CSflim

I'm not trying to be profound, merely sensible.

I did not state if X then X, what I said was:

if parallel universes exist then they exist whether or not we observe them.

Stated another way:
Things don't need to be observed in order to exist.

Quote:

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.

Ok. I accept that. But I think this is a dangerous example, as since the question is "do unobserved things exist?", when you speak of QM, you are liable to me misunderstood, due to the fact thet there is another "interpretation" which may appear relevant.

You are saying that there are "many worlds", all of which objectively exist, regardless of our inability to interact with them.

By using QM you could be misunderstood as refering to the "nothing exists unless it is observed" claim.

I think a much less ambigous example would be brane theory,

Quote:

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.

Sure. I agree with you on this one. In fact, I find it very likely that there are other universes. I don't mean this in the "every possible world exists" quantum mechanical way, just that, just as there are other planets, other strars, other galaxies, there could be other universes, the difference being, a universe is (probably) causally closed, planets and galaxies aren't.

__________________