From: dnomhcir@gmx.com   
      
   Ed Cryer  writes:   
      
   > 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/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   
   >> 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.   
      
   It must have been a puzzle to him that these spheres didn't fall down to   
   earth. The invisible weightless aether solution doesn't seem very   
   satisfactory.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)