= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
TheOtherDave comments on The dangers of zero and one - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (68)
I fail to discern your point, here; sorry. Specifically, I don't see what makes this more interesting in context than my expectation, within the limits of precision and reliability of my measuring device, that if I (e.g.) measure the mass of a macroscopic object twice I'll get the same result.
Yes, good point. Classical physics, dealing with macroscopic objects, predicts definite (non-probabilistic) measurement outcomes for both the first and second measurements.
The point I was (poorly) aiming at is that while quantum theory is inherently probabilistic even it sometimes predicts specific results as certainties.
I guess the important point for me is that while theories may predict certainties they are always falsifiable; the theory itself may be wrong.
Ah, I see. Yes, exactly... the theory may be wrong, or we have made a mistake in applying it or interpreting it, etc.