(April 14, 2015 at 1:53 am)Nestor Wrote:(April 14, 2015 at 12:57 am)Chuck Wrote: No. That particular argument settles only that something from Fukushima is somehow correlated with damage and death. It doesn't settle whether there are real particles there in the something or somehow, or are the particles merely an unreal idea mistakenly assigned responsibility that rightly belong to a real something else.(Bold mine)
But unless we're going to claim that all material causes and effects we perceive---and not simply their formulaic interactions that account for the "why" of the paths on which they proceed---are abstract, isn't it natural to presume that the "real something else" is physical? (Does it matter if we call it a particle or wave?)
Can you tell me what you mean specifically by "physical" and "abstract"? I like to use terms knowing how they will be interpreted.
