[MD] Theism and literalism

[Scott Roberts]

DMB,

Scott said:
To say there is value in the inorganic is to add a claim beyond theempirical
evidence. It does not agree with the data better than, say, the
non-spatiotemporal causal model. Yes, it works better within the MOQ. So
what you are saying is: let's assume the MOQ, including its non-empirical
claim that Quality is omnipresent (a non-empirical claim since the data just
shows the reality of Quality in humans, and perhaps some biological), and to
be consistent we will adopt the preference view of the quantum measurement
problem over other views. Yes, that is all consistent, and works. It is just
not empirical.

dmb says:
Its not empirical!? Hmmm. Apparently, I not only have to spoon this idea
right into your mouth, I have to chew it up for you as well. OK, I'll give
this thing one more try. Let me begin with a little reality check again.
According to Merriam-Webster Online, the term "empirical" means "1.
originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data> 2.
relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for
system and theory 3. capable of being verifed or disproved by observation or
experiment. 4. of or relating to empiricism".

Just to be perfectly clear, I'm using the first, most basic definition of
the term. That is, the preference model is simply "based on observation". Am
I saying that we can actually observe the electrons making those choices,
that we can directly see them make a choice? No, of course not. (I don't
even understand how such a thing could be possible.) The preference model is
an explanation of the data, an interpretation of the observations. Its a
conclusion "based on observation". The conclusion itself is not observed, it
is constructed by the observers.

Scott:
I showed how the preference model is not based on observation (since 
observation cannot distinguish between it and various other possibilities). 
I notice you ignored that argumentation. It is because we cannot actually 
observe the electrons that ALL interpretations are non-empirical. That's why 
that arch-empiricist, Bohr, said "don't interpret".

Let me just point out again that given the initial MOQ assumption (Quality 
is omnipresent), the decision to interpret the data as preference is forced. 
That's not an empirically derived conclusion, rather it is necessary to 
maintain the initial, non-empirical assumption. If one's initial, 
non-empirical assumption were "Quality is just subjective" then one would be 
forced to interpret the data according to one of the other possibilities. 
Bottom line: the choice of an interpretation is based on a non-empirical 
assumption. That this elementary logic escapes you is scary.

- Scott