= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Open Thread: April 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (524)
I don't know if I'm the only person who thinks this is funny, but every theory in physics has a basis in naive trust in qualia, even if it's looking at the readout from an instrument or reading the text of an article.
I just take all scientific theories to ultimately be theories about phenomenal experience. No naive trust required.
What do you mean?
The conclusion may be that matter is almost entirely empty space, but you still have to let your interactions with the way you get information about physics use the ancient habit of assuming that what seems to be solid is solid.
I think you may misunderstand what the physics actually says. Compared to the material of neutron stars, yes, terrestrial matter is almost entirely empty space ... but it's still resists changes to shape and volume. And you don't need to invoke ancient habits anywhere - those conclusions fall right out of the physics without modification.
I've beginning to think that I've been over-influenced by "goshwow" popular physics, which tries to present physics in the most surpising way poosible. It's different if I think of that "empty space" near subatomic particles as puffed up by energy fields.