View Single Post
  #35  
Old 01-03-2012, 04:10 PM
Candyman74 Candyman74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by whc.03grady View Post
None. I didn't say I was disagreeing with any scientific principle. And I realize Schrodinger's Cat isn't a scientific principle, it's a thought experiment.

I'm pointing out what I think may be an instance of a particular branch of science (quantum physics) overstepping the bounds of what science is allowed to make statements about. Science makes statements about the observable (empirical) world. The unobserved particle is, by definition, unobserved. What I'm asking is, on what basis does the quantum physicist get to make the claim that, during the time when it's unobserved, the particle has such-and-such property? The particle was unobserved! Science is only supposed to tell us about what IS observed. How can the physicist (who is a scientist, an empiricist) make a claim about a property a particle has during a time when she didn’t look at it?
Huh? You can observe the properties of a particle. You just can't accurately determine both its position and velocity at the same time.

Quote:
I have no idea on what basis you could make this assertion.
Clearly.


I'm afraid the whole subject of the scientific method is too much for me to want to get into a long debate about. I'll leave it to others; suffice it to say that you are misunderstanding some fairly fundamental concepts. But it's too much for me to want to engage in because I know how these threads go.

Last edited by Candyman74; 01-03-2012 at 04:10 PM.