Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
You're right, no scientific theory can be verified (100%), as Popper emphasized. But he doesn't address "partial" or probabilistic verification of a theory. Perhaps it was a mistake to call it a "mistake" of Popper's. It's more a question of emphasis. Anyway I found this blog which addresses the issue pretty well: https://themultidisciplinarian.com/2016/...phy-again/. A couple of quotes:

"Scientists, for the most part, make lousy philosophers."

"He [Popper] ignores the problem of choosing between alternative non-falsified theories and the matter of theory-ladenness of negative observations."

That blog post at least will give you an idea of what I meant - saving me the trouble of explaining.

I didn't call the founders of QM "incompetent", but the exact opposite, they're "competent". My main point: if none of them had lived, somebody else would have figured it out. Progress might have been retarded by a few years at the most. Whereas, without the data (e.g. black body spectrum) nothing could happen.

You claim Bell is nothing but philosophy ("Bell’s theorem rests on no foundation except philosophy"). But that's too easy to refute. No doubt that's a bit of an exaggeration? Do you really want to maintain that claim? If so I'll be happy to demolish it :-)

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 09-06-2016, 02:33 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)