well shit..
I wrote a reply and exited out before I hit submit

Jezuz, what a waste of time.

I need exit out again.
But I'm really wondering why Interbane here is modifying my thought experiment and turning H20 into a mixture like Gatorade. This "we don't really mean H20 water when we say water because it's mixed with lots of other stuff" goes entirely against what I made clear here from the start.
It's a good ploy to avoid my point though.

I hope that's why he's being "thanked"
A couple of you are way out in left field.
Johnson is back in science class trying to explain this away and Yorky is fixated on God again.

This "we don't really mean H20 water when we say water because it's mixed with lots of other stuff" goes entirely against what I made clear here from the start.
It's a good ploy to avoid my point though.

Why are you blaming me? I'm explaining how we use language. When we refer to water, the reference assumes not only H20, but all the other stuff that's in it. When you talk about the ocean, do you say "all the water+salt?" Water, in that sense, is a category of things when used in layman's terms. If you want to get scientific, then water is H20. It depends on the level of detail required in conversation, and that fluctuates. If there was alien water mixed with H20, common usage would refer to it all as 'water'. But if you wanted to be more specific in your reference, you could spell out the percentages of H20 / alien water / other additives.

If that somehow avoids your point, then you need to explain your point.

oh well, iPhone time.

Robert wrote:

"Neo-water would prove that atomic theory is wrong. This would involve massive unpicking of ..,"

Robert is right. Atomic theory in this case would be wrong.

As a natural kind, H20 would not be the essence of "water"
in its pure form (the pure kind needed for life, not gatorade or mixtures. Interbane is wanting to add more than what i stated in this thought expirement)

If the alien water had an atomic structure we knew not off till the discovery, say, P3V, then it would hold necessarily that PV3 AND H20 are two different names for water. Our knowledge of the natural world in this instance would have been proven to be semantical.
And Robert is right again but did not expand too much about it: a paradigm constructed world that said water refers to the Natural Kind H2O is no longer valid because water also refers to PV3. H20 and PV3 must be the same thing because they both refer to water.

On the an assumption that water has a deep natural kind structure responsible for its nature a historical chain of reference allowed us to talk meaningfully about water - semantically meaningful.
PV3 showed that our knowledge was not Understanding, but based on historical reference.

When "essence" of was dropped because of being too metaphysical (unobservable)
natural kinds were introduced in order to allow science to speak of essence in a more acceptable manner.

Speaking of H20 really does nothing to describe the world. what it did does is systemitize and predict observation.

We can not say our laws are not local, they are universal. There is no evidence for such a claim
Our reach is semantical and dependent on historical chains.

Interbane is wanting to add more than what i stated in this thought expirement

I think my clarification is necessary.

If the alien water had an atomic structure we knew not off till the discovery, say, P3V, then it would hold necessarily that PV3 AND H20 are two different names for water.

You have this reversed in a sense. Just like our increased understanding of "air", water would no longer be a singular reference to H2O, but a categorical reference. "Air" is a perfectly legitimate way to reference what we breathe, but if we needed to discuss the components in air, we could.

H20 and PV3 must be the same thing because they both refer to water.

Not true, they would be two different chemicals, under the categorical name "water". They would not be the same thing, if they had different atomic structures.

We can not say our laws are not local, they are universal. There is no evidence for such a claim
Our reach is semantical and dependent on historical chains.

Our understanding is indeed dependent upon induction. That is why science is provisional. However, we do have evidence that the laws of nature are universal, using inductive reasoning.

"Our understanding is indeed dependent upon induction. That is why science is provisional. However, we do have evidence that the laws of nature are universal, using inductive reasoning."

inference to the best explanation runs up against the pessimistic induction argument.
yes, being an optimistic scientific realist is understandable, i guess, considering the predictive success and technological success realized. some, however, prefer a more modest approach, unlike Johnson's almost cultish love for science.

Metaphysical modesty.
Man is a limited measuring device.

