4 ms·
This is a bigger question than physics can answer. The project of hard science is essentially reductionist and based on predicting events based on hypothesis.
by platz 7y ago
This is a bigger question than physics can answer. The project of hard science is essentially reductionist and based on predicting events based on hypothesis. Your question is more logical or philosophical.
Logic may have something to say about open or closed systems, but mapping that onto the real world will always be a following question.
- shkkmo 7y agoIt seems to me the limited hypothesis "We have reached a point where no further progress can be made in understanding why quantum mechanics works the way it does" is falsifiable and thus not purely logical or philosophical. (i.e. quantum mechanics is the lowest level of physics). It is only the broad hypothesis that is only answerable in philosophy: "There is a point in physics where no further progress can be made in understanding why things work the way they do and we will be purely limited to describing how things work." (i.e. there is some lowest level of physics)
- platz 7y agoYour 'limited hypothesis' can never be proved, because you can't prove things you haven't observed i.e. the proof works only up until counterexample, which by definition of unknowns, counterexamples (or a deeper understanding) would always be a possibility. Falsification is not end end-all-be-all, it's important, but it's not the only thing that matters.
- perl4ever 7y agoWhat scientific law or rule can be proved?
- platz 7y agowhat is the point shkkmo is making?
- shkkmo 7y agoThat the limited hypothesis is a scientific hypothesis because it is falsifiable and testable while the broad hypothesis is a philosophic question because it is not falsifiable. This is relevant as it is sort of ambiguous as to which hypothesis jshaqaw was asking about.
- platz 7y agobased on the specific wording and vocabulary jshaqaw used, i assumed he was referring to the latter