3 ms·

Of course it's fundamentally untestable. The point isn't to make a testable hypothesis or an accurate model of what's actually happening. It certainly can't des

Of course it's fundamentally untestable. The point isn't to make a testable hypothesis or an accurate model of what's actually happening. It certainly can't describe how a delayed-choice quantum eraser [0] works. The point is to conceptualize a model that doesn't hurt your brain. The point is to get your mind to allow subatomic particles to just be what they are and not to try to force yourself to fight against the apparent paradox of something being simultaneously/alternately wave-like and simultaneously/alternately particle-like. To get your mind to start to just let reality be what it is. That's basically what you have to do. You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser

Reelin 8y ago
I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original post seemed to be saying "this is the way the universe really works", and that didn't seem right to me on account of the untestability. > You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. I'd argue that it does show it to us, and quite clearly. It's just that us big macroscopic beings are sometimes confused or dissatisfied with how different and unintuitive (for us) things are at that scale. > All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. Of course it's always important to be actively aware that there could be more going on under the surface that we haven't yet come across evidence for. But if your model fits reality perfectly, who's to say that it's not how things really work? By definition you could never prove it one way or the other.

Reelin 8y ago

I suppose I'm fine with flawed or untestable models as teaching or reasoning tools as long as they are clearly labeled as such. It was more that your original post seemed to be saying "this is the way the universe really works", and that didn't seem right to me on account of the untestability. > You've got to let go of your need to know what quantum particles "are", because the universe isn't going to show it to you. I'd argue that it does show it to us, and quite clearly. It's just that us big macroscopic beings are sometimes confused or dissatisfied with how different and unintuitive (for us) things are at that scale. > All you can really do is mathematically describe and predict behavior. That's a lot, but it's still limited. Of course it's always important to be actively aware that there could be more going on under the surface that we haven't yet come across evidence for. But if your model fits reality perfectly, who's to say that it's not how things really work? By definition you could never prove it one way or the other.