Proof of same state past.

[AirPo]

I think you need to defend this a little more robustly. What do you mean by a "dip"? Please explain specifically how the possibility of slow change in the laws of physics is not a legitimate possibility - give us an example of an observation that we know rules this out.

Who said it is not a legitimate possibility? That's not how science works. Out of the goodness of my heart, I gave it legitimate possibility. Regardless of the supposed rate of change of the laws of physics, if we measure with same state against changing state we would expect to see an uneven distribution of the data. We don't see that.

 

[expos4ever]

Who said it is not a legitimate possibility? That's not how science works. Out of the goodness of my heart, I gave it legitimate possibility. Regardless of the supposed rate of change of the laws of physics, if we measure with same state against changing state we would expect to see an uneven distribution of the data. We don't see that.

This is not an answer. You initially framed the problem by assuming that those who believed that the laws of physics had changed were arguing for a sudden change in the laws of physics. That argument seemed plausible even though you did not really defend it fully. To wit:

This means that psdt should never return a result between T and T + mo, in other words a gap in the age of all items ever tested.

There is no such gap.

Well, how do you know there is no such gap? You talk about "how science works". Need I remind you that science requires evidentiary support for claims like this.

Even so, I suspect you would be right if, repeat if, your opponents were arguing for a sudden change.

But you have not adequately dealt with the possibility that the change has been gradual.

The essential issue here is whether the assumption that the laws of nature have changed with time can be undermined by the evidence. You have given no evidence at all that the available evidence undermines the possibility of a slow change in the laws of physics.

You are not making your case. I happen to agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how your particular argument makes the case.

Your argument might indeed "generalize" to deal with slow change, but I really don't see how you have made that case.

 

[expos4ever]

Regardless of the supposed rate of change of the laws of physics, if we measure with same state against changing state we would expect to see an uneven distribution of the data. We don't see that.

I suspect you are right with this point - if the laws of physics were changing with time, we would see an uneven distribution of some events. But you need to flesh this out with a more detailed argument and some supporting evidence.

 

[AirPo]

This is not an answer. You initially framed the problem by assuming that those who believed that the laws of physics had changed were arguing for a sudden change in the laws of physics. That argument seemed plausible even though you did not really defend it fully. To wit:


Well, how do you know there is no such gap? You talk about "how science works". Need I remind you that science requires evidentiary support for claims like this.

Even so, I suspect you would be right if, repeat if, your opponents were arguing for a sudden change.

But you have not adequately dealt with the possibility that the change has been gradual.

The essential issue here is whether the assumption that the laws of nature have changed with time can be undermined by the evidence. You have given no evidence at all that the available evidence undermines the possibility of a slow change in the laws of physics.

You are not making your case. I happen to agree with your conclusion, but I don't see how your particular argument makes the case.

Your argument might indeed "generalize" to deal with slow change, but I really don't see how you have made that case.

The rate of change is irrelevant. If there was change we'd see it in the data. We don't.

 

[expos4ever]

The rate of change is irrelevant. If there was change we'd see it in the data. We don't.

Please support your claim with evidence.

 

[AirPo]

I suspect you are right with this point - if the laws of physics were changing with time, we would see an uneven distribution of some events. But you need to flesh this out with a more detailed argument and some supporting evidence.

Actually I don't, this is just a thought experiment. If anyone wants to do this analysis IRL, go for it, but please give me credit for thinking of it in the first place. But I doubt anyone will. Different state past is too ridiculous an idea to give it more than a satirical thread on a message board.

 

[AirPo]

Please support your claim with evidence.

The fact that we don't see it is evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

Actually I don't, this is just a thought experiment. If anyone wants to do this analysis IRL, go for it, but please give me credit for thinking of it in the first place. But I doubt anyone will. Different state past is too ridiculous an idea to give it more than a satirical thread on a message board.

I agree your idea is promising as a thought experiment. But, as a thought experiment it only establishes how the "different state past" notion could be shown to be invalid.

 

[expos4ever]

The fact that we don't see it is evidence.

