3 ms·

Yes, they are metaphors. However, they come out of prior assumptions and they are used as input assumptions for later work. The equations are simplified mathema

Yes, they are metaphors. However, they come out of prior assumptions and they are used as input assumptions for later work. The equations are simplified mathematical characterisations of the experimental evidence. Certain simplifying assumptions are made to create these equations. Theories are an attempt to clarify what is believed to be happening and are always based on some kind of simplifying assumptions. Often, it is difficult to take a step back and take another long hard look at what the evidence is. The point of my mentioning "what is a photon?" is that we make certain assumptions (as per your operators, uncertainty principle, etc) which we don't step back from and see if there are alternatives. Even trying to get a handle on what the uncertainty principle means gets us into a philosophical quagmire. Our view of the "quantum realm" is coloured by a huge amount of background assumptions, including the "intuitions" of those investigating the subject matter. There is an oft stated saying: "The science is settled" over some matter or another. Yet, the whole point of scientific endeavour is that it is not settled, we are still investigating (or at least should be).

auxbuss 8y ago
In Carlo Rovelli's, Reality is Not What it Seems [0], he speaks of this final point in its short, final chapter. He starts by using an example from Plato's, Phaedo, where Plato acknowledges the limits of the knowledge of his time – in relation to Socrates being unsure about his "belief" in the Earth being a sphere. Rovelli says: "This acute awareness of our ignorance is the heart of scientific thinking. It is thanks to this awareness of the limits of our knowledge that we have learned so much. We are not certain of all which we suspect, just as Socrates was not sure of the spherical nature of the Earth. We are exploring at the borders of our knowledge." As was Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, amongst others. Rovelli goes on: "Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. ... They are the best we have because we don’t consider them to be definitive, but see them as open to improvement. It’s the awareness of our ignorance that gives science its reliability." Science is never settled. Rovelli's book is about Loop Quantum Gravity; as unsettled a field of research in science _today_. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29767627-reality-is-not-what-it-seems https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29767627-reality-is-not-...

auxbuss 8y ago

In Carlo Rovelli's, Reality is Not What it Seems [0], he speaks of this final point in its short, final chapter. He starts by using an example from Plato's, Phaedo, where Plato acknowledges the limits of the knowledge of his time – in relation to Socrates being unsure about his "belief" in the Earth being a sphere. Rovelli says: "This acute awareness of our ignorance is the heart of scientific thinking. It is thanks to this awareness of the limits of our knowledge that we have learned so much. We are not certain of all which we suspect, just as Socrates was not sure of the spherical nature of the Earth. We are exploring at the borders of our knowledge." As was Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, amongst others. Rovelli goes on: "Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. ... They are the best we have because we don’t consider them to be definitive, but see them as open to improvement. It’s the awareness of our ignorance that gives science its reliability." Science is never settled. Rovelli's book is about Loop Quantum Gravity; as unsettled a field of research in science _today_. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29767627-reality-is-not-what-it-seems https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29767627-reality-is-not-...