Maybe I've missed this too, but it seems that Eliezer is describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow.
Then the electrons are identical because they follow from a certain configuration, they are not things-in-themselves. That's a very strong claim, and sufficient to handle "there might be something we don't know about electrons".
Unless I've misunderstood the whole thrust of the posts, which is possible.
The only thing you've missed is the Eliezer could be wrong in describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow. Or they could be, but there could be another factor that we have no evidence of until future experiments that 'individualise' the amplitude flows.
If QM is right, which it almost certainly is, and as long as there is no factor connected to the amplitude flow that hides by not interacting in a way we can detect, then Eliezer is right. But if either of those two things turn out not to be true, then he is wrong. And as unlikely as that is, it's possible that that will happen. You can't 'prove' anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can only ever say "If we are right about what we are seeing, then the evidence we have fits these conclusions the best. And until such time we find evidence that we are mistaken we shall accept these conclusions."
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
And making the claim that one aspect of a theory being wrong invalidates the whole, is just as presumptuous as saying that a theory is simply correct, no questions.
Well that's just plain wrong.
A theory that says 'x is true, but it implies y: No y, no x' can be useful. QM is the most experimentally validated theory we have, but one of its implications is the relative identity of quanta. Eliezer will whack me if he doesn't like this, but particles in quantum mechanics are, by theoretical definition, identical. Any further discoveries that suggest otherwise break our well-tested theory of QM, rather than adding some unexpected detail to it.
Yes, but isn't that what this hypothetical philosopher ought to be arguing, if he is not already. That it is entirely possible that new things will be discovered that break this well tested theory, therefore you cannot say that you have proven these particles to be identical, merely that as best we know currently, if our theories are correct, then they are identical.