Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> 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