Physics demonstrates existence of external reality

[The Minx]

Link (http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13226725)


I'm not looking, honest!

The good news is reality exists. The bad is it’s even stranger than people thought

“HOW wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.” So said Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum mechanics. Since its birth in the 1920s, physicists and philosophers have grappled with the bizarre consequences that his theory has for reality, including the fundamental truth that it is impossible to know everything about the world and, in fact, whether it really exists at all when it is not being observed. Now two groups of physicists, working independently, have demonstrated that nature is indeed real when unobserved. When no one is peeking, however, it acts in a really odd way.

In the 1990s a physicist called Lucien Hardy proposed a thought experiment that makes nonsense of the famous interaction between matter and antimatter—that when a particle meets its antiparticle, the pair always annihilate one another in a burst of energy. Dr Hardy’s scheme left open the possibility that in some cases when their interaction is not observed a particle and an antiparticle could interact with one another and survive. Of course, since the interaction has to remain unseen, no one should ever notice this happening, which is why the result is known as Hardy’s paradox.

This week Kazuhiro Yokota of Osaka University in Japan and his colleagues demonstrated that Hardy’s paradox is, in fact, correct. They report their work in the New Journal of Physics. The experiment represents independent confirmation of a similar demonstration by Jeff Lundeen and Aephraim Steinberg of the University of Toronto, which was published seven weeks ago in Physical Review Letters.

The two teams used the same technique in their experiments. They managed to do what had previously been thought impossible: they probed reality without disturbing it. Not disturbing it is the quantum-mechanical equivalent of not really looking. So they were able to show that the universe does indeed exist when it is not being observed.

The reality in question—admittedly rather a small part of the universe—was the polarisation of pairs of photons, the particles of which light is made. The state of one of these photons was inextricably linked with that of the other through a process known as quantum entanglement.

The polarised photons were able to take the place of the particle and the antiparticle in Dr Hardy’s thought experiment because they obey the same quantum-mechanical rules. Dr Yokota (and also Drs Lundeen and Steinberg) managed to observe them without looking, as it were, by not gathering enough information from any one interaction to draw a conclusion, and then pooling these partial results so that the total became meaningful.

What the several researchers found was that there were more photons in some places than there should have been and fewer in others. The stunning result, though, was that in some places the number of photons was actually less than zero. Fewer than zero particles being present usually means that you have antiparticles instead. But there is no such thing as an antiphoton (photons are their own antiparticles, and are pure energy in any case), so that cannot apply here.

The only mathematically consistent explanation known for this result is therefore Hardy’s. The weird things he predicted are real and they can, indeed, only be seen by people who are not looking. Dr Yokota and his colleagues went so far as to call their results “preposterous”. Niels Bohr, no doubt, would have been delighted.

We used to be stuck on "I think, therefore I am", but now we know that yes, the external universe does in fact exist. Thankfully, it is even stranger than most people give it credit for. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

This kind of thing always confuses me.

What does Physics have to do with philosophy again?

Then again, what if Physics had proven that external reality does not actually exist? We probably would say we had done something wrong and chuck out that line of inquiry. At least if we didn't find some way to manipulate the illusion. Or... everything blinked out due to someone finally figuring out the joke.

[Player_Zero]

With things like this isn't better to assume that it's no actual scientific breakthrough but rather a publicity stunt.

I remember someone posting a piece about how some institute had created energy. -_-

[Coidzor]

Well, of course, but I managed to amuse myself with it at least.

[RTGoodman]

Eh, I skimmed over it, but I don't really see anyhting that proves to me, at least, that reality exists.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to being a brain in a jar, floating there and just imagining that the world outside myself exists. :smalltongue:

[The Minx]

Then again, what if Physics had proven that external reality does not actually exist? We probably would say we had done something wrong and chuck out that line of inquiry. At least if we didn't find some way to manipulate the illusion. Or... everything blinked out due to someone finally figuring out the joke.

Up until recently it was a possible interpretation of Quantum Physics that external reality has no objective existence when things are not being observed.



Eh, I skimmed over it, but I don't really see anyhting that proves to me, at least, that reality exists.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to get back to being a brain in a jar, floating there and just imagining that the world outside myself exists. :smalltongue:

It demonstrates that interactions exist between particles that remain unobserved.

Also, your jar must exist for you to float around in it. :smalltongue:

[Dragonrider]

I'm delighted that you use the word "demonstrate" instead of "prove". :smallbiggrin: I hate it when people talk about "proving" something.

