4 ms·

If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific. This is a major issue/concern in advanced

If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific. This is a major issue/concern in advanced theoretical physics. Is it really physics if you can't experiment or is it just mathematics? The foundation of science is falsiability within the scientific method. It's the core tenet.

sgillen 9y ago
For sure, I’m by trying to say it’s a real theory, it’s just a way to interpret the quantum mechanics that we can test in a way that provide us with some sort of intuition when working with the physics.
jamesrcole 9y ago
But what if, after spending more time working on and thinking about it, someone does find a way to make predictions based on it or on an extension/modification of it? If that's a possibility (I can't say, I'm not a physicist) then I'd be a mistake to discard it on the basis that it's just not predictive now.
TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
But you need to do a lot of speculative work before falsifiability becomes possible. And that speculative work is going to involve groping around in the dark being guided by mathematical logic (and a certain amount of politics, fashion, and wishful thinking.) Considering physics as if MWI could be true has the potential to lead to mathematical elaboration and eventual falsifiability. Considering physics as if there's no need to interpret QM because there's nothing to interpret (because Copenhagen is the correct interpretation) is a statement of faith, not rigour - because as a position, it's no more falsifiable than MWI, or Bohm, or any of the other interpretations. The point of mathematical physics is to generate new falsifiable predictions. It's still science, it's just embryonic proto-knowledge - which is why it's called research, not teaching.
naasking 9y ago
> If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific. That's an overly anemic view of science. Scientific theories have both predictive and explanatory power. Interpretations of QM don't change the former, but they do change the latter. Copenhagen, favoured by this article's author for some unfathomable reason, has little explanatory power. Many worlds and Bohmian mechanics have excellent explanatory power, and their predictive power equals Copenhagen.

sgillen 9y ago

For sure, I’m by trying to say it’s a real theory, it’s just a way to interpret the quantum mechanics that we can test in a way that provide us with some sort of intuition when working with the physics.

jamesrcole 9y ago

But what if, after spending more time working on and thinking about it, someone does find a way to make predictions based on it or on an extension/modification of it? If that's a possibility (I can't say, I'm not a physicist) then I'd be a mistake to discard it on the basis that it's just not predictive now.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago

But you need to do a lot of speculative work before falsifiability becomes possible. And that speculative work is going to involve groping around in the dark being guided by mathematical logic (and a certain amount of politics, fashion, and wishful thinking.) Considering physics as if MWI could be true has the potential to lead to mathematical elaboration and eventual falsifiability. Considering physics as if there's no need to interpret QM because there's nothing to interpret (because Copenhagen is the correct interpretation) is a statement of faith, not rigour - because as a position, it's no more falsifiable than MWI, or Bohm, or any of the other interpretations. The point of mathematical physics is to generate new falsifiable predictions. It's still science, it's just embryonic proto-knowledge - which is why it's called research, not teaching.

naasking 9y ago

> If a theory isn't predictive, it isn't falsifiable. If it isn't falsifiable, then the theory isn't truly scientific. That's an overly anemic view of science. Scientific theories have both predictive and explanatory power. Interpretations of QM don't change the former, but they do change the latter. Copenhagen, favoured by this article's author for some unfathomable reason, has little explanatory power. Many worlds and Bohmian mechanics have excellent explanatory power, and their predictive power equals Copenhagen.