So you're telling a falsehood then? These particles are not of this universe?
More to the point, this move engaging in a special pleading. How it is that our language about the electron and proton means something, but our language about the universe does not? If it were all just a thought experiment that said nothing, our language of proton and electron would not refer. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Can you give an example from science that deomstrates that particles could behave non-detremistically? — Janus
There are 'real possibilities'. That a banana can turn brown is a real possibility, that it can turn into a fish is not. So that 'domain of possibilities' is real but doesn't refer to existents. — Wayfarer
When a change occurs, the same defines it. — TheWillowOfDarkness
You said particles could interact and there could be several different possible outcomes of any actual interaction. Firstly if you are talking about anything more than merely logically possible outcomes then I have no idea what you mean. Secondly I still have no idea what it could mean for you to say that your purported possibilities are non-actual and yet are concrete facts. So, no I dont think what you have said is coherent, because it doesn't make sense as far as I can tell and also because it is not coherent with scientific theory as I understand it. — Janus
No, I would not say that counts as a 'concrete fact", — Janus
We are talking about possibilities, not particles. — Janus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.