= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
h-H comments on Open Thread, August 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (676)
true, but there are no 'negative sheep', only numbers arbitrarily representing them.
but we shouldn't concern ourselves with numbers if they aren't part of our observed universe.
numbers are quite useful, so we don't/shouldn't do away with them, but the math is never a complete substitute for the observable universe.
writing down '20 sheep' doesn't physically equal 20 sheep, rather it's a method we use for simplicity. as it stands, no two sheep are alike to every last detail as far as anyone can tell, yet we still have a category called 'sheep'. this is so given the observed recurrence of 'sheep' like entities, similar enough for us to categorize them for practicality's sake, but that doesn't mean they're physically all alike to every detail.
it could be argued that sometimes the math does equate with reality, as in 'Oxygen atom' is a category consisting of entirely similar things, but even that is not confirmed, simply an assertion; no human has observed all 'Oxygen atoms' in existence to be similar in every detail, or even in some arbitrarily 'essential' detail/s. yet it is enough for the purposes of science to consider them all similar, and so we go with it,otherwise we'd never have coherent thought let alone science.
it might very well be that all Oxygen atoms in existence are physically the same in some ways, but we have no way of actually knowing. this doesn't mean that there are 'individual atoms', but it doesn't negate it either.
ETA: as pengvado said in below post, replace 'atom' with 'particle'.
No Individual Particles. The fact that measurements of their mass/charge/etc have always come out the same, is not the only evidence we have for all particles of a given type being identical.
(A whole oxygen atom is a bad example, though. Atoms have degrees of freedom beyond the types of particles they're made of.)
yes, I had that specific post in mind when I presented the atom example. you're correct here though, I should have said particles,I shouldn't write so late after midnight I guess..
now I admit that my understanding of quantum mechanics is not that much above a lay persons', so maybe I just need to apply myslef more and It'll click, but let's consider my arguement first:- here's what EY said in reply to a post in that thread-emphasis mine: "There can be properties of the particles we don't know about yet, but our existing experiments already show those new properties are also identical, unless the observed universe is a lie."
and then: "Undiscovering this would be like undiscovering that atoms were made out of nucleons and electrons.
It's in this sense that I say that the observed universe would have to be a lie."
here I believe he's making a mistake/displaying a bias; the math-of Quantum Mechanics in this particular instance- does not determine physical reality, rather it describes it to some degree or other.
to suggest that the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the end of the road is too strong a claim IMO.
I don't have any arguments that weren't discussed in that post; so far as I can tell, it already adequately addressed your objection:
QM doesn't have to be the end of the road. If QM is a good approximation of reality on the scales it claims to predict in the situations we have already tested it in -- if the math of QM does describe reality to some degree or other -- then that's enough for the quantum tests of particle identity to work exactly.
to put it mildly I don't believe anyone can address that objection satisfactorily, as wedrifid put it eloquently, the math is part of the map, not territory.
agreed, that was partially my point a couple of posts ago. for practical reasons it's good enough that the math works to a degree.
Uhmm. I hate to explain my own jokes, but ... You did notice the formal similarity between my "we shouldn't concern ourselves" comment and its great grandparent, right?
I noticed, but there was a clear difference that I felt was necessary to point out regardless.
True (only) in the sense that our numbers are part of our map and not the territory. In the same sense we have no way of actually knowing there are patterns in the universe appropriately named Oxygen. Or Frog.
good point about the map/territory distinction, that was what I intended to say but couldn't put into so few words, thanks :)
and no, it seems that not even Frog can escape this, I'm not sure about it's significance here though?