[MD] What is the MOQ?

[Ham Priday]

Hi Craig --


To my assertion that there is no evidence that things exist in the absence 
of
 their being experienced, you wrote:

> There was evidence for the existence of ether, phlogiston,
> the orbit of the sun around the earth, even though none of
> these things were experienced.

Although it probably wasn't your intention, you've just proved my point.

All knowledge is intellectualized from experience.  You say that ether, 
phlogiston, and the sun's orbit were not experienced.  No, but the void of 
space and fire were.  Alchemists, observing that air fills all voids on 
earth, surmised that something had to fill the void of outer space as well. 
They called it Ether.  Likewise, observing materials erupt in flame when 
heated, they deduced that flame must be another element, which they called 
Phlogiston.

The notion of the sun circling earth was derived directly from experience. 
Had pre-scientific observers not experienced fire, the void between objects, 
and the rising and setting sun, these intellections would not have been 
made.  As it turned out, they were all wrong according to the more 
sophisticated theories of Science.

Again, empirical evidence is experiential, even when it is the reading on an 
instrument.  The scientific perspective of reality is only what conforms to 
laws and principles intellectualized from empirical data and confirmed by 
universal consensus.  Experience is primary to existence.  Things exist 
because we experience them.

As astro-physicist Andrei Linde mused, "The moment you say that the universe 
exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that.  I cannot 
imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness.  It's 
not enough for the information to be stored somewhere, completely 
inaccessible to anybody.  It's necessary for somebody to look at it.  In the 
absence of observers, our universe is dead."

Thanks for the examples, Craig.

Essentially yours,
Ham