|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> >> And, AFAIK, that's the best explanation there is.
> >
> > Except that it's not an explanation at all. It's simply stating the
> > result of the experiment.
> Isn't that what a theory is?
No. A theory is a suggested explanation for a phenomenon, not just a
description of the phenomenon.
> A theory is not a theory if it is not testable. My "explanation" is
> testable. If you do the experiment tomorrow, my description will hold true.
You are equating a repeatable experiment with a theory. You are talking
about apples and oranges.
An experiment measures a phenomenon. A theory is a suggested explanation
of what causes that phenomenon.
> Your claim that it passes through both slits is untestable. We can
> never detect that it is doing this.
There are many theories which are untestable in practice. For example
the existence of the so-called cosmic horizon is, by definition, untestable.
(If we could go and see if the cosmic horizon indeed exists, it would not
be a cosmic horizon anymore, by the very definition of cosmic horizon.)
That doesn't make the theory any less of a theory.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |