From: ed@somewhere.in.the.uk   
      
   Richmond wrote:   
   > 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/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   
   > 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'.   
   >   
      
   Ptolemy accepted the theory of Aristotle; who believed that between 43   
   and 55 crystalline spheres orbited on different axes around a stationary   
   Earth. That was the underlying mechanism.   
   I think Copernicus believed in something similar, but around the sun.   
   In fact it wasn't until Isaac Newton and his gravity theories that the   
   Aristotelian model was abandoned.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)