RolfAndreassen comments on Be careful with thought experiments - Less Wrong

6 Post author: lukeprog 18 May 2012 09:54AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (97)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 20 May 2012 02:55:37AM 0 points [-]

You didn't answer the question. Does XYZ behave like water in every way, or not? If it does, what's the difference? If it doesn't, you can no longer say it replaces water.

Comment author: CuSithBell 20 May 2012 04:53:59AM 1 point [-]

Is the thrust of the thought experiment preserved if we assume that the two versions of water differ on a chemical level, but magically act identically on the macro scale, and in fact are identical except to certain tests that are, conveniently, beyond the technological knowledge of the time period? (Assuming we are allowed to set the thought experiment in the past.)

Surely it's not necessary that the two worlds be completely indistinguishable?

Comment author: DanielLC 20 May 2012 04:49:10AM 0 points [-]

It doesn't behave just like water. It behaves like a simpler model of water. If you look more closely, the difference isn't what you'd expect between a good model of water and a bad model of water. It's what you'd expect between a good model of XeYZn and a bad model of XeYZn.

In other words, it would act like water to a first approximation, but instead of adding the terms you'd expect to make it more accurate, you add the terms you'd use to make an approximation of XeYZn more accurate.