Evolution Demonstrated In A Laboratory

[Bomb#20]

Yes, of course it was wildly wrong. In 1895 the understanding of mechanics was that time and space were absolute, that shells didn't get heavier when heated and accelerated, that the energy delivered to the shell by radiation from the hot combustion products was delivered continuously rather than one photon at a time, and that the laws explaining what happens when you fire a gun are deterministic rather than probabilistic. It is perfectly possible for a theory to be wildly wrong in a dozen ways and still give a very close approximation to a correct prediction. Bilby's assumption that we are not in an analogous position today is unsupported.

And you say this based on your expertise as a physicist?

No. What's your point?

what exactly do you think “wrong” means in physics? I think I know how you would answer that but I find it likely that a physicist would answer it differently than you.

Are you suggesting that "wrong" is a technical term owned by physicists? It's a plain English term owned by native English speakers. A physics degree confers no special expertise on the meaning of plain English words; I find it likely that ten physicists would give ten definitions that would be roughly as divergent as the definitions of ten engineers or ten lawyers or ten doctors.

When I call a theory wrong I mean the theory relies on postulates that are grossly contrary to reality; I don't mean it makes inaccurate predictions or contains tunable parameters with values that are a little off from the truth. Ptolemaic astronomy is a canonical example of a wrong theory. It made predictions of planetary movements that were more accurate than Copernicus' theory; that doesn't save it from wrongness. Ptolemaic astronomy relied on the assumption that planets reversed in the sky because of epicycles. There are no epicycles. Planets reverse in the sky because the Earth is in orbit and catches up with them, just like Copernicus said. Copernicus's theory was less accurate than Ptolemy's because it was wrong too -- it relied on the postulate that orbits are circles. When science works the way it's supposed to, new theories replace old ones when postulates grossly contrary to reality are discarded and replaced with postulates less grossly contrary to reality, regardless of whether that's a step forward or backward in precision. Likewise, classical mechanics relies on the postulates of absolute space, absolute time, continuity of action and angular momentum, and determinism. These postulates appear to be grossly contrary to reality. Not as contrary as epicycles and circular orbits, but contrary.

If you think "wrong" means something else in physics, suit yourself -- you're every bit as much an owner of the word as I am. If you're so inclined, feel free to explain what it means to you. And I'm happy to pick a different word for relying on postulates that are grossly contrary to reality. But what we call it isn't the issue. I didn't introduce the word; bilby did. If you think there's a meaning of the word "wrong" that makes "Our understanding of fundamental physics is so wildly wrong that almost none of our modern technology should work at all." a fair characterization of all scenarios in which an alien intelligence can interact with a human other than by exerting strong, weak or electromagnetic forces on her, share.

 

[steve_bank]

I woud argue usng the word wrong for scince.

Models are built. Plug in numbers you get predictable results of experiments. Newton;s Laws.

When an experiment does not wok based on existing theory a new n model is developed. Newtonian physics did not properly model black body radiation. A new model is developed, quantum mechanics.

More recently observation was found to not match cosmology. Along comes dark matter.

I do not think right or wrong applies to science.

Whatever ultimate reality is we have no way of knowing if our science ever reveals that. We have no reference point from which to judge.

Newton's Laws are still a cornerstine of applied science.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

 

[pood]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

I think this demonstrates why trying to think about the “true nature of reality” may not be what we should do with physics.

Let’s say one day we come up with a theory of gravity that uses gravitons to mediate a force and becomes fully compliant with quantum mechanics and reproduces all the observable effects of GR. We will then say that curved spacetime is “grossly contrary” to reality. And that we were “wrong” to ever think it was accurate, despite its success at making useful predictions.

This can become a never ending spiral of philosophy. It may be an unsatisfactory answer to say that physics isn’t revealing reality but perhaps it isn’t.

 

[pood]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

But what about Ptolemey’s geocentric model? Surely it was “grossly contrary” to reality, and yet it worked just fine and dandy for navigation and other calculational purposes for over a thousand years.

I think this demonstrates why trying to think about the “true nature of reality” may not be what we should do with physics.

Let’s say one day we come up with a theory of gravity that uses gravitons to mediate a force and becomes fully compliant with quantum mechanics and reproduces all the observable effects of GR. We will then say that curved spacetime is “grossly contrary” to reality. And that we were “wrong” to ever think it was accurate, despite its success at making useful predictions.

