Quote:
CSFilm and/or 1 million monkeys typed:
Let me say this much: Quantum Mechanics is irrelevant.
|
Sure, but:
Quote:
CSFilm sent this out into the void:
So with this in mind, taking a realist stance on things, parallell universes (if they exist) exist, regardless of whether we can observe them or not.
|
I used it to explain how I find it convienient to believe that parallell universes exist. Meanwhile, you made the statement (If X then X) when answering the question of parallell universes, a meaningless tautology. A implies A is not a deep statement.
The example of QM has let me speak about "universes which have no connection to our own" in a coherant way. I apologize if you find me using this particular example irrelevant, but you are wrong.
I am not claiming things don't exist because I can't see them.
I am not claiming things don't exist because nobody can see them.
I can not claiming that parallel universes don't exist because they can't interact with me.
I am not claiming things exist even if I can't see them.
I am not claiming that things exist even if nobody can see them.
I am not claiming that parallel universes exist dispite the fact they cannot interact with me.
I am saying that treating things as existing, even if I cannot see them, or someone else cannot see them, or sometimes if they cannot interact with our reality, is sometimes useful.
If you ask me "does a universe which has no connection to our own, and is in no way useful or interesting to assume exist, exist?", I'd ask why you cared. =)
There is no excluded middle: you can lack both an objective and subjective view of reality.
Talking less strictly, you can use words loosely, and say "the universe outside the room exists", rather than "I find it convienient to assume the universe outside the room exists". But, I personally just use the loose words as a convienient shorthand.
Quote:
Mantus, between eating insects, said:
Another words you can’t claim that something exists unless you have knowledge of it. Since you describe this universe as something that we cannot experience it would mean that we couldn’t have any knowledge of it.
|
There are places and things which can never come into contact with me anymore, but whose existance makes some math and physics easier and simpler in my estimation. There is no way to prove or disprove the assumption they go "poof" once they can no longer interact with me.
I will claim it exists, even though I have no knowledge of its continued existance. I cannot prove it exists. There is no way to disprove it exists.
I will claim it exists because it makes my life fractionally easier. It's existance is Foma[
?]. Your existance to me is also Foma. But, that's good enough for me.