reply to post by DOADOA
You clearly did not understand the argument of practical irrelevancy. As I said, John Locke explains it better than me, go to the source.
This means that even though those nymphos on Mars exist, I shouldn't care about them, because it is paradigmatically stated that I cannot interact
with them in this thought experiment. That means that their existence or non-existence cannot possibly have meaning for my life, therefore I should
not consider them when thinking about it.
Again. You say that:
1) Tesla invented earthquake machines.
2) Tesla is such a singular genius that ONLY he could understand the science behind it and that for that reason the science is irreproducable
(something that science never is, never can be, as it reproducability is a fundament of empirical science)
So why should I care about it? If the science behind it is irreproducable then nobody has built such a machine up to today, logic dictates. So why
should I care?
You guys were going to give me evidence of earthquake machines. Why is that so hard when all you guys seem to know they exist?
It's like with the nymphos on Mars. Why should I care about what they would do with me if it is impossible that they ever do it?
This is the argument of practical irrelevancy. If you claim a thing exists with properties that give it no chance of ever entering my phenomenology
then these things can not have significance for my phenomenology.
That's a pretty strong argument and it has been for about 400 years.