(September 17, 2015 at 7:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(September 17, 2015 at 7:38 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Therefore, the default position, since my interface with whatever-is-out-there is purely mental, is that whatever-is-out-there is a collection of concepts, ideas, and/or experiences.
Fallacy of composition.
Might be true.....of course...might be true...just saying.
Similarly, your (our) inability to express what an elementary particle looks like -except- by concept doesn't actually advance the notion that those elementary particles -are- concepts. We just don't have the resolution, and that's pretty run of the mill. Even if we did...we'd still have to use (or find use of) concepts to express them. It's generally not prudent to imagine that a limit (quirk, or attribute) of the apparatus is a limit (quirk, or attribute) of the universe, as per the above. Food for thought, about thought.
(Imma LOL tommorrow morning, I think, btw)
Okay, I think we can both agree that we're pretty much stuck taking knowledge as it is right now in establishing world views. If science is able to provide new ways of examining the world of the very small, so that things start seeming like things again, I reserve the right to become a physicalist. You and I both know I'm not holding my breath on that one, but who knows?
I believe the scientific opinion is that it isn't problems with measurement or technology (i.e. the resolution) which make the QM particles seem so squirrely. It's the nature of the particles themselves.