[Moff Chumley]

Can someone summarize exactly what this means to those of us with IQs below 150?

[lsfreak]

Basically nothing of any importance.

As for philosophy/physics relationship, up until the last 150-200 years philosophy was physics (and biology, chemistry, and everything else). And whenever you're dealing with stuff that's heavily theoretical or dealing with universe-is-not-as-it-seems issues, you're into philosophy.

Also, this does nothing to counter "I think, therefore I am," because nothing prevents you all from being figments of my imagination, just as my body may merely a figment of my imagination. (I really hate Descartes).

[The Minx]

Basically nothing of any importance.

As for philosophy/physics relationship, up until the last 150-200 years philosophy was physics (and biology, chemistry, and everything else). And whenever you're dealing with stuff that's heavily theoretical or dealing with universe-is-not-as-it-seems issues, you're into philosophy.

Also, this does nothing to counter "I think, therefore I am," because nothing prevents you all from being figments of my imagination, just as my body may merely a figment of my imagination. (I really hate Descartes).

Modern physics is not simply philosophy, since it is reliant on observation and experiment. Also, this result is not meant to counter "I think therefore I am".

[averagejoe]

What does Physics have to do with philosophy again?

Philosophy has a grand tradition of taking common knowledge about physics, not bothering to actually understand the theory beyond what can be explained in one or two sentences, then using it to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sometimes they even use it as a way to legitimize themselves, for example, when Einstein and his theory of relativity started to become popular there were philosophers who responded by saying, essentially, "Well, of course everything is relative. We've been saying that for years. Philosophy is clearly ahead of physics." Which, of course, misses the point entirely.


Up until recently it was a possible interpretation of Quantum Physics that external reality has no objective existence when things are not being observed.

It really wasn't; QM has never made any assertions about the objective existence of reality. This sort of thing mainly arises from people misunderstanding the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.


Can someone summarize exactly what this means to those of us with IQs below 150?

It really doesn't mean much. The language of the article makes me suspect that the author doesn't understand much about physics, and if the experiment had indeed proceeded as it stated, I'd bet that the author misunderstood the point. I would be very interested to see what the experiment actually was; until then I remain skeptical that what they're talking about is even possible.

That said, what they're basically talking about is the idea that one cannot know everything about a quantum mechanical system (that is, a system on a very small scale. We're talking atoms being fairly large objects by these standards.) The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that for certain pairs of properties (the most famous being velocity and position), the more precisely you know one, the less precisely you can know the other. In other words, there's a practical, finite limit on how much information it's possible to know about the system. Many people misunderstand this and come up with weird conclusions about the nature of the universe, but it's really just a constraint that comes with the fact that one is working with things on the smallest scale we can really work with. Finding things like position and velocity requires one to somehow interact with the particle. For example, if I look at something, light is bouncing off that thing and hitting my eyes. Usually this doesn't pose a problem, because on a macroscopic scale light is unlikely to seriously disrupt anything. However, if you're looking at, say, an electron, and you try to bounce a photon off of it, that photon is energetic enough to knock the electron seriously off course. Studying things in quantum physics is basically like trying to study things by shooting cannonballs at them while being able to get no data except the change in trajectory of the cannonball. Basically, once one observes a system one also destroys that system. But this is not for mysterious philosophical reasons.

[The Minx]

It really wasn't; QM has never made any assertions about the objective existence of reality. This sort of thing mainly arises from people misunderstanding the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Bad wording, sorry. It's not as much the objective existence, but the universe independent of the observer.

[Narmoth]

Awesome.
Although I would like to read more about their method

[bibliophile]

Philosophy has a grand tradition of taking common knowledge about physics, not bothering to actually understand the theory beyond what can be explained in one or two sentences, then using it to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sometimes they even use it as a way to legitimize themselves, for example, when Einstein and his theory of relativity started to become popular there were philosophers who responded by saying, essentially, "Well, of course everything is relative. We've been saying that for years. Philosophy is clearly ahead of physics." Which, of course, misses the point entirely

I feel I must politely disagree. People who call themselves philosophers have done that.

I also find that extremely annoying.


On a larger note physics does not demonstrate the existence of reality; it can't. Reality is an axiom of physics. Brain-in-a-vat sophism is not disproven by this statement.

[Trog]

Articles like these make me wonder less about why the universe is so difficult to pin down and observe correctly and more about whether or not our ability to perceive anything has some sort of fundamental flaw within it.

