Grey wrote:In my opening paragraph above I defined my intended meanings for direct and indirect observation in this thread. As for your claim that nothing is directly observed, consider the following.

Recognition of the self is a prerequisite and reference of comparison for recognition of the external. All animals possess a sense of self no matter at how rudimentary a level. It is a requirement of survival to know what is one’s self in order protect oneself from inadvertent destruction by oneself or by others. Anything sensed as being not of the self is recognized as being external to the self without the need for inference. The sea snail, for example, has a very small number of neurons, many orders of magnitude smaller that what is required to support the logic necessary to engage in inference. The presence (existence) of external objects detected by its sensors is directly interpreted by its neurons without any need for inference. Similarly the newborn human infant knows the difference between self and not self, between self and others, and between internal and external.

Enzp wrote:The second and fourth clauses of that sentence contradict each other, rendering the sentence meaningless. If all you see at any time is a part of the forest (i.e., some trees), then all you have seen is parts of the forest, not the forest itself. To see the forest itself (or to know that there is such a thing as a forest) you have to move to one or more positions that let you see where the forest begins and where it ends. Since that can’t be done for the universe, a different method is needed to know that there is such a thing as the universe and to justify the universe idea.

Enzp also wrote:The things you see around you give evidence only that they exist. As I wrote above:Is there a line of reasoning that connects knowing that certain things exist with knowing that the universe exists?

Frog march wrote:If the universe exists only as a mental model, then it is not a physical thing to which properties and histories can be attributed. You, too, are taking the ATM side. The realities of death and danger do not justify the universe idea. Neither do the realities of birth and security.

Celestial Mechanic wrote:Hi Celestial Mechanic. Yes, the sap has risen!
Celestial Mechanic also wrote:When Mach blamed the inertia of masses on the universe it was not yet known that there were things beyond the local galaxy. In his time the universe seemed to be finite and could be conceived of as an entity in its own right. In those days the expression “the universe as a whole” made sense.

However, when Hubble discovered that the other galaxies were not parts of the local galaxy, the finiteness of the universe became questionable, especially as observed cosmic distances and the number of observed things quickly escalated. There has been no hard proof for either a finite or infinite universe. At one time Einstein wrote that the universe could not be infinite because that would lead to an infinite number of gravitational lines of force at any mass object. I don’t think that could be right because we know that the sum of an infinite series of addends can be finite. Sort of reminds one of the Olber’s paradox. If the universe is infinite then it cannot be considered as a whole or as a thing to which physical properties and histories can be attributed.

The Machiains don’t really need a universe as a whole to produce local inertia. They should be willing to settle for some great number of distant masses. No one will deny them that. But there is not even a hypothetical mechanism suggested for how the distant masses could produce an effect on local masses.

If, as Mach suggested, the inertia of a local mass arises from the presence of very distant masses, wouldn’t the presence of very close masses strongly affect the inertia of a local mass? But I don’t think that has been observed. My own theory of inertia is that the inertia of a mass is a reaction to its own gravitational field. Work is required to distort the field. I have not been able to formulate the equations. I think it is premature to say whether or not the universe produces local effects. Using Mach’s hypothesis to justify the universe idea seems to be grasping at straws.

P.S. I notice that you wrote “Those who espouse Machianism….” Rather than ‘We who espouse Machianism.’:

Kesh wrote:Thank you. That is another way of expressing what I wrote in the opening paragraph of this thread.