In that humans built LIGO to bring forth phenomena for them. There is no science without an observer. The universe might exist without us, but without an observer there is no-one to describe it.
I don't see how this has any bearing on the original point. Why would universe where everything can be empirically tested be conveniently and suspiciously human-centered?
That was my reply to you, not the original point. If it helps:
I think the GP implied with the statement that we should subscribe to some non-empirical theories ("outside spacetime"), because the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered.
1. You said that the observations are not human-centered since we need to make machines, so the GP does not need to be suspicious and should stick to empiricism.
2. Both you and the GP seem to assume that the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered
3. I say it is human-centered because we make the machines for us as observers at the center, so your argument doesn't quite work
4. I think our science is entangled with us as observers on many levels, and it should be. So the GP's statement should actually be pushed through suspicion towards neccessity.
naasking|1 year ago
janto|1 year ago
I think the GP implied with the statement that we should subscribe to some non-empirical theories ("outside spacetime"), because the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered.
1. You said that the observations are not human-centered since we need to make machines, so the GP does not need to be suspicious and should stick to empiricism.
2. Both you and the GP seem to assume that the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered
3. I say it is human-centered because we make the machines for us as observers at the center, so your argument doesn't quite work
4. I think our science is entangled with us as observers on many levels, and it should be. So the GP's statement should actually be pushed through suspicion towards neccessity.