Ask a physicist anything. (6)

[Wiccan_Child]

Is a theory still a theory, after it has been falsified?

For example, is Phlogiston theory still a theory?

How is the evidence that led to a falsified theory treated?

Is a falsified theory still a theory? I'd say yes, though a minority of scientists would disagree (or it might be a majority, I'm not sure).

Is Phlogiston a theory? If it was a theory at all, then yes. The evidence supporting it still exists, it's just been disproven by contradictory evidence.

So, as you ask, what happens to that supporting evidence? Well, whatever theory replaces the disproven one has to also account for that pre-existing evidence. So, the new theory, which is compatible with the old evidence, takes that evidence as its own.

All the evidence for Classical Mechanics still exists, but its successor, Quantum Mechanics, can also explain all the evidence that supports Classical Mechanics. For example, Newtonian gravity can be deduced from QM, using large-scale approximations. The Correspondence Principle states that the quantum mechanics of very large things must correspond with the classical counterpart - the mechanics of billiards, whether modelled classically or quantum mechanically, must be essentially the same.

EDIT: Others disagree with me It's large semantics anyway - disproven theories are rarely any interest to us. CM has the unique exception of being more useful than its successor in some instances, so we still use it.

 

[Doveaman]

Please understand that life does not necessarily have to be biological.

I know. My house fan is alive because I can feel it breathing on me, even though it only seems to breath out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is a falsified theory still a theory? I'd say yes, though a minority of scientists would disagree (or it might be a majority, I'm not sure).

Good enough -- thanks!

That you know of, has any theory been falsified one year, and been resurrected another because of later discoveries?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Good enough -- thanks!

That you know of, has any theory been falsified one year, and been resurrected another because of later discoveries?

Not to my knowledge. It's certainly possible, though it tends to work out that a theory is only declared 'disproven' when the evidence is undeniable. More, ahem, fuzzy sciences, likes psychology, would be more prone to this, I think. Freud comes in and out of favour, so I hear.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not to my knowledge. It's certainly possible, though it tends to work out that a theory is only declared 'disproven' when the evidence is undeniable. More, ahem, fuzzy sciences, likes psychology, would be more prone to this, I think. Freud comes in and out of favour, so I hear.

K, thanks!

 

[chris4243]

That you know of, has any theory been falsified one year, and been resurrected another because of later discoveries?

I hear that the Null Hypothesis has been rejected more times than I can count but it keeps coming back!

 

[mzungu]

I know. My house fan is alive because I can feel it breathing on me, even though it only seems to breath out.

You are missing the point entirely. Any life form is essentially a machine albeit an organic one. There is no reason why a non organic machine cannot meet the requirements for the title "life form". If you bothered to even watch the documentary you would not ask such questions.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I know. My house fan is alive because I can feel it breathing on me, even though it only seems to breath out.

'Life' refers to any metabolic replicator - something that takes in and metabolises external resources, and something which makes more of itself and/or is itself a descendant of a replicator. Your fan neither metabolises nor replicates, so it's not alive - but there's no reason why an inorganic piece of machinery cannot do the same.

Arguably, any von Neumann device must be considered 'alive'.

 

[Doveaman]

'Life' refers to any metabolic replicator - something that takes in and metabolises external resources, and something which makes more of itself and/or is itself a descendant of a replicator.

If that is all that is required to be alive then I will have to agree with you, but if there is more then I cannot help but to disagree with you.

 

[Doveaman]

You are missing the point entirely. Any life form is essentially a machine albeit an organic one. There is no reason why a non organic machine cannot meet the requirements for the title "life form". If you bothered to even watch the documentary you would not ask such questions.

If you want to call it "life form" I have no problem with that. Call it what you want. But when it comes to trying to achieve the human level of intelligence it seems like the more you learn the less you know.

Chaotic Brain

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If that is all that is required to be alive then I will have to agree with you, but if there is more then I cannot help but to disagree with you.

Well, all life has two things in common: metabolism and replication. There may well be some as-yet undiscovered quality, but at present it's just that: undiscovered. Is there anything you think should be included in the definition of life? A soul, a spirit, a 'breath of God', a dualistic mind wholly distinct from the body, a thetan, a 'divine spark'?

 

[pgp_protector]

Are viruses alive ?

 

[Doveaman]

If you can machines can too! Can you do something you were not programmed to do?

Yes. Everything.

 

[Doveaman]

You may find the documentary interesting as it shows what life will be like in the near future.

No one knows what life will be like in the near future. We will all just have to wait and see.

 

[mzungu]

No one knows what life will be like in the near future. We will all just have to wait and see.

Why don't you answer the question "Are Viruses alive"?

 

[Naraoia]

I'm thinking there is some kind of intelligent mechanism in the brain that controls how, when and where those patterns are fired. After all, we are intelligent beings and not robots.

I think you should look around the world of cellular automata. Some really simple rules lead to outcomes ranging from simple, stable patterns all the way to complex, dynamic and chaotic ones depending on your starting point. And they are fundamentally similar to neural networks in a way - in both, the future state of each cell is determined by the interaction of its present state with that of connected cells.

'Life' refers to any metabolic replicator - something that takes in and metabolises external resources, and something which makes more of itself and/or is itself a descendant of a replicator. Your fan neither metabolises nor replicates, so it's not alive - but there's no reason why an inorganic piece of machinery cannot do the same.

Arguably, any von Neumann device must be considered 'alive'.

If a von Neuman device (these guys, right? You made me look them up ) is alive, then your definition of metabolism is so broad that it probably includes a fan.

 

[Doveaman]

Why don't you answer the question "Are Viruses alive"?

Was that question directed at me?

I'll wait and see how Wiccan responds. If he's wrong I'll correct him.


That robot rat experiment was very interesting, by the way. Assuming it's not a hoax.

 

[chris4243]

If a von Neuman device (these guys, right? You made me look them up ) is alive, then your definition of metabolism is so broad that it probably includes a fan.

At that point, it might be worthwhile to distinguish between "biochemically alive" and other alive (eg mechanically alive). As for a fan having metabolism, I dunno but it might be more appropriate to include the power plant. In any case, the fan doesn't replicate.

 

[Naraoia]

Was that question directed at me?

I'll wait and see how Wiccan responds. If he's wrong I'll correct him.

You have quite the ego...

At that point, it might be worthwhile to distinguish between "biochemically alive" and other alive (eg mechanically alive).

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!

YouTube - The Firm - Star Trekkin'

As for a fan having metabolism, I dunno but it might be more appropriate to include the power plant. In any case, the fan doesn't replicate.

Yeah, I think it's a big stretch to say a fan has a metabolism - but if Wiccan wants to argue that pieces of software (or abstract mathematical concepts) do, his definition is going to have to include pretty much everything in the universe that does anything.

Or perhaps introduce the concept of a "virtual metabolism" (Come to think of it, I'm sure someone did that for digital organisms already)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah, I think it's a big stretch to say a fan has a metabolism - but if Wiccan wants to argue that pieces of software (or abstract mathematical concepts) do, his definition is going to have to include pretty much everything in the universe that does anything.

Software and abstract concepts don't metabolise, though the former could be seen as being able to replicate.

Or perhaps introduce the concept of a "virtual metabolism" (Come to think of it, I'm sure someone did that for digital organisms already)

I wonder, would a meme count as alive? It replicates, in a sense, and could be seen as metabolising...