This can become a never ending spiral of philosophy. It may be an unsatisfactory answer to say that physics isn’t revealing reality but perhaps it isn’t.

Well, yes, I think that was kind of Bomb’s point, wasn’t it? Bibly wrote option 4: “Our understanding of fundamental physics is so wildly wrong that almost none of our modern technology should work at all.”

But, actually, it seems our technology could indeed work even if our understaneint of fundamental physics is wrong —- perhaps not wildly wrong, but wrong nonetheless. Sailors and others swore by Potelemy for over a thousand years (and that WAS wildly wrong). We know GR and QM are in conflict and so one or both must be “wrong” to some extent or incomplete, but that doesn’t stop us from doing good science with both. In any case, all theories are undetermined by data.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Now you know why I was taking issue with the word “wrong” in these discussions.

But perhaps that’s just my personal nit to pick and others are welcome to disagree with me.

I recall an episode of Saturday Night Live with Steve Martin as a medieval barber treating patients. He says to one “in the old days we would have said your bodily humors were imbalanced, but now we know that it’s caused by a small gnome living in your stomach.”

The Greeks were arrogantly sure that the planets must move in circles because they were perfect shapes. We must try to avoid believing that physics is revealing some kind of “true” reality. I’m happy to leave that to the philosophers.

Astronomers were once so sure that the Sun was made out of the same materials as the Earth that they practically laughed away some woman’s idea that it was mostly hydrogen.

Dark matter, dark energy, inflation may all prove to someday be epicycles of cosmology. Who knows.

I think Billy’s point, however, is reasonably valid, in that if there were some kind of macroscopic force that could influence us it’s likely we would have detected it by now with the kings of equipment we have. And if we can’t scientifically detect it to what extent is it useful to say that it is “real”?

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Elixir]

if we can’t scientifically detect it to what extent is it useful to say that it is “real”?

I think that is dependent upon one's intent.
Gods cannot be scientifically detected, but they are useful even if they only "exist" as concepts. That makes them "real" enough for pretend games like religions.

They are extremely useful to professional theologians, preachers (especially megachurch preachers) and believers who, without the god concept, would otherwise be less content or less happy, or, lacking any internal moral compass, might become a danger to themselves or society. Gods are only useless in the scientific sense, where "usefulness" implies some explanatory or predictive power, rather than just subjective, palliative value.

 

[pood]

We could conceive that that the universe is indeed a simulation, with some higher intelligence programming it. If the setup is such that there is no way, even in principle, that we could detect this programmer, or its environment external to us, whatever that may be like, or its effects on us — perhaps the programmer, not liking some result, Command-Zs it and starts over again, and none of us are any the wiser — of what use is the programmer to us? He/she/it could be real and yet utterly irrelevant to our science or to our daily lives in any way. It’s kind of like the deistic conception of God, a creator who got the universal ball rolling and then went away. OK, maybe he/she/it does exist — so what?

 

[Elixir]

We could conceive that that the universe is indeed a simulation, with some higher intelligence programming it. If the setup is such that there is no way, even in principle, that we could detect this programmer, or its environment external to us, whatever that may be like, or its effects on us — perhaps the programmer, not liking some result, Command-Zs it and starts over again, and none of us are any the wiser — of what use is the programmer to us? He/she/it could be real and yet utterly irrelevant to our science or to our daily lives in any way. It’s kind of like the deistic conception of God, a creator who got the universal ball rolling and then went away. OK, maybe he/she/it does exist — so what?

Yeah, most credible forms of gods are, by the definitions I offered, utterly useless scientifically. And as palliative treatment, such gods are totally weak sauce, having no power (even theoretical) to intercede in the real world on behalf of their believers. Useful gods have to have real world magical powers, or what's the point in believing in them?

 

[steve_bank]

Imagining we are in a simulation is just a modern version of god the creator.

 

[Bomb#20]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

I don't mean to rathole on terminogy; we're all free to use words in whatever way seems best to us. But I'd point out that Flat Earth was once a highly successful theory that had been in use successfully for millennia. It's missing a factor that needs to be included to make even more accurate predictions, but that factor, the average curvature of the earth, is 0.00000015679. It's an extremely small quantity, which explains why it took humankind thousands of years to notice it. Round Earth is just a more complete theory of geometry.

