3 ms·
They're unprovable but they're also straightforward applications of basic physical theories to scenarios far afield from what we've previously encountered. Ind
by Symmetry 10y ago
They're unprovable but they're also straightforward applications of basic physical theories to scenarios far afield from what we've previously encountered. Induction isn't a logical inevitability but it is the basis of science and as a matter of practice we assume that if E=mc^2 has been true up to now it will continue to be true. And likewise that it continues to hold true for very large and very small values of m even well beyond values we've experimentally verified. You can posit that E=mc^2 wouldn't apply to masses larger than a galaxy, or that Schrodinger's equation doesn't apply to things with momentums that make their wavefunction undetectably small. Or that, in the steady state, some regions of a microcanonical ensemble won't be swept. But induction says that the equations that apply at one scale apply at another.
- HeavenBanned 10y agoAs a philosopher, I'm hesitant to just let the physicists off the hook with decoherence. Maybe decoherence as we know it is merely a gap in knowledge and the current dogma that the interference pattern is unobservable may be in fact untrue. Maybe it WILL be observable but we haven't gotten there yet and we're just guessing in the meantime using complicated statistics.
- snowwrestler 10y agoThe point of my snarky comment wasn't that these ideas should be rejected outright. My point is that since neither idea can be rejected or accepted based on current scientific understanding, it seems silly to ask whether one can "save us" from the other. EDIT: I'm also somewhat disappointed that no one on HN has dinged me for spelling "provable" two different ways in one sentence (which I just noticed and will leave for the humor value).