Interbane wrote:

Not true, they would be two different chemicals, under the categorical name "water". They would not be the same thing, if they had different atomic structures.

Wait..,


Our experience is the same, regardless of the difference in essence.

We would seem to be in error related to the distinction between the essence of the two structures.

Pan is spanish for bread
Brot is german for bread.
pan and brot mean the same thing - bread
the difference is only syntactical.

What would matter more here: the scientific categorizing of unobservable atomic structures, or the explanation of our experience?

These words you’re using are controversial. What do you mean by “essence”? Do you mean the chemical structure of the liquid? I think you mentioned EV3 or some other hypothetical molecular structure.

And by “experience”, do you consider the fact that experience can be refined? If we have two identical balls of steel, and they weigh exactly the same to every person that lifts them, then are they truly the same? What if we use a finely-calibrated scale which shows they are actually different? Our experience without supplemental tools isn’t enough to show the difference, but there is an objective difference all the same.

I think your thought experiment requires a premise. Will the laws of physics operate the same?

Because if they do, then when experiments are performed that break apart the constituent elements, there will be a difference, just like in the steel ball example. There will be different energy levels involved, and different macro properties resulting from the different atomic weights of the constituent elements. Common “everyday” experience with the two liquids would remain the same, but that is not the only experience that matters. We would ‘experience’ different results depending on different experiments. That is still human experience, even though it’s confined to experimental restraints. Refer back to the steel ball example if it’s confusing. Our perceptions, therefore our ability to experience, is not immaculate. In most modern science, our perceptions require supplementation.

If the laws of physics do not operate the same, then I wonder what you’re getting at with this thought experiment? You didn’t really need to go through the rigamarole of discussing water that isn’t water. You could have cut to the chase and said “at some point in the future, the laws of physics will no longer operate in the same way they do today.” In which case, everything is up in the air. All our accumulated knowledge is moot, all our satellites would crash out of the sky, and the electrical grid would fail. Perhaps some things would operate the same, and would continue to function. It all depends on what ways the laws of physics would shift. Perhaps gravity will invert, and magic will become possible. The slightest shift in the nuclear bond strength between particles, and the sun implodes or explodes.

What do you mean by “essence”? Do you mean the chemical structure of the liquid? I think you mentioned EV3 or some other hypothetical molecular structure.

Its "natural kind" as I've said before


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

Scientific disciplines divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping or ordering that does not depend on humans. We tend to assume that science is successful in revealing these kinds; it is a corollary of scientific realism that when all goes well the classifications and taxonomies employed by science correspond to the real kinds in nature. The existence of these real and independent kinds of things is held to justify our scientific inferences and practices.

Putative examples of kinds may be found in all scientific disciplines. Chemistry provides what are taken by many to be the paradigm examples of kinds, the chemical elements, while chemical compounds, such as H2O, are also natural kinds of stuff.

Recall that I said science created the language "natural kind" as a replacement for "essence" which sounded too metaphysical (or that is what I recall reading somewhere)

So, PV3 (alien water) would, in this thought experiment, be a natural kind for water.
I'm stuck here - WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the natural kind H20 and PV3?
Would it be two little hydrogen balls and one little oxygen ball compared to the new PV3 structure?

Is this really what h20 looks like or is that just a model for us to visualize?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... lecule.png

It's a model for us to visualize, Interbane.

I say there is no real difference between the two if they refer to the same thing. You say there is a difference because the molecular structure is different. You'd adjust your model accordingly. But there are, nor never will be models based on direct observation of atomic structures. . Science's ideal is to construct models that are observable in nature. That is the achievement of an accurate model.

What is different about our experience with the structure H20 and PV3?
NOTHING - because both are unobservables that we have no direct experience with. We've assigned a difference for catalogical reasons. Our Knowledge has expanded, but our Understanding has not. Cataloging natural kinds would be proven to be in error here.

And this is possible if laws are local and not universal.