[Toastkart]

I agree with the consensus that nothing special is going on here, although probably for different reasons. At least from what the article has described, I fail to see how they partially observed the photons and how that doesn't constitute as 'looking'.

The philosophical implication of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is that you can't observe something without interacting with it and thus changing it, even if that change is minute.


Philosophy has a grand tradition of taking common knowledge about physics, not bothering to actually understand the theory beyond what can be explained in one or two sentences, then using it to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sometimes they even use it as a way to legitimize themselves, for example, when Einstein and his theory of relativity started to become popular there were philosophers who responded by saying, essentially, "Well, of course everything is relative. We've been saying that for years. Philosophy is clearly ahead of physics." Which, of course, misses the point entirely.

I think you might have missed the point. Einstein's relativity was an incredible break from the rigidity and binary thinking of Newtonian physics. Philosophers have been saying that context matters for years.

[lsfreak]

Philosophy has a grand tradition of taking common knowledge about physics, not bothering to actually understand the theory beyond what can be explained in one or two sentences, then using it to draw conclusions about the nature of the universe. Sometimes they even use it as a way to legitimize themselves, for example, when Einstein and his theory of relativity started to become popular there were philosophers who responded by saying, essentially, "Well, of course everything is relative. We've been saying that for years. Philosophy is clearly ahead of physics." Which, of course, misses the point entirely.
Avicenna and later Jean Buridan came up with inertia centuries before Newtonian physics. Working towards artificial intelligence and truly thinking computers originated solidly from philosophies of mind. Modern chemistry comes directly from Islamic philosopher-alchemists. Until Galileo, physics was philosophy. In the more theoretical fields where tests haven't yet been conducted or agreed upon, they still mix together to an extent.

[averagejoe]

I think you might have missed the point. Einstein's relativity was an incredible break from the rigidity and binary thinking of Newtonian physics. Philosophers have been saying that context matters for years.

What was binary and rigid about Newtonian physics?

Einsteinian relativity is not saying "context matters," was my point. The statement is much more profound and subtle than that.


Avicenna and later Jean Buridan came up with inertia centuries before Newtonian physics. Working towards artificial intelligence and truly thinking computers originated solidly from philosophies of mind. Modern chemistry comes directly from Islamic philosopher-alchemists. Until Galileo, physics was philosophy. In the more theoretical fields where tests haven't yet been conducted or agreed upon, they still mix together to an extent.

Yeah, and until Galileo physics was, for the most part, bloody useless. Philosophers can pat themselves on the back for having the ideas, but none of them went through the work (and it is a lot of work, even when you already know the answer) to put it into a knowable or usable framework. One can say in physics, "Things keep doing what they're doing until a force acts upon them," but unless that's quantified in such a way that allows you to predict things it is not of much worth scientifically.

I would also make the claim that none of these philosophers really knew these things because they were untested. I mean, there were also philosophers equally convinced that matter is continuous and the universe operates by some ideal notion of geometry. Simply because a few had ideas that turned out to be might doesn't lend any inherent worth to their statements, because they were right for the wrong reasons. I'll grant that there is some worth in that the existence of the idea may have served as inspiration for others, but when philosophers see something scientific happen and go, "Oh, well we already knew that, philosophy is obviously ages ahead of physics," they're, frankly, wrong.

Anyways, I was referring to philosophers in this century.

[lsfreak]

They didn't go through the work because there were no standards, or really even ideas, as to what else needed to be done or could be done. Once again, scientific method was slowly forged by philosophers who realized sitting back and thinking wasn't enough (one of the reasons I hate Descartes).

And modern scientists don't "know" anything either. Modern science is made up of a huge collection of theories, observations, and hypotheses that are expected to be overturned. The best a scientist can say is, "This is what it looks like, and it looks that way in every possible situation we've tried, but there's situations we haven't tried because they haven't been discovered yet or we don't have a way of gaining access to them." If you expect your finding to hold up indefinitely, you've turned science into dogma (which is one of many things that scientists got right that many philosophers miss).

And yea, modern philosophers mess up science a lot more. I misunderstood your "grand history" statement :p

[The Minx]

And modern scientists don't "know" anything either. Modern science is made up of a huge collection of theories, observations, and hypotheses that are expected to be overturned. The best a scientist can say is, "This is what it looks like, and it looks that way in every possible situation we've tried, but there's situations we haven't tried because they haven't been discovered yet or we don't have a way of gaining access to them." If you expect your finding to hold up indefinitely, you've turned science into dogma (which is one of many things that scientists got right that many philosophers miss).

A "theory" in science is that of which we are most certain.

