= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Davorak comments on Were atoms real? - 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 (156)
I'm not sure that does much to unpack what scientists were investigating, when they held scientific debates about the reality of atoms.
Nor to explain what we're trying to ask, when we say "is the physical world actually real?" "In what sense does the world exist?". Humans feel like there's a question there; I feel like there's a question there; but I'm confused as to what exactly I'm trying to ask. It would be nice to dissolve the question, so that there's no blank spot left in my head where "is real" or "exists" used to live. As noted in the article, I'm hoping that looking at specific scientific controversies might be a useful warm-up, and might help more than just remembering that the map is not the territory.
"is the physical world actually real?"- The words physical and real are very close together in my map and with out know how they are spaced in your map I can not gain traction in helping answer this question for you.
"In what sense does the world exist?" In the sense that it is repeatable. I currently live under the assumption that this repeatability derives from the world being external to myself and objective; this map as of yet fits what I have observed of the territory.