Announcement

**Jon Miller** · September 18, 2008, 13:37

I disagree that it follows. Science does enable us to understand reality. I am saying that for the current specific case of quantum mechanics, we are still lacking some information.

Science has never claimed to have full knowledge of everything, in fact, it claims it doesn't. This doesn't make it any lesser. In fact, understanding what you know and what you don't is far more important than just having some complete picture of knowledge (which is most definite wrong).

Science has had the most success of any system at understanding reality. This is because of the nature of the assumptions/etc (the culture or bias if you will) that it is based on.

Understanding when you are wrong, or when something is outside of the realm of questions you can answer, is as important as answering questions.

Science works with a huge other system of observations/etc that is understood in a simple mathematical framework. And I can use the theories developed to explain and predict one phenomena, and use them to predict some totally different phenomena... and I will be right.

Take the standard model for instance (to name a theory that is wrong, but very good where it is relevant). It was developed to explain partons, and what we were observing about nucleon behavior. However, it allowed the prediction of top quarks and other such things... which had nothing to do with nucleon behavior explocity. They weren't included due to predicting the behavior of nucleons, rather, when the mathetical theory of nucleon behavior was developed they became a natural conclusion.

The same is true of the Higgs particle, which is why people are so interested in finding it. If they don't, then something very strange is going on.

Jon Miller

**Jon Miller** · September 18, 2008, 13:38

Just because scientists are willing to change their mind with the observation of new evidence, does not mean that their understanding is somehow less than someone who believes something and won't change their understanding no amtter what.

JM

**Lancer** · September 18, 2008, 13:39

"I believe there's something worse lurking in the quantum shadows. Something truly nightmarish. Late into the night on physics conferences all over the world, when we scientists huddle together to debate and discuss our strangest ideas and dreams there are still things that really, really bother us. Chief among these are the quantum mechanical laws that atoms obey. In particular one aspect of these laws. Something called the measurement problem. If you want to see fear in a quantum physicists eyes just mention the words, the measurement problem. The measurement problem is this, an atom only appears in a particular place if you measure it. In other words an atom is spread out all over the place until a concious observer decides to measure it. So the act of observation creates the entire universe. Just to show you how mad this idea is I'm going to explain one of the most famous hypothetical experiments blah blah blah..."

I've been trying to convince the looped bits of space time of which I consist that I'm the boss, but no luck yet.

**Agathon** · September 18, 2008, 13:44

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I disagree that it follows. Science does enable us to understand reality. I am saying that for the current specific case of quantum mechanics, we are still lacking some information.

You can't have it both ways.

Science has never claimed to have full knowledge of everything, in fact, it claims it doesn't. This doesn't make it any lesser. In fact, understanding what you know and what you don't is far more important than just having some complete picture of knowledge (which is most definite wrong).

If it is merely predictive, then it has no knowledge at all.

Science has had the most success of any system at understanding reality. This is because of the nature of the assumptions/etc (the culture or bias if you will) that it is based on.

Actually, if you were right before, it has had absolutely zero success at understanding reality, but much success in predicting what will happen.

Science works with a huge other system of observations/etc that is understood in a simple mathematical framework. And I can use the theories developed to explain and predict one phenomena, and use them to predict some totally different phenomena... and I will be right.

This is sophistry. It explains nothing.

Take the standard model for instance (to name a theory that is wrong, but very good where it is relevant). It was developed to explain partons, and what we were observing about nucleon behavior. However, it allowed the prediction of top quarks and other such things... which had nothing to do with nucleon behavior explocity. They weren't included due to predicting the behavior of nucleons, rather, when the mathetical theory of nucleon behavior was developed they became a natural conclusion.

What you mean, of course, is that it predicted certain experimental results. Big ****ing deal. That's not knowledge or understanding. It might well be false. You can't have false knowledge, but a theory that radically misdescribes reality can be just as good at predicting experimental results.

If you are going to make an argument, then BAMing that it just is knowledge or understanding isn't good enough, since by your own previous position, you only have predictive power to stand on. Please explain why these are the same thing in light of the fact that it seems perfectly possible to have one without the other.

**Jon Miller** · September 18, 2008, 14:04

I wrote a huge post, which got ate by the internet. Basically, we can form theories which predict things about the sun. And then use them to predict very different phenomena in the lab. Like other interactions between two bodies.

And in other areas, we can do even greater things. Like take the same mathematics that is used in quantum mechanics, and apply it to cosmology or even biophysics, and come up with predictions of new phenomena which are tha seen in experiment.

Now, there are areas that still need work. Like quantum mechanics and gravity are currently fundamentally inconsistent.

But the point is, if you beleive the founding assumptions/beleifs of science, than we are actually gaining knowledge because our understanding can be applied to all different parts of the universe. It isn't just some language tool used to describe our understanding of one particular part.

JM

**Jon Miller** · September 18, 2008, 14:17

I will try something simple. Consider Energy Conservation.

We came to understand it to predict certain phenomena. True. But everywhere we use this theory, no matter what situation (as long as it deals with final observables) we still get an accurate prediction.

As long as it deals with 'real' things in the universe, everything follows energy conservation. From biology, to chemistry, to cosmology and quantum mechanics.

Why, because energy is conserved in the unverise. This isn't just a tool used to make predictions, this is fact. I agree that this is based on certain other assumptions (the standard scientific assumptions), but everything is dependent on existing in some network of beleifs.

For any meaningful definition of knowledge than, this isn't an issue.

You suggestion or argument that science doens't provide any knowledge because it isn't complete is silly and pointless. I don't even know why you are trying to argue that.

Energy Conservation isn't just some tool used to make accurate predictions. It is a appears to be truth of how the universe works.

It is possible to give even stronger or more powerful examples as I referenced earlier. Science is not just a frame work that we use to describe what we see, because it describes what we can't see (and didn't even know to look for or that there wasn't something to be seen there) as well.

Jon Miller
(A beleiver in God)