Likewise, Newton's theory of gravitation makes predictions that are demonstrably false. It predicts the existence of the planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. It predicts that light passing near the sun will be bent by the sun's gravity only half as much as it actually is. It predicts that two neutron stars in orbit around each other will continue orbiting each other forever rather than eventually radiating their energy away in gravity waves, spiralling down into lower and lower orbits, and eventually crashing into each other, exploding, and spewing gold into the interstellar medium; consequently, every nugget of gold panned out of a river is more disproof of Newton's law of gravity.

I think judging theories only on accuracy of prediction is misguided. Aesthetics, simplicity, and tunability are important too. Tunability is a big one -- the trouble with Ptolemaic Astronomy is that it's way too tunable, so it's susceptible to "overfitting" -- being made more accurate by endless fiddling rather than by improving understanding. In that sense, Flat Earth is a much better theory than Ptolemaic Astronomy, because its underlying postulates are more testable.

 

[pood]

Likewise, Newton's theory of gravitation makes predictions that are demonstrably false. It predicts the existence of the planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit.

But it also correctly predicted the existence of a planet beyond the orbit of Saturn. Newton’s theory works — to a limit.,

 

[Bomb#20]

Simulations are a part of reality, not an alternative to it.

Simulations are NOT a part of the things they are simulating. If reality itself is a simulation, then the simulation is not a part of reality, and nothing we can do from within reality can tell us anything about the greater reality inhabited by the simulator(s).

You appear to be using "reality" in a funny sense, to mean something like "The subset of things in reality that are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio". "Reality itself" is not a simulation -- "reality" includes everything, which means it includes all the simulators, which means "reality itself is a simulation" is a circular explanation, exactly like "All life was created by God".

As for whether the subset of reality you're labeling "reality" has the ability to find out about the subset of reality you're labeling "greater reality", what's your point? You claimed a hypothetical god-candidate would have to interact with humans using some force/particle/field that's pretty much like the ones we already know about "Because our theoretical physics says that the ones we know about cannot interact with any unknown ones." No, our theoretical physics doesn't say that. If it were to say they can't interact with any unknown ones in a way that can tell us anything about the greater reality inhabited by the simulator(s), that might well be true but it doesn't support your contention. Whether we are in a simulation is a separate question from whether we can find out we're in a simulation. Whether there's a god-candidate tampering with individual humans' minds is a separate question from whether we can find out there's a god-candidate tampering with individual humans' minds. You appear to be systematically conflating the question of whether god-candidate hypotheses are useful with the question of whether they're true.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's generally taken for granted in theoretical physics that the ones we know about do interact with unknown ones. Some of the unknown ones are given place-holder names like "dark matter", "dark energy", "inflaton field" and so forth; and there are a hundred other possible unknown ones physicists are actively trying to turn into known ones in pursuit of Nobel Prizes.

And not a single one of them has the ability to influence a single human being (but not simultaneously influence every human on the planet in the exact same way) without destroying him.

Not a single one of the ones you've heard about has that ability. You don't know whether that's the case for the hundred other possible unknown ones physicists are working on. We won't know until they publish and peer reviewers have analyzed the implications of their proposals.

And if it turns out you're right that none of their ideas would support that ability, what of it? That might merely mean that the technology to use future physics discoveries to bypass currently known forces and influence a single human is two thousand years in the future and seems as implausible as sending an invisible message fifteen billion miles from a machine in space to a control room on earth would have seemed to Aristotle. Science progresses by incremental advance, not by revelation. You can't go from a Copernicus to an Einstein without a Kepler in between; you can't go from current physics to 4000 AD physics without the 2000 years worth of intervening discoveries.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can you name and/or quote this individual(s)?
Science is a methodology and is totally ambivalent about gods. It doesn’t counter (falsify) anything, evidence does. Falsifying a tri-Omni magical creator is not possible in principle,...

Sure it is -- the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being would imply no evil exists. We observe that evil exists. This falsifies the tri-Omni magical creator hypothesis.

 

[steve_bank]

Sigh...back to arguing definitions.

There is a saying 'Science always works' meaning it does not matter how you think about it, with stated bounds it works in application.

Ancient Zog and his pals observed the sky and were sure everything revolved around the Earth and the Earth was the center of the universe. Was Zog wrong, or did Zog make a ligcal conclusion based on the limits of his observation?

