On Fri, 24 May 2013 13:32:50 -0400, David Bernier wrote:
> Suppose (for example) that wave function collapse in the > "standard"/standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics was governed by > absolutely indetectable things. > > An indetectable thing is one that's even more discreet than neutrinos: > it doesn't interact at all with the world. > > Does it make sense to postulate (as a thought experiment), the physical > existence of indetectable things? > > David Bernier
Well, indetectable things are certainly a waste of brain cells. Any experiments postulated or performed are truly futile because no positive results can ever occur.
On the other hand, humans love to waste braincells not only by killing them with dope and other chemicals but by working them to death on insoluable problems. Well, if there is no solution possible, then why bother? For entertainment value, of course! Humans love fantasy. It's entertainment to them. So obviously the answer to your query is to ask if entertainment makes sense? Persons and events in novels are all indetectable, yet people love them.
But you (and 99.9% of science) are really missing the boat by not asking a slightly modified question: Does it make sense to study things which are just barely detectable and usually not even repeatable? (such as interactions with other multi-dimensional spaces as has been suggested)
Think about that and a list of topics "forbidden" by science and you may learn a thing or two.