While it is true that a theory can be overturned or replaced, we do "know" that the theory accurately models the observable reality within the range of its application and within the given limits of accuracy of observation. That won't change even if the theory is overturned by increased accuracy, see: the correspondence principle. This is one of the important things which sets science apart from philosophy.

I'll agree however, that science evolved from philosophy, although it is now an altogether different beast.

[averagejoe]

And modern scientists don't "know" anything either. Modern science is made up of a huge collection of theories, observations, and hypotheses that are expected to be overturned. The best a scientist can say is, "This is what it looks like, and it looks that way in every possible situation we've tried, but there's situations we haven't tried because they haven't been discovered yet or we don't have a way of gaining access to them." If you expect your finding to hold up indefinitely, you've turned science into dogma (which is one of many things that scientists got right that many philosophers miss).

While I agree in principle-in fact, it is my assertion that to be a scientist one must never be certain about anything at all-there is a significant difference between not knowing in this sense and not knowing because the system you're using is inherently unable to decide between multiple contradictory theories within its own framework.

[Icewalker]

Sounds like a big step in quantum physics...awesome. I need to look into the subject some more. However, on a more immediate note, I should look into my current physics homework...

[puppyavenger]

Seems fairly interesting but....how does only looking a tiny bit at a time not mess anything up? if anything, shouldn't it mess it up more from the repeated instances of photon-hitting?

I apologize for nay obvious ignorance, my knowledge of theoretical science comes form the internet.

[Ponce]

I don't think The Economist is a good source for information on physics. It is barely a good source for information on economics.

I don't think they have actually overcome the uncertainty principle in any nontrivial sense. Thats rather incredible.

[The Minx]

I don't think The Economist is a good source for information on physics.

A fair point. I have yet to find the actual paper itself, but here are some better sources:

Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091231.htm)
Science Blog (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/quantum-paradox-directly-observed-milestone-quantum-mechanics-19156.html)
e! Science News (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/quantum.paradox.directly.observed.a.milestone.quan tum.mechanics)
innovations report (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/quantum_paradox_directly_observed_a_milestone_1286 76.html)

[bibliophile]

I would also make the claim that none of these philosophers really knew these things because they were untested. I mean, there were also philosophers equally convinced that matter is continuous and the universe operates by some ideal notion of geometry. Simply because a few had ideas that turned out to be might doesn't lend any inherent worth to their statements, because they were right for the wrong reasons. I'll grant that there is some worth in that the existence of the idea may have served as inspiration for others, but when philosophers see something scientific happen and go, "Oh, well we already knew that, philosophy is obviously ages ahead of physics," they're, frankly, wrong.

Anyways, I was referring to philosophers in this century.



I must sadly agree about the insight of modern philosophy, but there's more to philosophy than smuggness.

Philosophy is all about things you can't test, but know for certain anyway. You exist. 2+2=4. All effects had causes. You don't know these things because you tested them, did you? They are examples of a priori knowledge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori_(philosophy)

[lsfreak]

Ah, Kant. Some of the things are great (analytic/synthetic a priori), and sometimes you just want to stab the bastard ("I'm making a distinction between x and y. But I'm later going to confuse them.")

[Kneenibble]

Also, this does nothing to counter "I think, therefore I am," because nothing prevents you all from being figments of my imagination, just as my body may merely a figment of my imagination. (I really hate Descartes).

Can I just please advocate the fact that cogito ergo sum is not the sum (AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA) of Cartesian philosophy? If you hate him for that sentiment alone, which granted, taken alone, leads very easily to solopsism, then you are in error, good sir. That is merely the purportedly solid and irrefutable place from which he develops his actual positions, which are decidedly unsolopsistic.

[lsfreak]

Can I just please advocate the fact that cogito ergo sum is not the sum (AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHA) of Cartesian philosophy? If you hate him for that sentiment alone, which granted, taken alone, leads very easily to solopsism, then you are in error, good sir. That is merely the purportedly solid and irrefutable place from which he develops his actual positions, which are decidedly unsolopsistic.
Nope, that's not it. And as Kant points out, it's not a good base anywho, since one cannot simply think but must think about something. "I think" is impossible, it's "I think me thinking" in which case you still don't know the "I." There's the circular logic, armchair physics, idealism, and several other things I don't like either. I think it's interesting, and I like some others' ideas in response to his, I just don't agree with anything he says.

[averagejoe]

Philosophy is all about things you can't test, but know for certain anyway. You exist. 2+2=4. All effects had causes. You don't know these things because you tested them, did you? They are examples of a priori knowledge.

