[ExI] teachers

[Adrian Tymes]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 12:45 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 2:55 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 7:11 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Take out wave function collapse, and everything in physics becomes
>>> deterministic, reversible, causal, linear, local, and speed-of-light
>>> obeying again.
>>>
>>
>> Not so much, unless you're broadly defining "wave function collapse" as
>> everything in physics that is undeterministic et al.
>>
>
> To my knowledge, wave function collapse is *the only* thing in physics
> that's considered to not be deterministic. If you think otherwise I ask you
> to identify one other thing which isn't.
>
>   For instance, I have not often heard the exact timing of atomic decay to
>> be any sort of wave function collapse,
>>
>
> It involves collapse under the traditional CI. This is why particle decay
> is used as the basis of Shrodinger's cat thought experiment. If we don't
> open the box (and observe it) then the particle is in a superposition of
> having collapsed and not collapsed.
>

Ah.  Then we are talking about circular logic from definitions, as I said
("unless you're broadly defining"): everything undeterministic is wave
function collapse because wave function collapse is defined as everything
undeterministic.

This is not a very useful definition, but I can see it.


> (It is technically possible to jam the emitted particle back into the
>> source atom, which I suppose makes it reversible.)
>>
>
> Putting the particle back together does not reverse the fact that it
> decayed. Nor is this what I mean when I speak about time reversibility.
>

Jam the particle back in, perfectly reflect any photons that were emitted,
et cetera.  It is in theory possible to return to the exact original state
before a given decay event, at least with regard to that particular atom.


>   There are also many discontinuities, across a number of domains, that
>> break linear models.
>>
>
> Name one.
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_discontinuities lists a
few.  Of course, we know of a certain proposed one - physically possible
(or at least not yet proven impossible) even if it hasn't happened yet: the
Singularity, also known as the Technological Singularity.


> 2) I mean, this seems susceptible to a "no true X" fallacy.  "Just because
>> THIS experiment showed collapse, doesn't mean the experiment wouldn't work
>> if done properly.
>>
>
> If course it has to be done properly for the conclusion to be valid.
>

Other way around.  Consider what happens if it is done, collapse happens,
then someone says that because collapse happened it was done improperly.

No amount of evidence can overcome an assertion that any experiment that
fails to reproduce the desired hypothesis can be rejected because it failed
to reproduce the desired hypothesis.

An indefinite series of this makes the theory unfalsifiable in practice.

There needs to be a way for proof to be had that the experiment was done
properly, both if collapse happens and if it does not.  Unfortunately,
rallying around definitions as people are, that the experiment goes one way
or the other is itself taken as evidence that the experiment was done
properly or improperly.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230829/cb447357/attachment.htm>