Dear John,
You wrote:
JS> The fact that there are
countless more details at the submicroscopic level waiting to be discovered
does not mean that all our beliefs are false at a working level. It just means
that we should expect countless more surprises about the details
Of the 11 dimensions, we see only 3.5. The rest we
deduce based on complete lack of physical evidence about what is going on in
those dimensions. We don't know that the effects are only
submicroscopic. They could be macroscopic, such as the presumed Higgs
boson, which provides an essential part of observable effects, but we still
don't know how, or with what other effects there are.
All we know are e = i*z, f = m*a, there are MKS
coefficients of various instances of those equations, there are 640 acres in a
square mile, and so on and on. Which of those "facts" in our
current 3.5 dimensions will still be observable, or even singular, when viewed
from some other set of 3.5 dimensions? Perhaps they can be "heterodyned"
into our own 3.5 like a radio station, but with very unfamiliar effects?
Humanity has made a lot of progress, but not yet gotten
it all understood. The point is we simply don't know if we see the same X
when two of us look at an X. Any attempt to whitewash that unknown is
just "proof by emphatic assertion" that it doesn't
matter, not real proof.
Sincerely,
Rich
Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 2:40 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering
Ontologies?
On 7/5/2015 8:07 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> The question is about the nondeterministic
properties of the 11D
> string theory model promulgated by Brian Greene in
the video I posted...
> So we can't possibly all be looking at the same
universe given those
> sources of uncertainty. Right? Or do you
have a response on that?
As I said in my note to Tom, Descartes's search for absolute
certainly led a few of centuries of philosophers to think that absolute
certainty is possible or even desirable.
The fact that there are quantum-mechanical uncertainties
at the submicroscopic level does not mean that everything is uncertain.
The following points are beyond doubt:
1. We all inhabit planet earth. That is the
basic meaning of
the word 'world'. All
others are metaphors or other extensions.
2. There is vastly more information about our
planet than
anybody has ever observed or
imagined. Scientists or
anybody who is walking down a
road keeps encountering
surprising new things with just
the unaided senses.
3. None of those facts mean that we're inhabiting
a different
planet. They just mean
that we're looking at different
aspects.
4. The fact that there are countless more details
at the
submicroscopic level waiting to
be discovered does not
mean that all our beliefs are
false at a working level.
It just means that we should
expect countless more surprises
about the details.
John
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J