5 ms·
As though the results of randomly flipping a coin "destroyed the definition of science"? Dealing with randomness has always been a part of science. Understand
by crusso 12y ago
As though the results of randomly flipping a coin "destroyed the definition of science"?
Dealing with randomness has always been a part of science. Understanding how far that randomness permeated the nature of the universe was a revelation, but it's hyperbolic and sensationalistic to say it as you did.
- nilkn 12y agoNot the same. You're conflating two very different types of randomness. The coin is understood to be deterministic, just hard to predict. Quantum mechanics is not like that. It's viewed as fundamentally non-deterministic.
- crusso 12y agoImagine this. Imagine that tomorrow, a string theory physicist made the discovery that the strings vibrations can actually be predicted. If you know their configuration and certain starting parameters, you can predict the spin of an electron, say. Would "the definition of science" suddenly not be destroyed... or would it be re-destroyed?
- nilkn 12y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
- crusso 12y agoWell, first of all: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdeterminism Second of all, you missed the point of this sub-thread. Even one of the quoted scientists claims, "Bell's theorem is the most profound discovery of science." He didn't say it "destroyed science". How does the theory of the randomness described in QMT destroy science?