In my last post I discussed the idea that differences in sports supplements’ effectiveness is knowable, but no one is going to run the investigation. Such an investigation would unveil one as better than another. But, as the experiment is never going to run (because it’s impractically difficult and no one will know if it’s in their interest to know the answer) is one better than another? If a fact is never discovered, is it true? Or, as the conversation was raised with me, if something is never observed does it even exist?
My partner asked me this and I can’t understand the question. I don’t particularly care for your answer yet. First, I want to understand the question. I cannot figure out why this question is profound. If a thing cannot be observed nor mathematically defined, why might one question the truth of its existence? I don’t want to confuse this question with the question of whether its existence is knowable or known, I understand that. What I don’t get is the profundity my partner sees in being able to consider “unknowable” and “non-existence” as synonyms. (And neither can she articulate it to a point I understand.)
The question seems to assume the impossibility of a universe devoid of intelligence. I know such a universe would only be hypothetical to us, but if the multiverse were real is a universe of only rocks identical to a universe that doesn’t exist? Is being void of brains to not exist?
Educate me, oh mighty reader!