4 ms·

> I think that's going too far. As far as we know, the symmetries could be baked into reality. Are you aware that the symmetries have been falling and that phy

> I think that's going too far. As far as we know, the symmetries could be baked into reality. Are you aware that the symmetries have been falling and that physicists been retreating? First, parity symmetry fell in 1956, resulting in a retreat to CP symmetry, which also fell. Now we're to CPT symmetry, which implies that there is no time symmetry, which in turn has been verified by physicists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArprk0q9eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yArprk0q9eE

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Well, it implies that charge symmetry, parity symmetry, and time-reversal symmetry are different aspects of the same thing. I'm not sure that's quite "falling", though.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You just admitted that charge symmetry, parity symmetry, and time-reversal symmetry are incomplete. I'm quite sure that the old mental models which held those to be absolute did "fall."
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    You seem to want to play "gotcha" games with my wording. I admitted far less than you seem to want to make my words say. And if you're going to try to manipulate what I said to make it fit the axe you're trying to grind, then I'm done talking to you.
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      You seem to want to play "gotcha" games with my wording. It's not a game. You ironically committed the Map/Territory error, in a Map/Terriotry discussion. A condition of underlying reality where a given symmetry exists, or only appears to exist, can't fall. It either is or isn't. But the mental model -- the Map -- using symmetry can indeed be shown to be false and fall. And if you're going to try to manipulate what I said to make it fit the axe you're trying to grind, then I'm done talking to you. I did no such manipulation. I bet you can't substantiate that with reasoning and quotes. In any case, I am well satisfied to let 3rd parties read and decide for themselves. (Ironic in the Alanis Morrisette sense, not the hipster sense.)
- kolpa 8y ago
  It is falling. The old theory was that these were 3 fundamental facts in the universe. The modern theory is that there is 1 fundamental "triangular" fact, not derivable from simpler facts. That makes the Universe more fundamentally complicated than previously thought. And furthermore, it's not simply that any given random kind of particle is either "Yes or "No" on each of the 3 corners, while constrained to be "Yes" on the combination. There is a strong bias toward Yes in all three points -- which is even more asymmetry than was previously thought possible. (A fact that samples at 100% true or 50% true is far more symmetric than sampling at 98% true -- the bias needs a deeper explanation, or more fundamental parameters of the universe)
ymolodtsov 8y ago
Those are different symmetries.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Well, it implies that charge symmetry, parity symmetry, and time-reversal symmetry are different aspects of the same thing. I'm not sure that's quite "falling", though.

stcredzero 8y ago
You just admitted that charge symmetry, parity symmetry, and time-reversal symmetry are incomplete. I'm quite sure that the old mental models which held those to be absolute did "fall."
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  You seem to want to play "gotcha" games with my wording. I admitted far less than you seem to want to make my words say. And if you're going to try to manipulate what I said to make it fit the axe you're trying to grind, then I'm done talking to you.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    You seem to want to play "gotcha" games with my wording. It's not a game. You ironically committed the Map/Territory error, in a Map/Terriotry discussion. A condition of underlying reality where a given symmetry exists, or only appears to exist, can't fall. It either is or isn't. But the mental model -- the Map -- using symmetry can indeed be shown to be false and fall. And if you're going to try to manipulate what I said to make it fit the axe you're trying to grind, then I'm done talking to you. I did no such manipulation. I bet you can't substantiate that with reasoning and quotes. In any case, I am well satisfied to let 3rd parties read and decide for themselves. (Ironic in the Alanis Morrisette sense, not the hipster sense.)
kolpa 8y ago
It is falling. The old theory was that these were 3 fundamental facts in the universe. The modern theory is that there is 1 fundamental "triangular" fact, not derivable from simpler facts. That makes the Universe more fundamentally complicated than previously thought. And furthermore, it's not simply that any given random kind of particle is either "Yes or "No" on each of the 3 corners, while constrained to be "Yes" on the combination. There is a strong bias toward Yes in all three points -- which is even more asymmetry than was previously thought possible. (A fact that samples at 100% true or 50% true is far more symmetric than sampling at 98% true -- the bias needs a deeper explanation, or more fundamental parameters of the universe)

ymolodtsov 8y ago

Those are different symmetries.