Maybe I’ve missed this too, but it seems that Eliezer is describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow.
Then the electrons are identical because they follow from a certain configuration, they are not things-in-themselves. That’s a very strong claim, and sufficient to handle “there might be something we don’t know about electrons”.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the whole thrust of the posts, which is possible.
The only thing you’ve missed is the Eliezer could be wrong in describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow. Or they could be, but there could be another factor that we have no evidence of until future experiments that ‘individualise’ the amplitude flows.
If QM is right, which it almost certainly is, and as long as there is no factor connected to the amplitude flow that hides by not interacting in a way we can detect, then Eliezer is right.
But if either of those two things turn out not to be true, then he is wrong. And as unlikely as that is, it’s possible that that will happen. You can’t ‘prove’ anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can only ever say “If we are right about what we are seeing, then the evidence we have fits these conclusions the best. And until such time we find evidence that we are mistaken we shall accept these conclusions.”
Maybe I’ve missed this too, but it seems that Eliezer is describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow.
Then the electrons are identical because they follow from a certain configuration, they are not things-in-themselves. That’s a very strong claim, and sufficient to handle “there might be something we don’t know about electrons”.
Unless I’ve misunderstood the whole thrust of the posts, which is possible.
The only thing you’ve missed is the Eliezer could be wrong in describing electrons as a property of the amplitude flow. Or they could be, but there could be another factor that we have no evidence of until future experiments that ‘individualise’ the amplitude flows.
If QM is right, which it almost certainly is, and as long as there is no factor connected to the amplitude flow that hides by not interacting in a way we can detect, then Eliezer is right. But if either of those two things turn out not to be true, then he is wrong. And as unlikely as that is, it’s possible that that will happen. You can’t ‘prove’ anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can only ever say “If we are right about what we are seeing, then the evidence we have fits these conclusions the best. And until such time we find evidence that we are mistaken we shall accept these conclusions.”