From: nospam@example.net   
      
   >> True... but the question is meaningless unless part of a theory that   
   >> yields predictions and can be tested with empirical evidence. Strictly   
   >> speaking, we will never know. But we can definitely have an idea about   
   >> it, but that's all it is. An idea.   
   >   
   > Why can't you say it is more likely the moon existed and continued to   
   > exist? Afterall as Hume pointed out, generally speaking the future   
   > resembles the past. Or at least I think he did.   
      
   I can say it, but for all intents and purposes, it makes no difference, since   
   that moment in time has passed. If you put that statement into a context, such   
   as, "if you say this, I'll give you 10 dollars", the statement is no longer   
   meaningless. It is a statement I can make that will get me 10 dollars.   
      
   But the statement in and of itself, mean nothing really, outside a context.   
      
   > I think there is an inconsistency lurking somewhere in what you   
   > say. Consider the question: How am I affected by electrons? You ought to   
   > say in no way at all can electrons affect us, any more than a parallel   
   > universe, as electrons cannot be perceived in any way. And yet, you   
   > accept electron theory because of its predictions, but you do not accept   
   > inflation theory because of its predictions.   
      
   There is a distinction here. As you say, I accept electrons as a "tool" or a   
   model. I do not accept them as real entities in the world, since I cannot   
   empirically verify them, only the properties, when use in math to generate   
   predictions and match those with results.   
      
   So I accept the theory of electrons, beause the theory works, but that does not   
   mean I have to accept that electrons have an actual existence.   
      
   Or put in another way try the distinction that the phenomena which are   
   predicted are   
   verified (or falsified), and the mental tooling is just that, a mental tool.   
      
   There is yet another side to this. Electrons are entities in the theory that in   
   the theory supposedly exist in this world. Parallel universes, of the MWI, are   
   distinct in time and space and no information can flow between this world and   
   the other. That makes them "null and void" since they are postulates which can   
   never make any difference what so ever. No effect.   
      
   If you are interested, please have a look at this link:   
      
   https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/constructive   
   empiricism/#EmpiAdeq   
      
   It explains how van Frassen deals with empirical effects vs theoretical   
   constructs of theories.   
      
   Also parallel universes are an _interpretation_ of equations and numbers. I   
   also   
   argue, that in translating from numbers into our "regular" language, a lot of   
   error are commited unknowingly, since the numbers deal with a level of reality   
   that we, by design, are not equipped to handle. So no wonder that the   
   interpretations are weird.   
      
   >> For them, these non-verifiable thought experiments, take the place of   
   >> religion.  It gives them the psychological comfort of some kind of   
   >> immortality.   
   >>   
   >> Other humans, less wise in the ways of science, read the book, and   
   >> learn that we are immortal and will go to paradise.   
   >>   
   >> Same reflex, different theology. Do I make more sense?   
   >   
   > Yes, this is a specific example of a more general case which is that   
   > people tend to believe what they want to believe. They start with their   
   > desired belief, and then they work backwards to construct a train of   
   > reasoning to justify it.   
      
   True!   
      
   > But this isn't the motivation of scientists who came up with inflation   
   > theory. They were trying to solve problems in the previous theories and   
   > explain things which weren't explained. Parallel universes is just a   
   > consequence of the theory.   
      
   I'd argue it is an inference and an interpretation of numbers. Since it lies   
   beyond empirical reality, it is meaningless, except as poetry or psychology. I   
   bet it is perfectly possible to use the equations, without having to verbally   
   make interpretations.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)