3 ms·

We can only predict the outcome of the double-slit experiment. We do not know how that outcome comes to be, nor do we know "why" the rules are the rules.

by ISL 8y ago

Retric 8y ago
Why can be a rather unscientific question. As long as the observation matches reality the just so story used is rather meaningless.
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
I think you are asking for answers beyond what science can offer. Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". Moreover, contrary to popular belief, science is process of eliminating the false theories leaving behind a set of _possibly true_ theories. Our current understanding of the philosophy of science suggests that we will never be able to infer the "true" laws of the universe. How can you answer the "why" if you don't even know if the current physical laws are the "true" ones. Science is just a way of compressing what we perceive with our senses into compact descriptions that our easy to memorize and understand by human beings. That is all. In the words of Neil Bohr, "Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience.".
- whatshisface 8y ago
  >Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". I don't think this is true. The axioms can be testable, in which case you can do a little better than faith and say that "well, this is how it seems to work." For example I could have a theory that when I press the gas pedal my car moves forwards. Later on I could discover another theory that explains why that theory is true, but in the meantime I'm better than faith but worse than complete fundamental knowledge. That's where physics is - if we had complete fundamental knowledge many of us would go home, having nothing left to do.
  - abdullahkhalids 8y ago
    What you say is indeed true and I did not mean my comment to imply that axioms are not testable.

We can only predict the outcome of the double-slit experiment. We do not know how that outcome comes to be, nor do we know "why" the rules are the rules.

by ISL 8y ago

We can only predict the outcome of the double-slit experiment. We do not know how that outcome comes to be, nor do we know "why" the rules are the rules.

Retric 8y ago

Why can be a rather unscientific question. As long as the observation matches reality the just so story used is rather meaningless.

abdullahkhalids 8y ago

I think you are asking for answers beyond what science can offer. Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". Moreover, contrary to popular belief, science is process of eliminating the false theories leaving behind a set of _possibly true_ theories. Our current understanding of the philosophy of science suggests that we will never be able to infer the "true" laws of the universe. How can you answer the "why" if you don't even know if the current physical laws are the "true" ones. Science is just a way of compressing what we perceive with our senses into compact descriptions that our easy to memorize and understand by human beings. That is all. In the words of Neil Bohr, "Physics is to be regarded not so much as the study of something a priori given, but rather as the development of methods of ordering and surveying human experience.".

whatshisface 8y ago
>Our current understanding of mathematics and logic suggest that every scientific theory will always have some axioms that we will have to take on "faith". I don't think this is true. The axioms can be testable, in which case you can do a little better than faith and say that "well, this is how it seems to work." For example I could have a theory that when I press the gas pedal my car moves forwards. Later on I could discover another theory that explains why that theory is true, but in the meantime I'm better than faith but worse than complete fundamental knowledge. That's where physics is - if we had complete fundamental knowledge many of us would go home, having nothing left to do.
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago
  What you say is indeed true and I did not mean my comment to imply that axioms are not testable.