3 ms·

I wonder if you could explain your critique in more detail. One of the constructor theory papers under discussion in this thread describes a physical experiment

I wonder if you could explain your critique in more detail. One of the constructor theory papers under discussion in this thread describes a physical experiment that was done [1]. In what sense is this not physics? [1] https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.080401 https://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.080...

whatshisface 4y ago
The paper contains an experiment analyzed according to the pre-existing theoretical framework for that kind of experiment, and it also contains some phrases phrased in the language of constructor theory. You could take the constructor theory language out and have the same paper. In the scientific sense, it is not enough to show that your system agrees with experiments to say it is true, you also have to show that the alternatives do not agree with experiments. Constructor theory is metaphysical because you'd get the same analysis whether you used it, ad-hoc intuitive thinking (in practice, people do not need instruction on universal principles like cause and effect), or some other alternative. All of the non-intuitive weight in that paper is borne by the QM stuff that exists independently of constructor theory, and in contrast, if you changed that the answers would start coming out wrong. I am not proposing that this captures the essence of positivism, but one test that you can apply to check new ideas without going through the trouble of understanding them is to see whether they introduce any new conclusions that could not have been obtained under previous frameworks. If not, they may be metaphysical re-arrangements of existing ideas.
- boole1854 4y ago
  It seems to me that a theory which uses precise, hard-to-vary explanations to make falsifiable statements about observables is in fact a scientific theory. One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. This is demonstrated via the experiment. So I'm afraid I do not understand your remark that "you could take the constructor theory language out and have the same paper". Taking the constructor theory language out would undermine a major point the authors are trying to make in the paper.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    >One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. Yeah, but known laws are already compatible with themselves. You might make them more comprehensible by establishing a conceptual meta-framework that offers a consistent way to phrase statements about them, but that is clearly a philosophical task.
    - bordercases 4y ago
      The fact it is philosophical does not make it irrelevant to physics. As such to point out the distinction here does little work. I.e. What QM interpenetration do you support and why are the others unendorseable?

whatshisface 4y ago

The paper contains an experiment analyzed according to the pre-existing theoretical framework for that kind of experiment, and it also contains some phrases phrased in the language of constructor theory. You could take the constructor theory language out and have the same paper. In the scientific sense, it is not enough to show that your system agrees with experiments to say it is true, you also have to show that the alternatives do not agree with experiments. Constructor theory is metaphysical because you'd get the same analysis whether you used it, ad-hoc intuitive thinking (in practice, people do not need instruction on universal principles like cause and effect), or some other alternative. All of the non-intuitive weight in that paper is borne by the QM stuff that exists independently of constructor theory, and in contrast, if you changed that the answers would start coming out wrong. I am not proposing that this captures the essence of positivism, but one test that you can apply to check new ideas without going through the trouble of understanding them is to see whether they introduce any new conclusions that could not have been obtained under previous frameworks. If not, they may be metaphysical re-arrangements of existing ideas.

boole1854 4y ago
It seems to me that a theory which uses precise, hard-to-vary explanations to make falsifiable statements about observables is in fact a scientific theory. One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. This is demonstrated via the experiment. So I'm afraid I do not understand your remark that "you could take the constructor theory language out and have the same paper". Taking the constructor theory language out would undermine a major point the authors are trying to make in the paper.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  >One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. Yeah, but known laws are already compatible with themselves. You might make them more comprehensible by establishing a conceptual meta-framework that offers a consistent way to phrase statements about them, but that is clearly a philosophical task.
  - bordercases 4y ago
    The fact it is philosophical does not make it irrelevant to physics. As such to point out the distinction here does little work. I.e. What QM interpenetration do you support and why are the others unendorseable?