I am surprised you do not see the problem with this. You made a claim of this form:

If the "different state past" idea was correct, we would expect to find no artefacts whose estimated dates lie within a particular interval of time.

But then you effectively claim - with no evidentiary support - that we indeed do see items dated in such time intervals.

Surely you see the problem. Again, I think the concept sounds promising but you have not provided supporting evidence.

 

[AirPo]

I am surprised you do not see the problem with this. You made a claim of this form:

If the "different state past" idea was correct, we would expect to find no artefacts whose estimated dates lie within a particular interval of time.

But then you effectively claim - with no evidentiary support - that we indeed do see items dated in such time intervals.

Surely you see the problem. Again, I think the concept sounds promising but you have not provided supporting evidence.

If I posted "do" it was a typo.

 

[Barry Desborough]

I don't think we should shy away from using the word, "proof", as long as it is clear what sense of the word we are using. Formal proofs belong to mathematics and logic - axiomatic systems. As long as you accept their axioms and rules of combination, their theorems are inescapable. But there is another sense of the word "proof". It is to establish as true beyond any reasonable doubt. In law, it is evidence and reasoning with which it is considered safe to condemn (or exonerate) someone accused of a crime. In science, it is that which establishes scientific theories.

Re. past states, here is evidence that establishes, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the universe is ancient. It involves the direct observation of past events - something that the Ken Hams of this world would say is impossible. SN1987A and the Age of the Universe

 

[dad]

So let's use your date then. I'm sure there are radiometric dating records for objects both before and after that point.

Ha. 4400 years ago or so. Remember you may not use isotope ratios as if the isotopes got there by decay unless you can prove it.

 

[Strathos]

Ha. 4400 years ago or so. Remember you may not use isotope ratios as if the isotopes got there by decay unless you can prove it.

Okay, now we just have to see if there's any sort of disconnect between the data of things dated before and after that point. I'll leave that up to someone more willing to entertain you by doing the actual research.

 

[dad]

It works for any value of T. That's why it's T is a variable. In addition, T is your baby, not mine.
Nope, then you are correct? Not a very good debating technique

T represents a date right? Say the nature change was 4347 years ago for example. We could call that T. You can't use isotopes to date beyond that or even to that date, because isotopes did not exist is the current decay relationship that we know. Nor can you use correlations of coral, varves or tree rings etc. So..what DO you have?

Again, it does not matter when T is. If it is valid, it would show up in the data.

No, not in data that is ratios of isotopes! All we have is you assigning dates to what are now daughter parent ratios.

Nice little try but boy do you lose.

 

[AirPo]

T represents a date right? Say the nature change was 4347 years ago for example. We could call that T. You can't use isotopes to date beyond that or even to that date, because isotopes did not exist is the current decay relationship that we know. Nor can you use correlations of coral, varves or tree rings etc. So..what DO you have?
No, not in data that is ratios of isotopes! All we have is you assigning dates to what are now daughter parent ratios.

Nice little try but boy do you lose.

Of course you can, that's the whole point of the exercise.

 

[dad]

Okay, now we just have to see if there's any sort of disconnect between the data of things dated before and after that point. I'll leave that up to someone more willing to entertain you by doing the actual research.

How about tree rings from that period? Got any to look at close up?

 

[dad]

Of course you can, that's the whole point of the exercise.

? The point is to assign isotopes dates based on ratios because you believe in a same state past?

 

[AirPo]

T represents a date right? Say the nature change was 4347 years ago for example. We could call that T. You can't use isotopes to date beyond that or even to that date, because isotopes did not exist is the current decay relationship that we know. Nor can you use correlations of coral, varves or tree rings etc. So..what DO you have?
No, not in data that is ratios of isotopes! All we have is you assigning dates to what are now daughter parent ratios.

Nice little try but boy do you lose.

The dating technique is not relevant.

 

[AirPo]

How about tree rings from that period? Got any to look at close up?

What about them? Do they depend on a same state past to be accurate?

 

[AirPo]

? The point is to assign isotopes dates based on ratios because you believe in a same state past?

No it's not. The point is to look at the data. If different state past is true, using same state analysis should produce a gap.