From: ed@somewhere.in.the.uk   
      
   Richmond wrote:   
   > 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/constru   
   tive-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.   
      
   I suppose old Aristotle would have a heavy learning curve if he suddenly   
   time-shifted to our epoch.  (:-   
      
   As would Copernicus; and even Newton.   
   C'est la vie scientifique. Les choses changent.   
      
   Ed   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)