Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 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. 

Multiple-worlds are a consequence of dropping the collapse of the wave 
which was inexplicable and ad hoc.  I'm not fond of it either, but it does have 
support of being based on an good empirical model.  Similarly for 
they are implied by our best theory.

>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. 

The lumineferous aether was not only undetectable, it had to have contrdictory 
properties to remain undetected in both Michelson-Morley and stellar aberration.

Brent Meeker

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