In a message dated 18/07/2004 15:37:04 GMT Standard Time,
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
In a dialogue with Jud, Tudor says:
> Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
> (or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able
to
> show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in
respect
> to such a problem?
Jud returns:
> You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
> screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
> electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my
writing on
> the screen?
Jud, to point to the TV screen as the result of electron-bombardment as some
kind of proof of the electron's existence is highly flawed: it assumes the
existence of the very entities it is incumbent for the interlocutor to prove
the existence of. Also, one does not *see* electrons "bombarding the screen
after...etc", one sees a TV picture; once again it is this very presumption
that might be in question and thus one hardly proves existence by presuming
it in the first place.
Jud:
Apologies first for the delay in responding to your other interesting
[Popperian] post.
It was a bit long [about which I have no complaint] but I shall address it
soon.
I have what I think are mouse problems at the moment the cursor suddenly
jumps from one screen position to another, etc.
I have cleaned the wheels and all that but no joy. I cannot buy a new mouse
until the local computer shop opens tomorrow, and I can't pinch any of the
mouses/mice from my kids computers because they want to play their games. So
I will plod on and see how it goes.
If you switch the TV to a free channel [black screen ] you can often see the
collision of individual electrons as they hit the surface coating on the
inside of the cathode ray tube. It is not necessary to be able to view smaller
entities with the naked eye unaided by optical or other instruments fashioned
by man in order to examine tiny objects. I have no difficulties accepting
that the minute flashes on a screen as I direct the gun from one side to the
other is evidence that the electrons exist. The gun can be adjusted so that an
individual electron can be fired or the nozzle widened to emit a
multiplicity of them.
You can liken it to the bombing of Baghdad which I and millions of other
people watched on TV. The fact that we didn't see the actual bombs and missiles
did not prompt us to question the reasons why the sky was illuminated with
flashes and the buildings exploded in a cloud of black smoke and sparks.
If no assumptions as to the existence of the bombs were to be made then
there would be no scenes of the stricken city to show people, because everyone
assumes that bombs and missiles exist — even though all that we witnessed were
flashes and bangs. If no assumptions as to the existence of the electrons
were to be made then there would be no scenes of burning Baghdad to be viewed on
TV for it was on the assumption that electrons existed that the research
progressed and electricity was harnessed for the good of mankind. Amongst this
"good" is the ability to witness one set of religious crackpots bombing the
hell out of another bunch of religious crackpots — some of whom no doubt don't
believe that electrons exist or that women should show their faces in front
of men other than their immediate family. It is not necessary to actually see
certain objects with ones own eyes to feel confident that they exist. I
have no doubt that there is a Railway Station in Buenos Aires - though I have
never seen it and probably never will. I have however seen photographs of it
recorded upon an optical instrument called a camera. As to "God" and its lay
version: "Being" I have never actually seen any photographs or evidence that
they exist — perhaps you have? But then you agree quite openly that: "Being"
doesn't exist — so I don't really understand what you are talking about? If
you do not believe that "existence" and "Being" don't actually exist — then why
do you pretend to be a Heddegerian if the ontological difference is no more
than a smitherance?
The fact that we draw attention to an object or a human being by saying:
"Joe is in the pantry" does not mean that Joe "has" a "Being" — it simply means
than a bundle of atoms we call an entity we call Joe is occupying a certain
spatial position in an area we call the pantry. The behaviour or existential
activity of the object called Joe is the way or manner that the object is
present in that particular space and all the other spaces in which he can be
found as he wanders about the place before his biological mechanism fails and he
sinks back into the dust from whence he originated. There is no "Being" or
"Existence" or "Isness" or anything else involved in the process. First the
object [Joe] is there — and then it isn't.
Michael:
Your argument is identical to those (contemptuous for
you) who 'prove' the existence of a creator god by pointing to the creatures
of such a creator-god: the universe and all that comprises it.
Jud:
It is not identical at all for I am NOT pointing to any scientist as the
"creator" of the electrons — the electrons where around for as many years that
you can stick noughts on before the scientist was ever born. The electrons
would exist whether there was a TV gun to fire them at a screen or not. I fact
the scientist himself composed of millions of them. By pointing at an electron
all we do is prove that it exists as an electron, there are no allusions to
its existential provenance. There is no suggestion that because the
electrons are there that there must be some great scientist in the sky who created
them. The electrons are there because it is impossible for them not to be
there, and to prove the impossibility of them not being there - THEY ARE THERE..
Michael:
Like wise any
appeal to tracks in high-speed accelerator experiments does not show,
nevermind prove the existence of, the (supposed) electrons but their
supposed tracks in interaction with the other matter in the cloud chamber;
to suggest one is seeing the electrons is once again to *presume* their
existence and learn to see the tracks *as* the traces/signs/clues of such
assumed entities; moreover, even when one has accepted the possibility that
such traces are the traces of such presumed entities, to say that one has
*seen the electrons* in seeing the tracks is like claiming one has seen the
skier when one views only the ski-tracks in the snow...
