(September 24, 2015 at 8:52 am)Rhythm Wrote: You seem to be making a variation of the same woeful mistake good ole AKD made, btw. u seem to think that for something to be observed...you have to see it with your eyes, or be able to create a mental analog for what that would be like (3D space, etc..because that's the way -you- see things). As with the equivocation of the same word in QM - you, personally do not have to be able to "observe" a particle as you appear to be using the word. There are reasons that we cant which are not in any way short of evidence or explanation, so it;s a good thing you don;t have to be able to observe it - you'd be missing out on alot. The model does not predict that you would be able to "observe" a particle in the manner which you are requesting (n fact, it states precisely the opposite)...so, failing to produce that which the model doesn't predict isn't much of a criticism of the model.
This has already been discussed, in this thread.
"If I can't see a particle the way I see a billiard ball, then materialism is false/unevidenced/unlikely." Just, no.
Thats what I have been trying (and failing) to say!
I would add there is no point having a "shitty canadian school system etc" tantrum. I am not critcising you for not being able to imaging a photon from the models. I am criticising you for using that as excuse to then leap to "materialism is false" and claim something to the effect of "it is an idea because....well....er.... I say it is". That is just your incredulity.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
