The discussion revolves around the interpretation of Richard Feynman's remark that "nobody understands quantum mechanics." Participants explore the implications of this statement, contrasting quantum mechanics (QM) with classical mechanics, and delve into the complexities and interpretations of quantum theory.
Participants express multiple competing views regarding the understanding of quantum mechanics, with no consensus reached on whether Feynman's remark reflects a genuine lack of understanding or if QM is sufficiently understood within its framework.
Participants note that the interpretations of quantum theory are diverse and that the discussion includes unresolved issues such as the measurement problem and the implications of quantum mechanics for gravity.
vanhees71 said:but there's no hint at the claimed dichotomy between a classical and a quantum world.
In a Bayesian sense that depends on your expectations :Pphysika said:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrongphysika said:absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.hutchphd said:If this is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method.
A scientific hypothesis may be "accepted" for as long as it is not contradicted and competes well in the "Occam's Razor" test. But Newtonian physics is "accepted" as a practical engineering tool for most human endeavors - even though it has been contradicted.hutchphd said:If this ["absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"] is strictly correct then there is no inductive scientific method. A scientific hypothesis is accepted because of ongoing absence of any evidence it is not true. This assumes the hypothesis is not a "Pauli"= not even wrong
How much do you know of Popper's own view and motivations? Are you sure that you won't end up with a similar realization as meFra said:This is Poppers view. Which is why his focus is on corroboration only. I do not like Popper at all. He sweeps the interesting part under the rug just because it is not deductive. But life does not progress in a deductive manner neither i think is learning or natural science. I think Popper just refused to acccept or get to peace with this.
when you will come across explainations of Popper's actual motivations? Or will you be so blinded by his objections to Bayesianism that you won't be able to see the genius of his solution of how to overcome the circularity of induction?For me, it was the opposite. This interview has significantly increased my respect for Deutsch, and also for Popper. It slightly decreased my respect for my own background in philosophy, with respect to what I have read, what I haven’t read, and what I didn’t even plan to read.
Popper realised that the problem of induction actually implies that there's no such thing as justified knowledge in the first place, and that we do not need knowledge to be justified in order to use it.
There is no process of justifying a theory. So theories, according to Popper, are always conjecture, and thinking about theories is always criticism. It's never a justificatory process. It's always a critical process.