Jud:
Last time we addressed this subject I furnished you with a long list of
synchrotrons (sometimes called a synchro-cyclotrons ) are circular accelerators
which have an electromagnetic resonant cavity (or perhaps a few placed at
regular intervals around the ring) to accelerate the particles. These things
cost MILLIONS and practically every country in the world has them [accept Iraq
of course] There is NO NEED to await the arrival of more powerful
electron-microscopes to be able to view these tiny entities with the naked eye through
the eyepiece of a microscope — the scientists of the world and the house
wives who cook the dinner on an electric stove and the golfers who trundle around
the golf course in electric buggies are QUITE SATISFIED that electricity
actually exists. In fact you are the first person I have ever met in my life
who appears to question the actuality of electricity and electrons just because
he can't see the things with his own eyes, and also discounts the visual
effects of these entities, evidential data for whose activities is accepted by
just about every other person on the planet.
... and then there's the vexed question of individuality (for the
nominalist, only this or that electron exists, not electrons; how one shows
the existence (here, there, where?) of a single electron is a real problem
for scientists, nevermind philosophers...)...
Jud:
Again you are confused regarding nominalistic nomenclature. Nominalist do
not deny the facts of plurality, what they insist upon is the understanding
that whilst individual electrons [notice the plural marker "s" on the end of
electron] the "clouds" or "showers" of electrons do not being merely
mereological shortcuts — linguistic conveniences. Of course nominalists hold that no
two entities in the cosmos are the same although there may be various degrees
of similarity between them. If you STILL insist that the effects of
projects electrons do not prove that they exist you might always stand if front of a
powerful laser beam of the type that the Yanks developed in the hopes of
shooting down incoming missiles? OK you would just see an intensely white beam
of light and smell the acrid odour of your own burning flesh whilst a massive
burning hole started to appear in your chest. But at least you could die
happy screaming:
"I see no electrons — therefore they do not exist!"
happy incinerating!
.........vroooom.........
Jud
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
In a dialogue with Jud, Tudor says:
> Ok, I go to the market and I want to convince people that electrons exist
> (or that they don't exist). Am I able to show them an electron? Am I able
to
> show there is no such thing as an electron? Or senses do not help in
respect
> to such a problem?
Jud returns:
> You could show them a TV screen and point out the electrons bombarding the
> screen after being fired from a gun [electron gun] If you do not believe
> electrons exist what do you think is driving your PC as you read my
writing on
> the screen?
Jud, to point to the TV screen as the result of electron-bombardment as some
kind of proof of the electron's existence is highly flawed: it assumes the
existence of the very entities it is incumbent for the interlocutor to prove
the existence of. Also, one does not *see* electrons "bombarding the screen
after...etc", one sees a TV picture; once again it is this very presumption
that might be in question and thus one hardly proves existence by presuming
it in the first place.
Jud:
Apologies first for the delay in responding to your other interesting
[Popperian] post.
It was a bit long [about which I have no complaint] but I shall address it
soon.
I have what I think are mouse problems at the moment the cursor suddenly
jumps from one screen position to another, etc.
I have cleaned the wheels and all that but no joy. I cannot buy a new mouse
until the local computer shop opens tomorrow, and I can't pinch any of the
mouses/mice from my kids computers because they want to play their games. So
I will plod on and see how it goes.
If you switch the TV to a free channel [black screen ] you can often see the
collision of individual electrons as they hit the surface coating on the
inside of the cathode ray tube. It is not necessary to be able to view smaller
entities with the naked eye unaided by optical or other instruments fashioned
by man in order to examine tiny objects. I have no difficulties accepting
that the minute flashes on a screen as I direct the gun from one side to the
other is evidence that the electrons exist. The gun can be adjusted so that an
individual electron can be fired or the nozzle widened to emit a
multiplicity of them.
You can liken it to the bombing of Baghdad which I and millions of other
people watched on TV. The fact that we didn't see the actual bombs and missiles
did not prompt us to question the reasons why the sky was illuminated with
flashes and the buildings exploded in a cloud of black smoke and sparks.
