= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Why is it accepted that experiments with reality prove or disprove beliefs?
Well, in one sense it isn't accepted... not if you want "prove" to mean something monolithic and indisputable. If a proposition starts out with a probability between 0 and 1, no experiment can reduce that probability to 0 or raise it to 1... there's always a nonzero probability that the experiment itself was flawed or illusory in some way.
But we do accept that experiments with reality give us evidence on the basis of which we can legitimately increase or decrease our confidence in beliefs. In most real-world contexts, that's what we mean by "prove": provide a large amount of evidence that support confidence in a belief.
So, OK, why do we accept that experiments do that?
Because when we predict future experiences based on the results of those experiments, we find that our later experiences conform to our earlier predictions.
Or, more precisely: the set of techniques that we classify as "reliable experiments"are just those techniques that have that predictive properties (sometimes through intermediate stages, such as model building and solving mathematical equations). Other, superficially similar, techniques which lack those properties we don't classify that way. And if we found some superficially different technique that it turned out had that property as well, we would classify that technique similarly. (We might not call it an "experiment," but we would use it the same way we use experiments).
Of course, once we've come to trust our experimental techniques (and associated models and equations), because we've seen them work over and over again on verifiable predictions, we also develop a certain level of confidence in the unverifiable predictions made by the same techniques. That is, once I have enough experience of the sun rising in the morning that I am confident it will do tomorrow, (including related experiences, like those supporting theories about the earth orbiting the sun etc., which also serve to predict that event), I can be confident that it will rise on October 22 2143 even though I haven't yet observed that event (and possibly never will).
So, yes. If I jump off a cliff I might start out with theories that seem to predict future behavior, and then later have unpredicted experiences as my speed improves that cause me to change those theories. Throughout this process, what I'm doing is using my observations as evidence for various propositions. "Reality" is my label for the framework that allows for those observations to occur, so what we call this process is "observing reality."
What's confusing?
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Yes, that's true.
Mm.
It sounds to me like we're not using the word "reality" at all consistently in this conversation.
I would recommend trying to restate your concern without using that word. (Around here this is known as "Tabooing" the word.)
Thanks for engaging on this - I'm finding it educating. I'll try your suggestion but admit to finding it hard.
So, there's a Chinese rocket-maker in town and Sir Isaac Newton has been offered the ride of his life atop the rocket. This is no ordinary rocket, and it's going to go really, really fast. A little boy from down the road excitedly asks to join him, and being a jolly fellow, Newton agrees.
Now, Newton's wife is pulling that funny face that only a married man will recognise, because she's got dinner in the oven and she knows Newton is going to be late home again. But Newton is confident that THIS time, he's going to be home at precisely 6pm. Newton has recently become the proud owner of the world's most reliable and accurate watch.
As the rocket ignites, the little boy says to Newton, "The vicar told me that when we get back, dinner is going to be cold and your wife is going to insist that your watch is wrong."
Now, we all now how that story plays out. Newton had been pretty confident about his timepiece. 99.9999%, in fact. And when they land, lo and behold his watch and the church clock agree precisely and dinner is very nice.
Er, huh?
Because in fact, the child is a brain in a vat, and the entire experience was a computer simulation, an advanced virtual reality indistinguishable from the real thing until someone disconnects him.
That's the best I can do without breaking the taboo.