quantum mechanics: Kastner\'s brilliant blog (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, July 22, 2013, 12:09 (4143 days ago) @ rekastner

rek: But if you're going to say that 'theory is not knowledge,' then we have very little knowledge. In practice, you're going down Descartes' road of doubting any knowledge of which we can't have absolute certainty. That rules out almost everything we normally think we can claim to know. Descartes couldn't even retain a claim of knowledge based on the information from his senses under that standard, because of the 'evil demon' argument. (See the Meditations.) -You've missed the distinction I made between levels. On an absolute level, I agree with the above (and with Tony): no objective knowledge. That's why for practical purposes we need a commonsense level, on which we agree that certain information (of whatever kind) comes as close to objective "truth" as we can get. Hence the need for intersubjective consensus. There are vast quantities of information that come under this category. For instance, our technology provides enough corroboration to call the underlying information "knowledge". Within the confines of spacetime "reality" we can corroborate information by tests and by observation, ranging from man-made facts (your name is Ruth) to discoveries about the cosmos. I can't discuss your theory with you (though I hope to eventually!), so I can only ask if you're saying your potential realities outside of spacetime can be similarly corroborated by tests and observation, and are potentially on a par with the Earth going round the sun, or Barack Obama being current President of the US (= information whose "truth" is recognized by general consensus among those aware of it.) Is there no difference in epistemological status between, say, the knowledge that has created the internal combustion engine and the opposing, "well corroborated" (ah, but by whom?) theories that a god created the universe/that matter is the only reality? Do you actually regard both theism and materialism as knowledge, or even provisional knowledge? By what criteria do you believe it's possible to establish one of these, or any theory outside of spacetime, as objectively (commonsense level) "true"?
 
I'm reluctant to attempt a definition of "theory", but for me an essential element would be that it is a set of explanatory ideas whose "truth" has NOT been recognized by general consensus among those aware of it. But I don't know where to draw the borderline here. You mention the theory of gravity, and personally I'd classify that as "knowledge" under my definition, whereas evolution would certainly remain under theory (not knowledge). Perhaps it would be illuminating to know whether you think the status of your own theory is more that of "gravity" than of "evolution".-However, I don't want this discussion to distract us from more important issues! My own interest lies in the implications of your theory for philosophy in its broadest sense ... i.e. encompassing the nature and meaning of existence. What might it tell us about consciousness, about origins, about the energy that underlies all the workings of life and the universe? In this context, it doesn't matter two hoots whether you wish to call it theory or (provisional) knowledge!-****-I emailed you yesterday at rekastner@hotmail.com but will send the email again. Do please let me know if it doesn't get through, and I will try another way.