If no assumptions as to the existence of the bombs were to be made then
there would be no scenes of the stricken city to show people, because everyone
assumes that bombs and missiles exist — even though all that we witnessed were
flashes and bangs. If no assumptions as to the existence of the electrons
were to be made then there would be no scenes of burning Baghdad to be viewed on
TV for it was on the assumption that electrons existed that the research
progressed and electricity was harnessed for the good of mankind. Amongst this
"good" is the ability to witness one set of religious crackpots bombing the
hell out of another bunch of religious crackpots — some of whom no doubt don't
believe that electrons exist or that women should show their faces in front
of men other than their immediate family. It is not necessary to actually see
certain objects with ones own eyes to feel confident that they exist. I
have no doubt that there is a Railway Station in Buenos Aires - though I have
never seen it and probably never will. I have however seen photographs of it
recorded upon an optical instrument called a camera. As to "God" and its lay
version: "Being" I have never actually seen any photographs or evidence that
they exist — perhaps you have? But then you agree quite openly that: "Being"
doesn't exist — so I don't really understand what you are talking about? If
you do not believe that "existence" and "Being" don't actually exist — then why
do you pretend to be a Heddegerian if the ontological difference is no more
than a smitherance?
The fact that we draw attention to an object or a human being by saying:
"Joe is in the pantry" does not mean that Joe "has" a "Being" — it simply means
than a bundle of atoms we call an entity we call Joe is occupying a certain
spatial position in an area we call the pantry. The behaviour or existential
activity of the object called Joe is the way or manner that the object is
present in that particular space and all the other spaces in which he can be
found as he wanders about the place before his biological mechanism fails and he
sinks back into the dust from whence he originated. There is no "Being" or
"Existence" or "Isness" or anything else involved in the process. First the
object [Joe] is there — and then it isn't.
Michael:
Your argument is identical to those (contemptuous for
you) who 'prove' the existence of a creator god by pointing to the creatures
of such a creator-god: the universe and all that comprises it.
Jud:
It is not identical at all for I am NOT pointing to any scientist as the
"creator" of the electrons — the electrons where around for as many years that
you can stick noughts on before the scientist was ever born. The electrons
would exist whether there was a TV gun to fire them at a screen or not. I fact
the scientist himself composed of millions of them. By pointing at an electron
all we do is prove that it exists as an electron, there are no allusions to
its existential provenance. There is no suggestion that because the
electrons are there that there must be some great scientist in the sky who created
them. The electrons are there because it is impossible for them not to be
there, and to prove the impossibility of them not being there - THEY ARE THERE..
Michael:
Like wise any
appeal to tracks in high-speed accelerator experiments does not show,
nevermind prove the existence of, the (supposed) electrons but their
supposed tracks in interaction with the other matter in the cloud chamber;
to suggest one is seeing the electrons is once again to *presume* their
existence and learn to see the tracks *as* the traces/signs/clues of such
assumed entities; moreover, even when one has accepted the possibility that
such traces are the traces of such presumed entities, to say that one has
*seen the electrons* in seeing the tracks is like claiming one has seen the
skier when one views only the ski-tracks in the snow...
Jud:
Last time we addressed this subject I furnished you with a long list of
synchrotrons (sometimes called a synchro-cyclotrons ) are circular accelerators
which have an electromagnetic resonant cavity (or perhaps a few placed at
regular intervals around the ring) to accelerate the particles. These things
cost MILLIONS and practically every country in the world has them [accept Iraq
of course] There is NO NEED to await the arrival of more powerful
electron-microscopes to be able to view these tiny entities with the naked eye through
the eyepiece of a microscope — the scientists of the world and the house
wives who cook the dinner on an electric stove and the golfers who trundle around
the golf course in electric buggies are QUITE SATISFIED that electricity
actually exists. In fact you are the first person I have ever met in my life
who appears to question the actuality of electricity and electrons just because
he can't see the things with his own eyes, and also discounts the visual
effects of these entities, evidential data for whose activities is accepted by
just about every other person on the planet.
... and then there's the vexed question of individuality (for the
nominalist, only this or that electron exists, not electrons; how one shows
the existence (here, there, where?) of a single electron is a real problem
for scientists, nevermind philosophers...)...
Jud:
Again you are confused regarding nominalistic nomenclature. Nominalist do
not deny the facts of plurality, what they insist upon is the understanding
that whilst individual electrons [notice the plural marker "s" on the end of
electron] the "clouds" or "showers" of electrons do not being merely
mereological shortcuts — linguistic conveniences. Of course nominalists hold that no
two entities in the cosmos are the same although there may be various degrees
of similarity between them. If you STILL insist that the effects of
projects electrons do not prove that they exist you might always stand if front of a
powerful laser beam of the type that the Yanks developed in the hopes of
shooting down incoming missiles? OK you would just see an intensely white beam
of light and smell the acrid odour of your own burning flesh whilst a massive
burning hole started to appear in your chest. But at least you could die
happy screaming:
"I see no electrons — therefore they do not exist!"
happy incinerating!
.........vroooom.........
Jud
--- StripMime Warning -- MIME attachments removed ---
This message may have contained attachments which were removed.
Sorry, we do not allow attachments on this list.
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---