Re: Relational "Space"

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith
> Rosen
> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 9:54 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
>
--snip--
> Why does something need to be perceptible to be accepted as real,
> when there
> are phenomena (effects) that are being caused by it?  We should be able to
> prove its existence indirectly, via the behavior of the effects under
> certain circumstances. The need to "verify the existence of something with
> one's own senses, directly" is right out of the Cartesian methodology.
>
> Judith
>

I disagree that we could prove its existence indirectly. Primarily for the
reason that we could not distinguish this theory from some other different
one which might also purport to explain the causal basis behind phenomena,
if both theories adequately predict phenomena but both consist of
imperceptible things. At best, all we would have is an observation that the
phenomena behave *as if* they were generated by folding. We would not have a
commuting modeling relation, because we could not have measurements on the
elements which possess the hypothesized causal entailment relations.

I think this is akin to the state the quantum mechanics is in (and has been
in all along). It has equations that predict certain phenomena correctly,
but it is unclear if elements in those equations ought to be interpreted as
real things and real causal relations, or not.

Regards,
Tim