Peter Jones writes:
> By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
> I choose metaphsyics.
> We can posit the unobservable to expalint he observable.
Solipsism is a metaphysical position.
> (BTW: it it is wrong to posit an unobserved substrate, why is it
> OK to posit unobserved worlds/branches ?)
It's debatable, but perhaps MWI is a better and simpler explanation of
the facts of quantum mechanics than is CI, for example. Similarly (but
much more strongly) believing there is a world out there is a better
explanation of the facts than solipsism. But some explanations of physical
phenomena, such as an undetectable ether through which light propagates
have been dropped as unnecessary. And perhaps the propertyless
substrate is more like the ether than the many worlds, in that we can at
least imagine travelling to other branches or detecting them in some way,
whereas the ether and the propertyless substrate are undetectable as
a part of their definition - i.e. if we found evidence of the propertyless
substrate it wouldn't be a propertyless substrate any more.
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at