My previous comments were made somewhat tongue in cheek, but this is exactly what I was eluding to. To those who have made the effort and expended the discipline, Calculus, Differential Equations, or QM is understandable, and useful as tools to obtain further understanding of the world.Typhoon wrote:Not sure how it is "very religious sounding".Simple Minded wrote:A very sensible explanation, yet also very religious sounding. Perhaps reality is determined primarily by one's faith.Typhoon wrote:That the physical universe operates according QM at the fundamental level has now been established by experiments.
The local reality objections of Einstein and others are now D.O.A.
Whether people are comfortable, or not, with this empirical reality is frankly irrelevant.
The problem for many people it that QM is different from their everyday macroscopic experience.
Anyways, to understand QM, one should as a minimum understand the double-slit experiment.
Which mountain are you climbing or descending...... right now?
I'm not aware of any religion based on statistically significant empirical evidence acquired under reproducible conditions.
Rather all religions that I can think of are based on metaphysicals claim that require belief, or in my case, a suspension of disbelief.
A set of historical irreproducible results.
....
It's a problem as old as civilization. Euclid is said to have replied to King Ptolemy's request for an easier way of learning mathematics that
there is no Royal Road to geometry.
The "scientific expert" can make the same claim to the less experienced/less practiced outsider as the "religious expert." "Duplicate my hours of study (or prayer) in my field of expertise, and you will agree with my perspective."
To expect the concert pianist, and the figure skater, who both have 20,000 hours of practice in their respective fields, to agree is naïve.
Now to the outsider/less studied, what to think when QM experts or the religious experts disagree?
Climate science for example. Different lines of reasoning, seem very similar to different types of faith. Disagree, get excommunicated, and hopefully, there is another church down the road that will accept your thinking.
The answer of course is that "science is never settled" but simply the best available method with our current level of understanding/information/practice/tools. As you have noted, "experts" have a lousy track record in predicting the future. QM at work? (tongue in cheek)
Funding, politics, and the desire for fame muddy the water. The recent article someone posted that the "popular views change when the rock stars of current accepted opinion die" was an excellent example.