Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
You read my post wrong. The theories themselves, Schrodinger and Heisenberg, are demonstrations of what we don't know.
|
All science is an implicit demonstration of what we don't know. Is there anything in the constitutive equation for gravitation that explains the mechanism by which gravity works? No.
f = ma - no explanation there,
These are both descriptions of observed phenomena and neither claims, or even needs to claim, any sort of explanation or underlying mechanism.
Whether one is found or not will remain to be seen.
Quote:
They aren't things we think we do know or think we know, but are things that we don't know. I'll simplify:
Heisenberg - Holy shit, when we tried to measure that outcome it wasn't deterministic. *measures again* See? That's crazy. I wonder if it might be impossible to explain that. I can't explain it right now.... but I'll get right on explaining that.
|
From what i understand, you're advocating some sort of "hidden variable" which is an idea that has been explored and discredited in the context of heisenberg.
Here is what is going on here will, you disagree with a specific, experimentally supported, scientific theory and instead of bending your perspective to match what science tells you, you are insisting, in spite of a complete lack of evidence, on the existence of some completely unsubstantiated mechanism to explain why a bunch of quantum physicists don't know what they're talking about. You are doing exactly what you argue against when it comes to theists.