News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by lmm on Thursday October 26, 2017 @11:40AM (#15559878)
> what if some outside force were causing the 111 elements transitions to speed up, but that outside force had no effect on the 1 who was immune to that cause? How can we ever be sure of anything?

If two models generate the same predictions, they are the same model, and the simpler (in the Kolgomorov complexity sense) is best understood as the truth (in so far as that concept is meaningful at all). A force acting on everything in the universe except one atom, or a (equal and opposite) force acting on that one atom, is the same thing[1], just as a universe where all distances are multiplied by two is indistinguishable from the current universe. Again, there's no way to make an observation from outside the universe; we can only make relative measurements, observe patterns, and use them to make predictions.

[1] ultimately, this comes down to: they generate the same sense-impressions that I subjectively experience - but for simplicity let's assume an objective universe exists, other humans exist, and we can observe the same things - I believe this assumption is justified as the most parsimonious explanation of the patterns I perceive in the sense-impressions I experience

Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by gowld on Thursday October 26, 2017 @02:01PM (#15561404)
> is best understood as the truth

No! It's preferred as an explanation because it is more elegant and convenient, NOT because it is more true. It is the same true!

Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by nercht12 on Thursday October 26, 2017 @02:28PM (#15561625)
That's just getting into semantics, which is pointless. What is "truth"? Ultimately, that depends on your point of view. If you base it off of experience (which is how you learn about everything in the first place), then the experience is "truth". If you base it off of something "outside" of yourself, that reference point itself becomes "truth". But of course, that reference point - be it real or not - is still something you imagine is there, and therefore might not be real, and the burden of referencing everything to that "source" of truth still falls on that one thing you are trying to avoid: experience. Sorry for being overly philosophical. For a continuation of this thought, try web searchs for "solipsism" and "world of mind".
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by lmm on Thursday October 26, 2017 @03:35PM (#15562236)
Elsewhere in the thread someone gave the example of heliocentrism versus geocentrism. You can form a heliocentric model that makes accurate predictions, you just have to add epicycles to everything. But I would say that heliocentrism is not merely more elegant and more convenient, but also more true. Wouldn't you? For a more extreme example, in the story from http://lesswrong.com/lw/i4/belief_in_belief/ I think we would say that it isn't true that there's a dragon in the garage.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by avar on Thursday October 26, 2017 @04:06PM (#15562516)
In that case however we have other data than just the model to suggest that geocentrism is false, whereas the topic of this thread is models in physics mathematics that merely differ in complexity, with no apparent difference in "truth".
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by jfoutz on Thursday October 26, 2017 @01:51PM (#15561294)
> Just as a universe where all distances are multiplied by two is indistinguishable from the current universe.

Uh, wouldn't you have a speed of light problem? I think most of the fundamental forces are all inverse square laws, which would also make things weird.

I'm sure you have a much better understanding that my casual interest. But, uh, simple linear scaling seems detectable.

Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by lmm on Thursday October 26, 2017 @02:34PM (#15561677)
I mean a universe in which the speed of light was multiplied by two, and so was every linear distance measure.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by jfoutz on Thursday October 26, 2017 @04:02PM (#15562481)
so the earth is twice as big, but the same mass? seems like there are some detectable changes there. but maybe you're increasing mass in a really tricky way. it'll need to be more than double to have the same effect. at a given distance.

The other one that seems like it would be tough is strength of a magnetic field. inverse cube law, rather than inverse square. seems really hard to do something and get the same answers.

Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by jfoutz on Thursday October 26, 2017 @06:20PM (#15563706)
i'm an idiot. by distance you mean something more like a pure scalar value. if you double all the secret constants in the universe, we can't tell the difference.
Re:Why scientists are redefining the kilogram by fooker on Thursday October 26, 2017 @11:24PM (#15565474)
You double k1 and k2. Now something involving k1*k1/k2 is twice it was before.