) other than through our sense/cognition? You seem to be asking how we know it exists other than by our sensing and understanding it but you don't ask that of your desk chair, stars, the moon. etc This is why I asked you for your criteria for knowing anything exists - but you still refuse to tell me. So I don't know what would convince you that we know spacetime exists as well as we know that anything else exists.



The following is mis-attributed. You credited the points to me but they were actually made by Juma.. I am no fan of string theory since I and a hell of a lot of physicists consider it philosophy and not physics.

Space is not 3 dimensional. Thats just the 3 dimensions that we can relate to. (The other 12, or wathever, are too "small" to interact with)

String theory will get wild in this discussion and the number of dimensions are theoretical and undecided by the various models. Can we keep it simple for now and use classical physic's model of Euclidean / Minkowski space, 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension (I just wanted to keep it simple and relate it to space only, but we can add time if you want)?

And yes, these dimensions are not a fidgment of our imagination.

Bear in mind that I never used the term "imagination", rather I said "sense and cognition". But ok, I'll take that as a "yes" to my question. Then the next question must necessarily be: how do you know?

They are confirmed by effects that are completely disconnected with our sense of space and movement. (How the energy of electromagnetic fields are radiated from pointsources, how sound is radiated in air. Temperature dustribution (from statistical mechanics) etc. The dimensions have a major inpact on physics as a whole.

But how can you know this since it is human scientists (who are necessarily subject to their sense and cognition of space-time) making these observations?

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Oops! Apologies for the mis-attribution. Too many late nights...will fix this in the next post.

You are still using special pleading (a logical fallacy) for spacetime. How do we know anything actually exists (even your desk chair, stars, the moon, etc.) other than through our sense/cognition? You seem to be asking how we know it exists other than by our sensing and understanding it but you don't ask that of your desk chair, stars, the moon. etc This is why I asked you for your criteria for knowing anything exists - but you still refuse to tell me. So I don't know what would convince you that we know spacetime exists as well as we know that anything else exists.

Well, you still haven't answered my question. But ok, I'll answer yours. There is no fool proof way of deciding on a criteria for what "exists" and avoiding solipsism completely so the best we can do is rely on inter-subjective consensus (between several or many individuals) via sense-perception and cognition, which I see as the basis of empiricism. I see a chair. My friend sits in the chair and so we both acknowledge that the chair "exists" (as an object of sense and cognition). I don't see where you are seeing a logical fallacy...can you try to point it out more clearly?

Now, could you answer my question: Is 3 dimensionality a property of spacetime (independent of human sense and cognition) or a property of the representation of space time as it appears to humans through sense and cognition. A simple boolean answer would suffice and keep it simple so we can take this step by step.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

My post 3 posts above was incorrectly attributed to skepticalbip, so I'm fixing that in this post....although Juma asked me not to speak to him / her anymore some time back. Apparently he / she wants to continue conversing, so I will respond here:

Space is not 3 dimensional. Thats just the 3 dimensions that we can relate to. (The other 12, or wathever, are too "small" to interact with)

String theory will get wild in this discussion and the number of dimensions are theoretical and undecided by the various models. Can we keep it simple for now and use classical physic's model of Euclidean / Minkowski space, 3 spacial dimensions and one time dimension (I just wanted to keep it simple and relate it to space only, but we can add time if you want)?

And yes, these dimensions are not a fidgment of our imagination.

Bear in mind that I never used the term "imagination", rather I said "sense and cognition". But ok, I'll take that as a "yes" to my question. Then the next question must necessarily be: how do you know?

They are confirmed by effects that are completely disconnected with our sense of space and movement. (How the energy of electromagnetic fields are radiated from pointsources, how sound is radiated in air. Temperature dustribution (from statistical mechanics) etc. The dimensions have a major inpact on physics as a whole.

But how can you know this since it is human scientists (who are necessarily subject to their sense and cognition of space-time) making these observations?