I thought everyone knew that this was just an entertaining illusion. But I guess not.
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Science is an illusion, too. When you look at the current theories of the subatomic, they involve probabilities. There is no predictability for a given particle, only a probability distribution, whatever that means. You have to perform many experiments to verify the theory. How many? Well, if you're not seeing good enough agreement, then many more.
The scientific method itself is brought into question by such science. The idea of repeatability goes out the door unless, by some stretch of the imagination, you consider approximated probability distributions to be repeatable.
It seems to me that we have proved science doesn't really exist. We've assumed that there is a systemmatic way in which the world works and we've reached a contradiction. The assumption that there is a scientific method has brought us to a place where we must acknowledge that the scientific method doesn't make sense. Reductio Ad Absurdum.
a) Statistical predictions are testable. Of course, not to a 100% accuracy in a finite number of tests, but then non-statistical predictions also cannot be tested to a 100% accuracy because of measurement uncertainity. So there is nothing fundamentally new there.
b) Many predictions of quantum mechanics are not statistical: for example one can predict exactly which are the possible energy levels of a system, though (sometimes) only statistically in which of those levels will the system be.
c) You are behind the times. Quantum mechanics was discovered in the 1920s and science has not disappeared since then, but thrived. Especially high energy physics. This by itself shows you to be wrong.
d) This was completely off topic; my thanks to Hallq for the interesting link are not.
You missed the point: In general, individual experiments are not predictable. The scientific method was based on individual experiments being reproducible. This lead to a science which then says that individual experiments are not all reproducible.
Here is an interpretation of this, given by the inventor of the hydrogen bomb just a few years ago:
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left often to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not. ------------------------ You see, there is something beyond science; scientists believe this is so. Indeed, they are forced to believe it is so based on current science. Somehow things happen, but we believe that there are many situations where we cannot determine that in advance.
You missed the point: In general, individual experiments are not predictable. The scientific method was based on individual experiments being reproducible. This led to a science which then says that individual experiments are not all reproducible.
Here is an interpretation of this, given by the inventor of the hydrogen bomb just a few years ago:
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left often to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not. ------------------------ You see, there is something beyond science; scientists believe this is so. Indeed, they are forced to believe it is so based on current science. Somehow things happen, but we believe that there are many situations where it will never be possible to predict what will happen in advance.
4 comments:
Science is an illusion, too. When you look at the current theories of the subatomic, they involve probabilities. There is no predictability for a given particle, only a probability distribution, whatever that means. You have to perform many experiments to verify the theory. How many? Well, if you're not seeing good enough agreement, then many more.
The scientific method itself is brought into question by such science. The idea of repeatability goes out the door unless, by some stretch of the imagination, you consider approximated probability distributions to be repeatable.
It seems to me that we have proved science doesn't really exist. We've assumed that there is a systemmatic way in which the world works and we've reached a contradiction. The assumption that there is a scientific method has brought us to a place where we must acknowledge that the scientific method doesn't make sense. Reductio Ad Absurdum.
a) Statistical predictions are testable. Of course, not to a 100% accuracy in a finite number of tests, but then non-statistical predictions also cannot be tested to a 100% accuracy because of measurement uncertainity. So there is nothing fundamentally new there.
b) Many predictions of quantum mechanics are not statistical: for example one can predict exactly which are the possible energy levels of a system, though (sometimes) only statistically in which of those levels will the system be.
c) You are behind the times. Quantum mechanics was discovered in the 1920s and science has not disappeared since then, but thrived. Especially high energy physics. This by itself shows you to be wrong.
d) This was completely off topic; my thanks to Hallq for the interesting link are not.
You missed the point: In general, individual experiments are not predictable. The scientific method was based on individual experiments being reproducible. This lead to a science which then says that individual experiments are not all reproducible.
Here is an interpretation of this, given by the inventor of the hydrogen bomb just a few years ago:
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left often to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not.
------------------------
You see, there is something beyond science; scientists believe this is so. Indeed, they are forced to believe it is so based on current science. Somehow things happen, but we believe that there are many situations where we cannot determine that in advance.
You missed the point: In general, individual experiments are not predictable. The scientific method was based on individual experiments being reproducible. This led to a science which then says that individual experiments are not all reproducible.
Here is an interpretation of this, given by the inventor of the hydrogen bomb just a few years ago:
According to quantum mechanics ... we can think about the creation of the world as incomplete and human beings, indeed all living beings, as making choices left often to probability.
What is new, what is incredible, is that atoms don't behave like machines. Science cannot predict whether you have a free will or not.
------------------------
You see, there is something beyond science; scientists believe this is so. Indeed, they are forced to believe it is so based on current science. Somehow things happen, but we believe that there are many situations where it will never be possible to predict what will happen in advance.
Post a Comment