Peter Jones writes:

> By youur definitions, it's a straight choice between metaphysics and
> solipsism.
> 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.

Stathis Papaioannou
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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to