RE: 2 Thought Experiments to Forever change the way you Look at the World + Philosophy Discussion
Hey there, I believe I have something valuable to add to this conversation.
The implications of your first thought experiment about light really tend towards the subject of language. We describe adjectives through their sensory form, which is cyclic as you've stated. When asked to describe the color purple, we can't. The best we can do is point to something purple and say, "this is what purple is". Because of this "flaw" in our language, we cannot fully communicate all of our thoughts some times. But this isn't only the case for sight perception. How can you explain sour to someone with no taste buds? How can you explain fuzzy to someone with no nerves? We can't.
In regards to the light question you posed, vsauce offers a valuable discussion titled Is Your Red The Same as My Red?
Philosophically, the "answer" to this is that we live in an empirical world. We derive knowledge from sensory experience, and these are foundational to what we know, which why we cannot explain them, but it simply must be. They are the "building blocks", if you will. You can read more about empiricism here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
I would also like to contribute to your discussion of de Silva. I would like to note that I primarily study logic and have only lightly touched epistemology, so I will try to note push my claims too far.
Anyways, it is bold to say that Western science does not deduce, but only induce. You should note that many western philosophers were empiricists. They ground facts in the world around them. Again, this is the case in all sciences, including physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, etc. If I were to quote you, knowing that "a typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390nm to 700nm" is also empirical. We consider this a fact because that is how the world around us operates. It is possible to argue that empiricism is not the way to go. However, it is extremely practical. I know if I touch a fire, I will get burnt, although that may not be the case in a different world.
Returning to de Silva, yes, the fact "all men are mortals" is induced, but that is how the world around us works. However, the move to "Socrates is mortal" is deductive. We take the facts around us and make rational decisions and choices based on those as we know them. de Silva is discarding this entire notion. Thus we can ground our thoughts in logic.
Thanks for the dicussion, and I hope you can take a look at my philosophy blog or follow me @syllogism
I agree with your first part. As for the empirical I have to say I come from the Buddhist/Relational Quantum Mechanics/Zero world/Quantum Darwinism side. Basically I deny the existence of classical systems. This video should summarize most of my own views:
The problem I have with an empirical world where we derive knowledge from sensory experience is that the existence of an empirical world has not been proven. There is only proof that we perceive something. Whether it's Schrödinger's cat or Double-slit experiment the people who call for a multiverse tend to believe that all possibilities exist. Zero world theorists like me say that none of the possiblities has objective existence, reality takes place at the moment of of observation; not before or after. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect
Nalin De Silva's constructive relativism is more like a better and sophisticated version of instrumentalism
I don't subscribe to later versions of instrumentalism and things such as Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. But I'm all for practical uses. Newton's Theory of Gravity was a bunch of BS. The same goes for many of his life's work. But they can be useful in everyday life.
Bitcoin is a stupid, slow expensive crypto. But even that has many uses. I just refuse to accept that Bitcoin is the real deal.
Nobody has proven that the reality exist when it's not observed. Existence of an objective reality is in stark contrast to quantum mechanical facts.