4 ms·

Could you bring any example where non-testable hypothesis have mattered in science, or even have been proposed? As far as i can tell the p-zombie argument is a

by chr1 2y ago

Could you bring any example where non-testable hypothesis have mattered in science, or even have been proposed? As far as i can tell the p-zombie argument is a variant 2=3 "proofs" with hidden division by 0. People claim as truth a proposition with no consequence,then claim that a proposition they want to prove follows from it. It does not elucidate anything. The limited variant of the argument which predicts something does help in understanding the limits, but p-zombie supporters do not like that argument because it also shows the boundaries of what brain sciences can't say, and that is not much.

hackinthebochs 2y ago
>Could you bring any example where non-testable hypothesis have mattered in science, or even have been proposed? If you think of science as just a collection of empirical data, then you won't find any value in untestable hypotheses. If you think of science as an enterprise that's aimed towards explanations about the world, then conceptual data matters. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are a fruitful ground for non-testable conceptual work to be relevant to science. Here is one example[1] of the Many Worlds interpretation providing conceptual and intuitive support that helped advance quantum computing. But beyond that, what an experiment tells us depends on our conceptual framework. When we hear a click in a Geiger counter, are we merely detecting clicks in this particular device, or are we detecting electrons out in the world? This isn't something that an experiment will decide for us. The conceptual framework we are operating with allows us to say the click isn't just the detector going off, and our model of these clicks isn't just predicting when this device will click in the future, but rather that our experiments are detecting the existence of actual electrons too small to interact with without special devices. [1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59346/does-quantum-computing-rely-on-particular-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/59435#59435 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59346/does-quant...
- chr1 2y ago
  Interpretations of quantum mechanics are testable, they have to produce quantum mechanics, which puts a very narrow constraint on possible theories. The equivalent of p-zombie hypothesis with quantum mechanics would be if one said that particles in addition to coordinates have to be described by one more variable, which does not affect any of other equations of motion. These type of theories do not have to obey any constraint, and you can trivially produce an infinite amount of them. You can say that this kind of variable has different value for particles in human brain, therefore study of this additional variable is more important than the study of the rest of physics. But this won't improve your understanding of either the brain or physics, just like p-zombie hypothesis does not.
  - hackinthebochs 2y ago
    >Interpretations of quantum mechanics are testable, they have to produce quantum mechanics, which puts a very narrow constraint on possible theories. No, this is not what anyone means by a theory being testable. An interpretation of QM by assumption reproduces all the same results of QM. That's why its an interpretation. In the same way, the p-zombie thought experiment by assumption reproduces all of physics without any deviation. QM interpretations and the p-zombie argument are on the same footing here. >These type of theories do not have to obey any constraint, and you can trivially produce an infinite amount of them. This just shows a lack of understanding of what the p-zombie argument is claiming. Perhaps revisit your initial misconceptions rather than piling on the mistakes?
    - chr1 2y ago
      Interpretation of QM does not "reproduce results by assumption", it provides a computational scheme for obtaining equations of QM. P-zombie argument on the other hand does not produce anything.

by chr1 2y ago

hackinthebochs 2y ago

>Could you bring any example where non-testable hypothesis have mattered in science, or even have been proposed? If you think of science as just a collection of empirical data, then you won't find any value in untestable hypotheses. If you think of science as an enterprise that's aimed towards explanations about the world, then conceptual data matters. Interpretations of quantum mechanics are a fruitful ground for non-testable conceptual work to be relevant to science. Here is one example[1] of the Many Worlds interpretation providing conceptual and intuitive support that helped advance quantum computing. But beyond that, what an experiment tells us depends on our conceptual framework. When we hear a click in a Geiger counter, are we merely detecting clicks in this particular device, or are we detecting electrons out in the world? This isn't something that an experiment will decide for us. The conceptual framework we are operating with allows us to say the click isn't just the detector going off, and our model of these clicks isn't just predicting when this device will click in the future, but rather that our experiments are detecting the existence of actual electrons too small to interact with without special devices. [1] https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59346/does-quantum-computing-rely-on-particular-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/59435#59435 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59346/does-quant...

chr1 2y ago
Interpretations of quantum mechanics are testable, they have to produce quantum mechanics, which puts a very narrow constraint on possible theories. The equivalent of p-zombie hypothesis with quantum mechanics would be if one said that particles in addition to coordinates have to be described by one more variable, which does not affect any of other equations of motion. These type of theories do not have to obey any constraint, and you can trivially produce an infinite amount of them. You can say that this kind of variable has different value for particles in human brain, therefore study of this additional variable is more important than the study of the rest of physics. But this won't improve your understanding of either the brain or physics, just like p-zombie hypothesis does not.
- hackinthebochs 2y ago
  >Interpretations of quantum mechanics are testable, they have to produce quantum mechanics, which puts a very narrow constraint on possible theories. No, this is not what anyone means by a theory being testable. An interpretation of QM by assumption reproduces all the same results of QM. That's why its an interpretation. In the same way, the p-zombie thought experiment by assumption reproduces all of physics without any deviation. QM interpretations and the p-zombie argument are on the same footing here. >These type of theories do not have to obey any constraint, and you can trivially produce an infinite amount of them. This just shows a lack of understanding of what the p-zombie argument is claiming. Perhaps revisit your initial misconceptions rather than piling on the mistakes?
  - chr1 2y ago
    Interpretation of QM does not "reproduce results by assumption", it provides a computational scheme for obtaining equations of QM. P-zombie argument on the other hand does not produce anything.