From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Mon, 10 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> D  writes:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Let's shift outside the scope of our world to interpretations of   
   >>>> quantym physics, like the multiple world interpretation. In some   
   >>>> interpretation multiple world are infered, but they can never affect   
   >>>> our world, nor we them. Therefore this is pure nonsense.   
   >>>   
   >>> This fact that they cannot affect us etc does not make it nonsense.   
   >>   
   >> It does... we can never know. From a point of view of understanding   
   >> reality it is pure nonsense unless any empirical proof can be   
   >> presented.   
   >>   
   >> The only purpose I see in it, is psychological, poetical and for   
   >> entertainment purposes. People who do not like religion, but have the   
   >> religious need, use these speculations as a replacement for religion,   
   >> deriving immortality, paradise etc. But at the end of the day, all we   
   >> have are equations that give us numbers. Translating those into words   
   >> and ideas is a grave mistake, when there's no empirical feedback   
   >> loop. Yes, they can be tools that enable us to make predictions in   
   >> this world, but that is all that matters.   
   >>   
   >>> You could take the so called fine-tuning problem as evidence of multiple   
   >>> universes. Just as you could take the so called Goldilocks location of   
   >>> the earth as evidence of multiple planets, solar systems etc.   
   >>   
   >> Or you could just refrain from taking a position, since there's no way   
   >> to empirically verify that. That means, it is nonsensical, since it   
   >> won't make any difference to anyone what so ever.   
   >>   
   >> It could be argued that it in fact can lead to distraction and wasted   
   >> resources, that stops us from pursuing more pragmatic avenues of   
   >> research.   
   >>   
   >> The fact remains... anything that cannot be verified empirically is at   
   >> best, a mental model or a tool, if the tool has no consequences and   
   >> serves no purpose, except taking up our time, it is useless and should   
   >> be discarded, except of course, for entertainment purposes, or in   
   >> order to create a religion which mathematicians and physicists can   
   >> adopt, since it is more palatable than classical religion.   
   >   
   > All that might be true, except the part about it being 'nonsense', as   
   > that is not meant by the word nonsense. And also, parallel universe are   
   > implicated by inflation theory. Inflation theory, far from being   
   > nonsense, is the current model accepted by most scientists. So, no we   
   > can't verify parallel universes, yes, they are in the realm of the   
   > unknown and unknowable, but no, inflation theory is not nonsense, and   
   > neither are parallel universes. Perhaps 'fantasy' or 'idle speculation'   
   > would be better terms?   
      
   You are a wise man! Nonsense, in the sense of what is real and empirical.   
   But I accept fantasy, idle speculation, a mistranslation from numbers into   
   ordinary language.   
      
   Since it is outside the realm of the empirical, I do not assign in truth   
   value, I disregard it.   
      
   I _do_ see utility in the multiple world interpretation for instance, when   
   it comes as a replacement for religion for very cerebral people. Instead   
   of believing in the stories of the bible and god, they believe in infinite   
   universes where all states of everything, including beings similar to god,   
   exist.   
      
   So it is idle speculation or nonsense for me in the sense of never being   
   able to be verified empirically, and that I refuse to participate in that   
   type of idle speculation. But for someone who has a need of religion, but   
   does not buy into the traditional way, I see great utility there!   
      
   It also has use as entertainment, as poetry or inspiration, or for me...   
   as fun topics of discussions.   
      
   But for me, personally, I wait for someone to falsify our material reality   
   (and with material I of course include energy, particles etc. as useful   
   abstractions and tools as used in ordinary language and for predictions),   
   and until material reality has been falsified, I feel very justified in   
   claiming that this is the default value.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)