From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   D  writes:   
      
   > On Wed, 26 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >>> https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/construc   
   ive-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.   
      
   Unobservable by us, as things currently stand.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   We could go through a worm hole. Worm holes are a theoretical   
   possibility, but none has yet been observed. But if one were found, it   
   would be observable.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Empiricism isn't about any particular 'us', otherwise I might assert   
   that mount Everest doesn't exist because I have never seen it and can't   
   afford to go there. Truly objective theories about reality would be for   
   any observer, human or non human. Did quasars exist when dinosaurs   
   roamed the earth?   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   This is odd as it suggests that things change from being nonsense to   
   being true as we discover them. But you still misuse the word   
   nonsense. You mean it is unknowable, specifically, unknowable by us, in   
   this universe, at this time, with what we know.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   I don't know what that is, but I doubt that there are any scientific   
   realists. Nobody can work out what is real since Werner Heisenberg and   
   Co. So my position is that I am bewildered and I am trying to think it   
   through.   
      
   Although what you say makes sense, there is something wrong with it I   
   think, and I am trying to put my finger on what it is. If I put it in a   
   vague way I'd have to say it is too pragmatic. Specifically though it   
   seems to be around the idea of a model as a prediction, and a model as a   
   cause. So, when you talk about something having an effect, to me, that   
   word effect implies cause, cause and effect. So the assertion that an   
   electron for example causes an image on a CRT implies cause and   
   effect. Now if the electron causes the image, it must exist. But it   
   cannot be observed directly, only the effect can be observed. Now if the   
   electron were a parallel universe, this would be a show stopper for you,   
   saying it can never be observed or have an effect. But you don't   
   actually know that the electron has an effect. All you know is the CRT   
   image was predicted by a model, of which the electron is a part.   
      
   You could make it easier just to say the electron is maths, and part of   
   a mathematical model which predicts CRT images (among other things). But   
   this case is not in principle different from the parallel universe   
   case. You can never observe a parallel universe. You can never observe   
   an electron. They are both 'nonsense'. Only the CRT is real.   
      
   And I have just read recently that Werner Heisenberg originally came up   
   with an idea of using matrices to predict the behaviour of   
   electrons. And only later was it suggested that electrons were waves, or   
   wave like. It made the maths easier for people who are used to waves,   
   but only for one electron. When more were involved it got worse. But   
   would we entertain the idea that things are made of matricides? I think   
   not, I think it would only be a model, a predictive model.   
      
   There is also something problematic around the idea of an observer. In   
   quantum experiments, the observer has an effect on the results. But it   
   would be strange if only scientists or people could be observers. In   
   fact what affects the results is other objects which are affected. So,   
   another interpretation is that all things appear differently to all   
   other things. And the properties of things are not in the things   
   themselves, but in the relations between them and other things.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)