From: nospam@example.net   
      
   On Mon, 31 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
      
   > D  writes:   
   >   
   >> Nope. Electrons have properties which we can measure, and which have   
   >> effects on the world.   
   >   
   > (This really is begging the question, though you disagree). I thought we   
   > had agreed that electrons are theoretical, mathematical, tools for   
   > thought? Now they have gone back to being causes of affects, thus   
      
   No, I think you misunderstand me. Yes, electrons are tools, mental tools   
   or abstractions we use to reason. But they have properties which we can   
   measure.   
      
   Electrons are fundamental particles with specific   
   properties, including mass, charge, spin, and wave-particle duality. While   
   their properties can be described in terms of energy and wave functions,   
   they are not purely composed of energy.   
      
   So we can measure the properties, although we cannot see the "electron".   
   Does that make it more clear?   
      
   > necessarily physical entities. Unless you want to go down the   
   > Mathematical Universe Theory route, which is fascinating.   
      
      
   > It has just finally occured to me though that when you say electrons   
   > have effects, or are effects, you mean that they are defined in that   
   > way, and so in some sense they are testable. Although it is not the   
   > electron itself which is testable, but whatever effect it produces.   
      
   Yes, exactly!! =) Sorry for being unclear.   
      
   >> Parallel universes do not. Dinosaurs we can theorize about, since it   
   >> is (or was) a phenomenon in this world. We can for instance, bury an   
   >> animal carcass, let it sit for 10 years in the ground, and come to the   
   >> conclusion that it decomposes and bones are left over.   
   >   
   > Fossils are made of stone, so ten years won't do it. But plausibility is   
   > important.   
      
   True. It was an example of how one might deduce from the behaviour of a buried   
   corpse, so speculate that dinosaurs are also remains, although fossilized.   
      
   >> Electrons are effects and porperties in this world, which we can   
   >> measure.   
   >   
   > Still begging the question. But they may be defined as having   
   > effects. They can't be defined as being effects because they can't be   
   > observed.   
      
   See above, let me know if that does not make sense.   
      
   > If I say God makes the leaves grow on trees (as people used to think),   
   > do you then say ah, God has effects which can be measured?   
      
   No, because we explain how leaves grow on trees through biology and chemistry,   
   so god is not necessary.   
      
   But... you are of course welcome to use the word "god" instead of electron, and   
   the theory of electrons, chemistry etc. would work, and you would have shown   
   that god is a mental tool, a component of a theory, and he has charge, mass,   
   spin etc.   
      
   Hardly everyones definition of god, but why not? ;)   
      
   If you are talking about the common definition of god, he is by definition   
   outside of our reality, and has no properties that can be measured. Those are   
   all part of the world.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)