News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constants change. Parent comment

Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by renewiltord on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @04:02PM (#41450098)
One thing I have been arguing for a long time is that the fundamental constants are different until we observe them. i.e. if we don't observe it, it's possible for a tennis ball to travel through a wall. But in the universal program, if we will now or later observe the result, then it won't happen. But it'll happen so long as we will never observe the result. In fact, it's probably happened many times.

No one has proven that this is impossible, AFAIK.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by ezrast on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @04:24PM (#41450352)
What does "impossible" mean to you if not that a thing and it's consequences can never be observed?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by renewiltord on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @04:57PM (#41450719)
Impossible means it does not happen, not that it does not happen only when we look. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. After all, as the comment I replied to pointed out, other galaxies can have different constants. We have to be humble and admit we just don't know.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by ezrast on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @05:34PM (#41451117)
This seems like a distinction without a difference, since we can never positively categorize any unobserved phenomenon as impossible (vs merely unobservable). To me, it seems ontologically cleaner to treat existence and observability as the same thing. shrug
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by renewiltord on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @06:04PM (#41451345)
Okay, fine, I'll come clean, I was just making an unfalsifiability joke. The original god-of-the-gapsy comment was the one that got me. Always just out of reach of our verifiability is the magic. Why not all the way out?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by ezrast on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @06:24PM (#41451508)
Whelp, looks like I'm today's Poe's Law poster child. ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by jiggawatts on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @05:25PM (#41451023)
The problem with these type of arguments is rigorously defining “we” and “look”.

Turns out that our gaze has no effect on anything and we’re uninteresting squishy bags of mostly water as far as physical processes are concerned.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by renewiltord on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @05:31PM (#41451083)
Yeah, but no one has proven that this is impossible so it's still possible. Just like OP comment.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by wizzwizz4 on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @06:30PM (#41451555)
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2014-03-25
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by Gooblebrai on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @06:11PM (#41451419)
How can you even prove a negative?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by Intermernet on Wednesday September 04, 2024 @09:29PM (#41452616)
Logical mangling time: If you can't prove a negative, how can you prove that you can't?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The first nuclear clock will test if fundamental constant... by dmateos on Thursday September 05, 2024 @02:38AM (#41454160)
By "Observe" dont they mean the act of any photon "hitting/interacting with" the system collapsing it into a known/predictable state.

Not specifically a "intelligent" observer per se.

[ Parent | on HN ]