...should continue to pay rent in future anticipations
With an exception for the implied invisible, which does not pay rent in future anticipations. And infinite sets as an exception of the exception, which might be implied but not required.
Someone who isn’t well-read in LWish could suspect that it is convenient not to ask how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might pay rent in future anticipations, even though one could reason correctly about the physical world without it, yet in the case of infinite sets it is convenient to ignore their implications because that would lead to very strange things happening.
With an exception for the implied invisible, which does not pay rent in future anticipations.
It seems to pay rent in not having to store a more complex theory that says things behave differently when a human doesn’t see them. My previous elaboration on this theme.
Edit: I’m a bit hesitant in defending it this way because I’m not sure if this standard for what pays rent is overbroad.
With an exception for the implied invisible, which does not pay rent in future anticipations. And infinite sets as an exception of the exception, which might be implied but not required.
Someone who isn’t well-read in LWish could suspect that it is convenient not to ask how an interpretation of quantum mechanics might pay rent in future anticipations, even though one could reason correctly about the physical world without it, yet in the case of infinite sets it is convenient to ignore their implications because that would lead to very strange things happening.
It seems to pay rent in not having to store a more complex theory that says things behave differently when a human doesn’t see them. My previous elaboration on this theme.
Edit: I’m a bit hesitant in defending it this way because I’m not sure if this standard for what pays rent is overbroad.
Belief in the implied invisible also pays a little rent in anticipated experience conditional on improbable observations.