I'm aware of this; what I'm criticizing is the tendency I've seen in some modern philosophers to philosophize based on things that 1) are irrelevant to the philosophy they're advocating and 2) that they don't understand anyways, and don't bother to try to understand.

[Pyrian]

That is merely the purportedly solid and irrefutable place from which he develops his actual positions, which are decidedly unsolopsistic.In other words, he just goes downhill from there. :smallcool:

[puppyavenger]

Nope, that's not it. And as Kant points out, it's not a good base anywho, since one cannot simply think but must think about something. "I think" is impossible, it's "I think me thinking" in which case you still don't know the "I." There's the circular logic, armchair physics, idealism, and several other things I don't like either. I think it's interesting, and I like some others' ideas in response to his, I just don't agree with anything he says.

epistemology?

[Trog]

epistemology?

:smallannoyed: Hey! Home come he gets to say this and Trog can't even say **** around here huh? :smallmad:

*looks at someone in the wings for a moment*

Whadda ya mean "not what Trog thinks it means"?! Darn forum double standards. :smallannoyed:

*heads off to take a wicked epistemology*

[averagejoe]

:smallannoyed: Hey! Home come he gets to say this and Trog can't even say **** around here huh? :smallmad:

*looks at someone in the wings for a moment*

Whadda ya mean "not what Trog thinks it means"?! Darn forum double standards. :smallannoyed:

*heads off to take a wicked epistemology*

I think I have a new favorite euphemism.

[unstattedCommoner]

A fair point. I have yet to find the actual paper itself, but here are some better sources:

Science Daily (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091231.htm)
Science Blog (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/quantum-paradox-directly-observed-milestone-quantum-mechanics-19156.html)
e! Science News (http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/03/04/quantum.paradox.directly.observed.a.milestone.quan tum.mechanics)
innovations report (http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/physics_astronomy/quantum_paradox_directly_observed_a_milestone_1286 76.html)

Kazuhiro Yokota, Takashi Yamamoto, Masato Koashi and Nobuyuki Imoto. 2009. Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair. New J. Phys. 11, 033011 (9pp).

Abstract and full paper can be found here (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/11/3/033011).

[Phaedra]

I think I have a new favorite euphemism.

Indeed. Reading epistemology as this may improve the philosophy texts I have to wade through. Slightly.

[Quincunx]

Right, no more live-broadcast interviews for Trog. . .

[averagejoe]

Kazuhiro Yokota, Takashi Yamamoto, Masato Koashi and Nobuyuki Imoto. 2009. Direct observation of Hardy's paradox by joint weak measurement with an entangled photon pair. New J. Phys. 11, 033011 (9pp).

Abstract and full paper can be found here (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/11/3/033011).

Alright, now I have to refresh myself on quantum mechanics and read this.

You are distracting me from my physics homework. :smallmad:

[potatocubed]

What physics - and other sciences, and a bunch of other stuff - does is set a boundary for philosophy. There's no point getting all philosophical about it if you can just chuck some bits and pieces in a test tube (or collider, or whatever) and get an actual, concrete answer. Philosophy is more for the stuff that defies a proper scientific grasp - moral philosophy, for example - and as science expands the purview of philosophy shrinks.

For example, a philosophical point that this discovery does definitively knock over is the work of Bishop Berkeley, whose most famous deduction is based on the premise that the universe doesn't exist when it isn't being directly observed.

Regarding the history of philosophy and science... well, way back when all you had was 'dudes who thought about stuff'. Philosophy was just something that you did if you were vaguely educated, much like blogs are today. Most of it was rubbish, some of it was very insightful, and a lot received critical acclaim despite being no better than most of the other crud. Even Newton was convinced that his contributions to philosophy would be remembered long after his scientific discoveries were forgotten.

I had a point when I started writing that, but I've forgotten what it was. :smallconfused:

[DigoDragon]

That makes sense. It seems that no matter how long I try not to observe my problems, they never seem to just stop existing.

[unstattedCommoner]

What physics - and other sciences, and a bunch of other stuff - does is set a boundary for philosophy. There's no point getting all philosophical about it if you can just chuck some bits and pieces in a test tube (or collider, or whatever) and get an actual, concrete answer. Philosophy is more for the stuff that defies a proper scientific grasp - moral philosophy, for example - and as science expands the purview of philosophy shrinks.

