X-Message-Number: 20922
From: 
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 17:02:00 EST
Subject: assuming the consequent

--part1_135.19c944be.2b5c7a58_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another effort to convey my point about "indiscernibles"--

Michael price has written:

> we can actually *prove* whether two electrons (or two anythings)
> >>are identical. Simply determine whether they are subject to the
> >>[Pauli] Exclusion Principle (x)or can form a Bose-Einstein
> >>condensate together. If the objects in question have *any*
> >>differences (*including* any currently beyond our powers of
> >>observation to resolve) then they will exhibit neither property.
> >>It's as true for electrons as it is for elephants.
> >
> 

Other distinguished people have said essentially the same thing, including 
Feynman and Tipler and probably many others. Rushing in as usual where angels 
fear to tread (although not entirely alone) I insist this is another case of 
assuming the consequent--assuming as a postulate the very thing you are 
trying to prove.

That bosons must follow one kind of statistics and interference rules, and 
fermions another kind, is a CONSEQUENCE of current quantum theory, although 
of course also an experimental fact based on observations to date. To claim 
that no future discovery can change your conclusion is equivalent to assuming 
that current quantum theory is the last word.

In his well known text, Feynman also says about certain aspects of the 
behavior of bosons and fermions that: "The explanation is deep down in 
relativistic quantum mechanics. This probably means that we do not have a 
complete understanding of the fundamental principle involved. FOR THE MOMENT 
[emphasis added], you will just have to take it as one of the rules of the 
world."

And also the reminder that (say) two electrons at different locations MUST 
differ in other ways also, since they are interacting with their 
environments, through gravitation if nothing else, and hence their COMPLETE 
wave functions (to the extent that these can be separated from the universal 
wave function) must be different from each other.

And also Kosko's reminder, that quantum math is linear. The Schroedinger wave 
equation shows linear evolution over time. Since experience tells us that 
linear relationships or rules have always turned out to be only 
approximations, the current quantum math is probably only an approximation at 
best.

Also, remember the history of quantum theory. It started out with attention 
only on the momentum and location of a "particle." But a particle--or 
whatever is there--has more attributes than momentum and location. There is 
also rest mass, charge, spin, who knows what else. Current ideas even play 
with extra dimensions of both time and space. To speak with confidence about 
eternal verities (except as approximations under current conditions) 
seems--what shall we say?--slightly presumptuous.

And finally, the reminder that the Uploaders make the same mistake, assuming 
the consequent. They think a computer could be a person because brains and 
computers are both information processors--but they ASSUME without 
justification that a brain is ONLY an information processor. In slightly 
different words, they assume that isomorphism is all that matters. They could 
possibly be right--but you can't prove it by assuming it.

Robert Ettinger 

--part1_135.19c944be.2b5c7a58_boundary

 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"

[ AUTOMATICALLY SKIPPING HTML ENCODING! ] 

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20922