And by “experience”, do you consider the fact that experience can be refined? If we have two identical balls of steel, and they weigh exactly the same to every person that lifts them, then are they truly the same?

Setting your steel balls aside, do you believe organisms experience H20 differently?

If the laws of physics do not operate the same, then I wonder what you’re getting at with this thought experiment? You didn’t really need to go through the rigamarole of discussing water that isn’t water. You could have cut to the chase and said “at some point in the future, the laws of physics will no longer operate in the same way they do today.” In which case, everything is up in the air. All our accumulated knowledge is moot, all our satellites would crash out of the sky, and the electrical grid would fail. Perhaps some things would operate the same, and would continue to function. It all depends on what ways the laws of physics would shift. Perhaps gravity will invert, and magic will become possible. The slightest shift in the nuclear bond strength between particles, and the sun implodes or explodes.

I'm not trying to get at anything in particular here. It's a thought experiment that I want to take me wherever it may.
Yorky is always suspicious and right away believes that I want us all to end up at the god of the Old Testament' door.
Not so.

There is supposedly evidence that the laws of physics vary throughout space:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... i9on3_4IvE

http://phys.org/news/2011-10-nature-law ... verse.html

I'd say this is a working hypothesis subject to more confirming data.
I didn't start the thought experiment with this in mind. If this hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis (it must be considered one) the thought experiment here can not be dismissed as rubbish by someone like Robert.

Is Robert willing to cherry pick which hypothesis are scientific and which are not?
That's not very scientific or honest, is it? But that's a question for Robert.

This scenario is possible in a scientific sense. This isn't about thoughts of "magic."

How does someone choose which hypothesis are scientific and which are not?

all our satellites would crash out of the sky, and the electrical grid would fail.

This is ridiculous.

There is no denying partial explanatory power and understanding. If it is confirmed that the laws of physics are local laws, I'd still be arrested for tossing you off the side of a building. No one is saying we do not have some understanding of laws.

But what makes a law a LAW of nature?
If the laws of physics are local laws, then they aren't LAWS.
But all we are doing is cataloging those laws.

What is different about our experience with the structure H20 and PV3?
NOTHING - because they are unobservables that we have no direct experience of.

This is what it boils down to. In your opinion, if there are two objects, then the only difference that matters between these two objects is what we can directly experience. Differences in indirect experience, through any sort of technological supplement, isn’t actually defined as a “difference” to you.

This makes great swaths of our understanding no longer relevant. We’re no longer able to distinguish between any subatomic particle. They are all either the same or nonexistent, since our experience is “indirect” experience rather than “direct” experience. There are no planets other than Venus and Mars, since distinguishing these other planets all relies on indirect experience. For me, it means no country other than the US even exists. Not to mention 43 of the states that I haven't directly observed. The eiffel tower doesn't exist, and Australia is a hoax.

Needless to say, the parameters you set for what we define as “difference” is flawed. There are differences between things that aren’t able to be directly observed, yet are required to understand our universe. The boundary problem here isn’t defined by “direct observation”, but rather “detectability”. If we’re able to detect a difference between new-water and water, then that is a difference that matters. This includes detection using technological means. It is why we cannot directly observe what’s happening in the Large Hadron Collider, yet since we can detect what’s happening, it counts as knowledge.

Setting your steel balls aside, do you believe organisms experience H20 differently?

Of course. Even two people experience water differently, unless their neural pathways are all absolutely identical down to the atomic level(which is so close to impossible that it doesn’t merit mentioning). This is similar to the issue of qualia. How do you know that when you perceive green, it isn’t actually subjectively yellow inside your mind. As long as we agree on what our language refers to, we can translate our subjective experiences into something objective, so that they may be communicated.

You cannot say that I experience water the same way you experience water. It is a parallel problem, and there is no way around it unless we come up with some super-technological way to get inside another person’s mind.

How do you experience water, Interbane?

If it's warm, how do you experience it?
If it's cold, how do you experience it?

You tell me and I'll tell you how I experience it.