From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   >> https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/construct   
   ve-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   
      
   Yes, but if we can never be in them or near them, as far as we are concerned,   
   they are unobservable, thus, complete nonsense.   
      
   Unless you can describe to me, how we can observe a parallel universe, how   
   information can travel from our world, to a postulated parallel one, I will   
   consider it complete nonsense.   
      
   Note that your argument admits too much. I could rephrase it as... If there is   
   a   
   god, then clearly, he has the ability of being seen, since he is god, thus he   
   is   
   observable.   
      
   > observable. It's just that they aren't observable by us. And what does   
   > the parallel universe care about that?   
      
   Ah, but you make the mistake of disregarding "us". Empiricism is all about us,   
   and what _we_ can observe. If something, by definition, is not observable or   
   has   
   any effects of us, it doesn't exist.   
      
   Should someone, as per your black hole example, make some kind of scientific   
   breakthrough that enables that, then we admit we were wrong, and update our   
   models of the world.   
      
   Until that happens, and frankly, based on the very nature of us as material   
   beings, I do not see any way in which that could happen, parallel universes are   
   just "null and void" and should not be engaged in, except as fun speculation   
   and   
   poetry and religion for scientists who do not enjoy traditional religions.   
      
   > 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'.   
      
   If it cannot be observed, or has no effect on the world, it doesn't exist.   
   Leaving that aside, you are more than welcome to engage in MWI speculation if   
   you want, just don't confuse it with science or any knowledge about the world.   
      
   You are a scientific realist, right? I think that fundamental difference   
   between   
   us, is the heart of the disagreement here.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)