Are particle physicists and cosmologists a little like Zog? I think so. We are limited by our insrements these days not our eyes.

When I first read in QM that there was a search for hidden variables, none were found, therefor there are no hidden variables I laughed.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I just disagree that Newtonian mechanics is “grossly contrary” to reality. It is a highly successful theory that has been in use successfully for centuries.

Just because there are factors that might need to be included to make even more accurate predictions doesn’t mean it is wrong.

And just because Einstein’s GR is a more complete theory of gravitation doesn’t make Newton’s theory of gravitation “wrong” or “grossly contrary” to reality either.

Reality is something we only understand through our ability to model it and check predictions of theories against observations. Wrongness is related to how inaccurate a theory is.

Flat earth is a good example of a model that is “grossly contrary” to reality because it makes predictions that are demonstrably false.

I don't mean to rathole on terminogy; we're all free to use words in whatever way seems best to us. But I'd point out that Flat Earth was once a highly successful theory that had been in use successfully for millennia. It's missing a factor that needs to be included to make even more accurate predictions, but that factor, the average curvature of the earth, is 0.00000015679. It's an extremely small quantity, which explains why it took humankind thousands of years to notice it. Round Earth is just a more complete theory of geometry.

Likewise, Newton's theory of gravitation makes predictions that are demonstrably false. It predicts the existence of the planet Vulcan inside Mercury's orbit. It predicts that light passing near the sun will be bent by the sun's gravity only half as much as it actually is. It predicts that two neutron stars in orbit around each other will continue orbiting each other forever rather than eventually radiating their energy away in gravity waves, spiralling down into lower and lower orbits, and eventually crashing into each other, exploding, and spewing gold into the interstellar medium; consequently, every nugget of gold panned out of a river is more disproof of Newton's law of gravity.

I think judging theories only on accuracy of prediction is misguided. Aesthetics, simplicity, and tunability are important too. Tunability is a big one -- the trouble with Ptolemaic Astronomy is that it's way too tunable, so it's susceptible to "overfitting" -- being made more accurate by endless fiddling rather than by improving understanding. In that sense, Flat Earth is a much better theory than Ptolemaic Astronomy, because its underlying postulates are more testable.

It appears we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of physics and its theories, probably due to the differences we have had in experiencing them.

Based on your comments, I doubt we will come to any mutual agreement so I am happy to bow out of this discussion.

I get what you’re saying though. I just wouldn’t characterize something like Newton’s theories as “grossly contrary to reality” simply because it has a well-understood limit to the realm of its applicability. Einstein’s GR reduces to Newton’s theories in the appropriate part of parameter space. We don’t teach our undergraduates to use full GR to calculate the ballistic trajectory of a tennis ball irrespective of how “more correct” the theory is. In essence when they use Newton’s equations they *are* using GR in its simplified forms, after removing the negligible terms. Small angle approximations are used in physics all the time even though they are “wrong”. Any use of a perturbation theory is technically “wrong” if you decide to follow the rabbit hole of this line of thinking. Bohr’s model of the atom was “wrong”. GR may one day be “wrong”.

Having been a professional practitioner of physics for a few decades I’ve grown to have an understanding that I find differs from that of the layman and science popularizer. But maybe I’m the one who is wrong. That’s ok with me. I won’t try an argument from authority.

Anyway, before I take my leave I would say that flat earth has never been a “theory” in the sense of what that word means to me. It was disproven millennia ago. Long before the science of physics was even invented. Right now a middle schooler could walk outside on any given day and disprove it. The comparison to Newton is laughable.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Ancient Greeks had lots of whacky ideas about the Earth, sun, moon, stars etc. Arisrotle's "On The Heavens" is an encyclopedia of as many ancient Greek thinkers` speculations as he could dig up. This book has more weird nonsense in it than any book not written by L. Ron Hubbard. Worth a read to correct any wrong impressions the ancient Greeks were all geniuses and careful observers. Of course a few were closer to the facts than others.

 

[Elixir]

the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being would imply no evil exists. We observe that evil exists.

Not unless you’re omniscient. God knows that what you call evil is a necessary element for what He wishes you to experience on this earth. It’s pure hubris to assume that what you call evil has no Godly purpose.
Plus, you’re going to Hell for saying that!!!!