From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > 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/constructi   
   e-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.   
   >   
      
   In your link above "X is observable if there are circumstances which are   
   such that, if X is present to us under those circumstances, then we   
   observe it (van Fraassen 1980, 16).".   
      
   If there really are parallel universes, then it would be expected that   
   they can be observed from somewhere in them or near them. Thus they are   
   observable. It's just that they aren't observable by us. And what does   
   the parallel universe care about that?   
      
   In Ptolemy's model which predicted the motion of planets, there was no   
   suggestion that it gave any clue as to how the solar system worked,   
   there were no massive gear wheels in space. But subsequent models do try   
   to show how things work. Einstein's model says that space is curved. If   
   you want to accept that, you can't just accept the results, you have to   
   believe space is curved. Otherwise there is no difference between saying   
   'gravity is a force', and 'space is curved'.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)