Echoes Beyond the Horizon: Gravitational Secrets?

Status
Not open for further replies.
exchemist said:
It's not a thought experiment. It's a silly scenario - like asking what if the sky was made of concrete.

A sensible scenario might be what would we expect if people at opposite ends of the universe each toss a coin repeatedly. The answer is we would expect no statistical correlation between the outcomes. But by adding in the stipulation that they are correlated, you are stipulating that the laws of physics are broken - and then asking what that would mean for the laws of physics.

Which is silly.
Click to expand...
I’m not admitting I’m wrong - I’m pointing out that your scenario is basically “what if physics took the day off.” If you hard‑code a violation of the laws of nature, of course the conclusions look bizarre. That’s not a flaw in my argument; it’s just what happens when the setup starts in cartoon‑universe mode.
 
Richard Townsend said:
I’m not admitting I’m wrong - I’m pointing out that your scenario is basically “what if physics took the day off.” If you hard‑code a violation of the laws of nature, of course the conclusions look bizarre. That’s not a flaw in my argument; it’s just what happens when the setup starts in cartoon‑universe mode.
Click to expand...
What I’m saying is it is your scenario that amounts to “what if physics took the day off?”

You are proposing a cartoon universe, for no apparent reason. What is the point of your scenario? What issue does it try to address?
 
exchemist said:
What I’m saying is it is your scenario that amounts to “what if physics took the day off?”

You are proposing a cartoon universe, for no apparent reason. What is the point of your scenario? What issue does it try to address?
Click to expand...
I’m not saying the universe actually works that way. I’m using the scenario as a way to explore what “randomness” might mean if perfect long‑distance correlation were possible. Thought experiments don’t need to reflect reality - they’re meant to challenge and test ideas. If all you say is that the universe can’t work like that, you’re not engaging with the question, just restating the laws we already know.
 
Richard Townsend said:
I’m not saying the universe actually works that way. I’m using the scenario as a way to explore what “randomness” might mean if perfect long‑distance correlation were possible. Thought experiments don’t need to reflect reality - they’re meant to challenge and test ideas. If all you say is that the universe can’t work like that, you’re not engaging with the question, just restating the laws we already know.
Click to expand...
Well OK, if there were perfect correlation there would have to be some instantaneous mechanism, not previous known, that bizarrely chose to make one particular pair of coins, out of all the coins there are, flip with the same result, contrary to all previous observation.

Whoopdeedoo. Now what?
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Well OK, if there were perfect correlation there would have to be some instantaneous mechanism, not previous known, that bizarrely chose to make one particular pair of coins, out of all the coins there are, flip with the same result, contrary to all previous observation.

Whoopdeedoo. Now what?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter how the perfect correlation is implemented - that’s the whole point of the hypothetical. If such a mechanism existed, even as a thought experiment, the interesting question isn’t “whoopdeedoo, so what”, but what it would imply about randomness, independence, and information. The mechanism could be unknown, impossible, or purely imaginary; the point is to explore the consequences if perfect long‑distance correlation were real.
 
Richard Townsend said:
It doesn’t matter how the perfect correlation is implemented - that’s the whole point of the hypothetical. If such a mechanism existed, even as a thought experiment, the interesting question isn’t “whoopdeedoo, so what”, but what it would imply about randomness, independence, and information. The mechanism could be unknown, impossible, or purely imaginary; the point is to explore the consequences if perfect long‑distance correlation were real.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, to apply science to this one would need to look for a mechanism, find out what laws it followed, etc., in order to predict under what circumstance we should expect this phenomenon to arise.

I can't see what it would imply about randomness or information. But you tell me what you think it would imply, then. It's your scenario.
 
exchemist said:
On the contrary, to apply science to this one would need to look for a mechanism, find out what laws it followed, etc., in order to predict under what circumstance we should expect this phenomenon to arise.

I can't see what it would imply about randomness or information. But you tell me what you think it would imply, then. It's your scenario.
Click to expand...
It would mean the events aren’t truly independent - perfect correlation would imply some hidden link or shared information. That’s the whole point of the hypothetical.
 
Richard Townsend said:
It would mean the events aren’t truly independent - perfect correlation would imply some hidden link or shared information. That’s the whole point of the hypothetical.
Click to expand...
Что тут сложного представить такую связь? Представьте, что все точки во Вселенной связаны невидимыми нитями между собой. Перемещаете одну точку, и все точки изменяют своё положение одновременно с перемещаемой.
 
Olga said:
Что тут сложного представить такую связь? Представьте, что все точки во Вселенной связаны невидимыми нитями между собой. Перемещаете одну точку, и все точки изменяют своё положение одновременно с перемещаемой.
Click to expand...
Interesting. :)
 
exchemist Yeah, I don't think RT really undestands the purpose of thought experiments. But hey, we could both be wrong on that.

I'm of a mind to sit back and let him flesh it out with someone else. So far, he hasn't said anything wrong wrong. So far, it just leads "so what"?
 
DaveC426913 said:
exchemist Yeah, I don't think RT really undestands the purpose of thought experiments. But hey, we could both be wrong on that.

I'm of a mind to sit back and let him flesh it out with someone else. So far, he hasn't said anything wrong wrong. So far, it just leads "so what"?
Click to expand...
I’m still here. If you want to step back, that’s fine - I’m just exploring the idea and seeing where it leads. Nothing dramatic, just following the implications of the setup. Isn't "so-what" the basis of science?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Oh good lord. I spoke too soon. Olga and her "every point in the universe is the same point!" Olgaverse.

OK, if it goes down that road I'll report to have this moved to PseudoScience.
Click to expand...
Дэйв, у нас в России есть пословица: "слышал звон, да не понял где он". Причём здесь я, если ты не понимаешь о чём речь?
 
Richard Townsend said:
It would mean the events aren’t truly independent - perfect correlation would imply some hidden link or shared information. That’s the whole point of the hypothetical.
Click to expand...
That's what I said in post 26. But so what?

I could equally well propose one of your "thought experiments" in which, say, the moon was found to have turned into cheese. That would mean, er, there must be some new phenomenon, contrary to all previous predictions, about the composition of the moon, which, er, we would have to investigate. Great. So what?

Neither your scenario nor mine sheds any light on any question of science. They are just random overturning of bits of arbitrarily chosen science, leading nowhere.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top