4 ms·

quantum mechanics is well-understood if you don't question the axioms and blindly calculate probabilistic outcomes. That doesn't mean we understand why those c

by platz 7y ago

quantum mechanics is well-understood if you don't question the axioms and blindly calculate probabilistic outcomes. That doesn't mean we understand why those calculations work in the first place, what their limits are, what they represent, etc... ptolemy might object, 'but we can calculate the answer with arbitrary precision!!' but his 'model' didn't capture reality in a meaningful way dispite the accuracy. The same could be said of quantum mechanics

MiroF 7y ago
Ultimately you have to accept axioms of how the universe functions... we didn't question the non-probabilistic newtonian outcome metaphysically when it was presented, why is QM now being held to that standard?
- platz 7y ago
  We questioned non-probabilistic newtonian physics when we asked harder questions than it could answer or it gave wrong answers when pushed to a higher regime. Something similar is going on now in QM. And do you really think we have discovered the "axioms of the universe" already? That is quite haughty. No we don't have those. We have models that perform well in certain regimes. Push those regimes, and the models break, then we find new and better models.. rinse and repeat. That is science. https://youtu.be/ka9KGqr5Wtw https://youtu.be/ka9KGqr5Wtw * We have 'axioms' (I would not call them that. I would say models) that work in a limited regime e.g. quantum field theory or Maxwell's equations, but we don't know if they are truly fundamental - in that sense they are not axioms , which in math have a precise meaning.
  - earenndil 7y ago
    > And do you really think we have discovered the "axioms of the universe" already? That is quite haughty. No we don't have those. That is also haughty. It is possible--probable, even--that our current models of physics are incorrect. We should certainly continue to probe them and look for something better. I would bet money that before my lifetime is out, some part of QM or relativity are overturned just like newtonian physics. However, you cannot just assume that that is the case. It is no certainty. We do not have certainty. The universe is sticky; it very well may be that we can never reduce it to something as simple as rule 30. It may be that our current theorems are axiomatic--at least, as far as the universe can be said to have axioms. (Or, as I think is more likely in the universe where we never discover any more physics, the difference between our laws and 'truth' is smaller than is possible to detect. That is, any instrument we use to measure will inherently produce too much noise to produce a statistically significantly different result.)
  - MiroF 7y ago
    I agree that we should push our models to regimes where they fail. I disagree that the questions you were asking above will lead us there.

by platz 7y ago

MiroF 7y ago

Ultimately you have to accept axioms of how the universe functions... we didn't question the non-probabilistic newtonian outcome metaphysically when it was presented, why is QM now being held to that standard?

platz 7y ago
We questioned non-probabilistic newtonian physics when we asked harder questions than it could answer or it gave wrong answers when pushed to a higher regime. Something similar is going on now in QM. And do you really think we have discovered the "axioms of the universe" already? That is quite haughty. No we don't have those. We have models that perform well in certain regimes. Push those regimes, and the models break, then we find new and better models.. rinse and repeat. That is science. https://youtu.be/ka9KGqr5Wtw https://youtu.be/ka9KGqr5Wtw * We have 'axioms' (I would not call them that. I would say models) that work in a limited regime e.g. quantum field theory or Maxwell's equations, but we don't know if they are truly fundamental - in that sense they are not axioms , which in math have a precise meaning.
- earenndil 7y ago
  > And do you really think we have discovered the "axioms of the universe" already? That is quite haughty. No we don't have those. That is also haughty. It is possible--probable, even--that our current models of physics are incorrect. We should certainly continue to probe them and look for something better. I would bet money that before my lifetime is out, some part of QM or relativity are overturned just like newtonian physics. However, you cannot just assume that that is the case. It is no certainty. We do not have certainty. The universe is sticky; it very well may be that we can never reduce it to something as simple as rule 30. It may be that our current theorems are axiomatic--at least, as far as the universe can be said to have axioms. (Or, as I think is more likely in the universe where we never discover any more physics, the difference between our laws and 'truth' is smaller than is possible to detect. That is, any instrument we use to measure will inherently produce too much noise to produce a statistically significantly different result.)
- MiroF 7y ago
  I agree that we should push our models to regimes where they fail. I disagree that the questions you were asking above will lead us there.