Theories don't explain- they predict. Consider gravity- Newton's law tells you the attraction between two masses, and it's mostly consistent with the mostly elliptical orbits that we observe the planets moving in.

The gravitational equation is effectively just* a summary of the observed data, so it is no surprise that it predicts. I believe Monkeymind finds this unsatsifactory, but I'm still not sure exactly how. Perhaps he defines theory differently. I'm a little curious what actually causes the Earth to pull on me, rather than, say, push me away. At the time Newton said he had no hypothesis for that, but now the same equation constitutes a theory or explanation? I feel like these terms are used a little too loosely.

*Not to imply that finding the equation that fit the data wasn't an important achievement

I would say the theory was poorly communicated, at best.

I think you two may be talking past each other here. You clearly would do some observation before hypothesizing or theorizing, just perhaps not as much. I think the real difference between your positions lies in how you're defining a theory or an explanation (as opposed to a description of appearances). The explanation that QM raised to a level of attention was not an explanation in the way you probably mean, but more like what you may call a description, like a summary of observations.

Luckily, you can choose to use a mechanism other than human intuition to understand the universe. Like mathematics, which seems to do a much better job, even in a way observable to humans. We have lots of devices (observable at human scales!) that do exactly what the mathematics said they would, like GPS.

I think there is a common miscommunication on this point. If something cannot be understood in the conventional human sense, can it be understood via math? It depends on what we mean by "understand." We can certainly catalog what we observe and summarize those data in the form of mathematical formulae and models.

However, if those are merely very succinct summaries, it is no surprise that they make accurate predictions, as they would effectively just be extrapolating from the observed data. It also seems unsatisfying to call that a theory in the traditional sense, if it is really more like curve-fitting.

Learning QM has been compared to learning to ride a bicycle. You don't do that by first defining your terms, you just get out there and do it, and it's hard to reduce the knowledge of how to ride a bike to definitions.

This may indeed be the case, but taking the outside view - if I didn't know you were talking about QM, but knew it was about some purported scientific theory - giving a free pass to the usual strict rationalist requirement to "define your terms clearly" would seem pretty dubious. There are a lot of ways to build whole systems out of equivocations and other such semantic fudging, a lot of religious argument operates that way, and so on.

Your method of argumentation is a little unusual and perhaps a bit off-putting, but I don't know why all your posts are being systematically downvoted this low. It's clear from posts like this one that you're not merely trolling, but I think you're taking on too much at once. Also, your style is not very LessWrong friendly and you're posting a lot. Maybe slow it down a bit, get familiar with the lay of the land a bit more.

I, for one, would like to hear a bit more about your misgivings. You've said some interesting things so far that have got me thinking.

One can't really "explain" a particle. I would say, however, that if you cannot show the shape of the particle (how it occupies space), it is somewhat questionable to call it a "particle" in any classical sense that I'm familiar with.

Why shouldn't physics talk about concepts? Or first, what is your definition of "object" and "concept" - even just by examples.

Yes, it does take far more than just defining ones terms, but we must start there b4 we can go anywhere else! I don't mean a infinite number of now define that, now define that....just the KEY TERMS of one's hypothesis b4 moving on to the theory. Whatever the defs are they must be used CONSISTENTLY.

I agree that key terms need a definition. They have apparently all been defined before, but no one here has yet shown an interest in giving those (or any) precise definitions right now. I'm not sure why, especially given that this is LessWrong. I'd help you out on that, but I honestly don't know the precise definition that QM theorists use for wave. Surely someone must know?

If quantum mechanical models accurately describe what's happening, the fact that we can't picture it in our heads is not a problem.

I think there's a danger of equivocating here on the words "what's happening." In other words, which "what's happening" do the QM models describe?

I'll elaborate. If we observe X, do the QM models describe X, or do they describe the (so far unobserved) phenomena that may underly X?

• If the mathematical QM model merely describes X, it's hard to see how it is anything other than a very succinct cataloging of the observations, put in a very useful form. That's quite an achievement, but I can understand the hesitation with calling it an explanation or a theory.

• If the QM model actually describes some as-yet unobserved phenomena that is proposed to underly X, then it seems like it avoids Monkeymind's criticisms because there is actually something additional being posited to be happening, behind the scenes as it were.

If it is the latter, I'd be interested in seeing an example (anything in QM).