This reminds me of the scene in the Hitch-hiker's Guide where the representatives of the guild of philosophers demand that Deep Thought be switched off, and threaten to strike:

"We demand rigidly-defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

"I mean, what's the point of debating whether there may or may not be a god, if this machine goes and gives you his telephone number? Leave the adding-up to the machines, and we'll take care of the eternal verities, thank you very much."

[AKA_Bait]

For example, a philosophical point that this discovery does definitively knock over is the work of Bishop Berkeley, whose most famous deduction is based on the premise that the universe doesn't exist when it isn't being directly observed.

Actually, it doesn't. Berkeley's central notion is that the only evidence we have of the world is that of our senses. That we all have similar experiences gives rise to his argument that some mind must direct the similar sensory experiences to all of us (i.e. God). The experiment doesn't (and can't) disprove the central tenet that all of our experience of the world is sense data, since even all the lab techs looking at the machienes have that bit of mediation between the 'objective world' and their observation thereof. That said, Berkeleys point, at least there, is pretty trivial (at least to a pragmatist like me), since there's no way to confirm or disconfirm the notion and nothing in particular follows from it at all by logical necessity. It could be totally true and have zero impact on scientific theories.

To be honest, it makes me upset when people think that physics and philosophy cannot both be talking about the same thing at the same time or that a person can be only one or the other. I consider plenty of physiscists (as well as other scientists) to have philosophical positions and vice versa. Granted, the philosophers who try to get hard and heavy into physics are often way, way out of their depth these days but the reverse is often not true. Stephen Hawking's article on Free Will and Determinism in Black Holes and Baby Universes, for example, is a fantastic peice of philosophical writing that is informed by physics. It's a good example of a peice of writing where the real philosopical import of Uncertianty comes out.

That said, most current philosophy is, in Trogspeak 'epistemology'. Personally, I think E.O. Wilson (a biologist) is probably right in that philosophy's most important job at the moment is to get itself and all of it's children/subdivisions (hard science and social science) speaking the same language again.

You know, I had a point at the beginning here also...

[The Minx]

Actually, it doesn't. Berkeley's central notion is that the only evidence we have of the world is that of our senses. That we all have similar experiences gives rise to his argument that some mind must direct the similar sensory experiences to all of us (i.e. God). The experiment doesn't (and can't) disprove the central tenet that all of our experience of the world is sense data, since even all the lab techs looking at the machienes have that bit of mediation between the 'objective world' and their observation thereof.

But if he goes that route, how does he "know" that we all have similar experiences (since communication is also accomplished via our senses)? And if we do, does that not have something to do with our brains being similar, as we are of the same species, and that we occupy the same planet? Gah. :smallannoyed:


That said, most current philosophy is, in Trogspeak 'epistemology'. Personally, I think E.O. Wilson (a biologist) is probably right in that philosophy's most important job at the moment is to get itself and all of it's children/subdivisions (hard science and social science) speaking the same language again.

I'm not entirely sure about that. Hard science stopped speaking the language of philosophy in favor of its own for a reason, you know. :smallsmile: But if it can be done without compromising the integrity of each discipline, then fair enough.

[AKA_Bait]

But if he goes that route, how does he "know" that we all have similar experiences (since communication is also accomplished via our senses)? And if we do, does that not have something to do with our brains being similar, as we are of the same species, and that we occupy the same planet? Gah. :smallannoyed:

Woah, woah, woah. I never said that Berkeley was right. Just that this particular experiment didn't disprove his position. The fact that his position isn't very useful all on it's own is a different matter.


I'm not entirely sure about that. Hard science stopped speaking the language of philosophy in favor of its own for a reason, you know. :smallsmile: But if it can be done without compromising the integrity of each discipline, then fair enough.

I have absolutley no doubt that there is no problem, theoretically, with getting everyone speaking the same language in terms of the accuracy and usefulness of the language itself. Getting every one to agree on what words and models to use... that's another story and one that is probably hopeless. Too many grants and tenures are made and kept by keeping the various disciplines off eachothers turf.

[The Minx]

Woah, woah, woah. I never said that Berkeley was right. Just that this particular experiment didn't disprove his position. The fact that his position isn't very useful all on it's own is a different matter.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you agreed. Just ranting in general. :smallsmile:


I have absolutley no doubt that there is no problem, theoretically, with getting everyone speaking the same language in terms of the accuracy and usefulness of the language itself. Getting every one to agree on what words and models to use... that's another story and one that is probably hopeless. Too many grants and tenures are made and kept by keeping the various disciplines off eachothers turf.

OK, I guess we'll have to see. :smallsmile: