Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> 1) That reality works substantially in accordance with measurements.
> 
> If you mean "the universe is deterministic", 

No. I mean that our measuring devices measure something called reality, and 
they're not conspiring to confuse us.

> This is the same argument.

That's why it's "A" and "B" and "C", you see. ;-)

>> 1C) There is no supernatural entity attempting to mislead us.
> 
> Again, if you assume that some all-powerful entity is trying to mislead 
> us, we can stop now. So it's more interesting to assume that there isn't.

I didn't say it was a bad assumption. I simply said it was something taken 
on faith. I don't know of many actual scientists who try to measure the 
affect of Satan on their experiments. The assumption is that if something 
doesn't jive, it's because the experiment was done wrong.

>> 2C) Humans aren't in a region of space whose physical laws and/or 
>> constants
>>     are significantly different than elsewhere.
> 
> If this isn't the case, it's almost impossible to prove it.

Well, yes. That's why I'm saying it's taken on faith. For example, the 
measurement of the hubble expansion is predicated on the idea that stars far 
away behave like stars up close, etc.

> Science is, by definition, only concerned with that which is provable. 
> This isn't necessarily what is true, just what you can prove.

Prove, based on certain articles of faith, like that your measurements 
aren't consistently corrupted by evil forces. Which you wouldn't, by 
definition, be able to prove.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling together,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message