[ExI] teachers

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, 4:06 PM Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

My point is not a single other accepted theory in physics even proposes
laws that are nondeterministic. This isn't about definitions, but rather,
how much of an outlier the idea of wave function collapse is, when compared
to every other theory and idea in physics.



> 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.
>

Yes they could reverse the system and return it to its original
superposition. But if collapse is real, it can't be undone.



>
>>   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.
>

None of these are physical theories. This is just a mathematical definition
of discontinuities. Find a theory in physics that proposes laws that are
discontinuous.


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.
>

Even the technological singularity is driven by continuous laws (putting
aside wave function collapse).


>
>> 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.
>

That would be one argument, but over time we would try repeating and
refining the experiment, running the computation farther or less far, until
we identify the point it is no longer reversible, and then we would have
empirical evidence for when collapse happens, and the point at which it can
no longer be reversed.



> 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.
>

I disagree. Look at what happened a few years ago when they thought they
found evidence that neutrinos were faster than light. People didn't know if
it was real or an experimental error. They kept investigating until they
determined which of the two it was. I see no reason the same wouldn't
eventually happen here. There's no reason science would get stuck forever
on this experimental result, never being able to determine if the
experimental setup was flawed.



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

I see no reason to assume such a dispute could never be resolved.



> 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.
>

That's the idea behind reproducibility. If people think the setup was bad
they try again with a different setup, to see if they get a different
result or not. Do this enough times and eventually evidence tends to
support one side or the other.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230829/7cd691fb/attachment.htm>