>>> I agree. Just because the world can't detect the difference
>>> doesn't mean there isn't one.
>> I beg to differ: what cannot be measured /doesn't exist/.
> Do you really believe this? Do you think, as an absolute, that
> what we can measure today is the end and be-all of all that does
> and can exist? Are you sure?
I certainly don't believe it as you just worded it; that would
indeed be silly. Perhaps it would be more clearly expressed
as "If you can't measure it--that is, if something makes no
percievable, describable affect on your (or anyone else's) senses
at the present time--then it can't possibly make any difference to
any decision you might make at that time. Of course, if some later
discovery or technology makes something measurable, then it would
be rational to take it into account. Electrons certainly "existed"
in a metaphysical sense before their discovery, but if someone
had by pure chance speculated about their existence before
anyone had any means of seeing their effects, that person would
have been irrational to claim their existence or make any
decisions based on their existence, even though his speculation
later turned out to be right.
In the context of the discussion, if there is no way to tell
the difference between two atom-for-atom copies of something,
it cannot make any possible rational difference which one is
chosen for any reason. "Identity" is not a measurable property
of matter like mass or charge. It is an arbitrary choice made
for the purpose of reasoning and communication. A convenient
short-cut for talking about relationships between matter and
different points of spacetime.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:26 MDT