Scientific laws would've been a better thing to say.
A man who fights for a cause thereby affirms the cause of the fight.
Do "laws of nature" exist per se? I don't think so. There is only some inexplicable chaos which we (try to) rationalize away by applying the abstract notion of "laws of nature".
And no, it's not nitpicking.
David Bohm and his camp will end up being correct and hidden variables will be discovered that account for the appearance of unpredictability at the quantum level. We'll have no way of knowing for sure until we can overcome the limitations of our current particle accelerators.
So, when I, in a vacuum, drop a lead sphere, it's resultant motion doesn't occur in an entirely regular and repeatable manner?Originally Posted by The Revenant
These abstractions called "laws of nature" do have a very useful practical value because they enable us to predict things with high probability. I am not denying that. It's only that I don't see them as existing in and of themselves, transcendentally, so to speak, as eternal and self-understood. They are our approximations and projections.
I'm not a physicist, merely an interested layman with some background in the field, so I'm not quite sure about this: has there ever been a documented instance of a large-scale formula, in a situation in which all the necessary variables were known, not predicting the outcome? I ask because the only tests I can think of where this occurs deal with either photons or sub-atomic particles.Originally Posted by The Revenant
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)