blacknblue wrote:JadziaKathryn wrote:
Um, if not, don't bother much trying to explain it on my account. It won't make sense and will be a waste of time.
Now, if I get hit by a bus and die- that's it. No more me. Here, at any rate, 'cause there's Heaven. But so far as this earth goes, saiyonara.
That's the theory anyway. And it seems (so far) to be borne out by experimental data.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that its true. Phlogiston Chemistry sounded good also. But it was horseshit. The Crystal Spheres theory that was popular in the Middle Ages made perfect sense in its day. It simply happened not to be true. Quantum theory may, or may not, be another case of a theory that looks and sounds good but happens not to be true. We don't know for sure yet.
There's a big difference... those things existed before the scientific method - before you could validate a theory with any kind of empirical observation. To suggest that QM is no more valid in an absolute sense when viewed through an unbiased historical lens is to suggest that we are approaching science with the same subjectiveness as we were 500 years ago, which is completely not true. There is a WHOLE lot more to QM than just "looking and sounding" good. When you can literally do the math on paper, say "we should see THIS when we do THIS experiment", do the experiment, and get that value, that's very different from something that looks and sounds good. In fact, QM doesn't look and sound good if you want to liken looking and sounding good to being intuitive.... because that's exactly what it's not: intuitive. It's completely UNintuitive. But nature seems to follow it. Given, we can already say for sure it's only a piece of the puzzle because it doesn't work on a Universal scale to explain gravitational expansion or Universal acceleration or black holes -- but those aren't experiments, they're just macroscopic applications we haven't ironed out yet. We just need a mathematical formalism that represents gravitation as a quantum field...which we don't have yet.