My favorite is when someone tells me that they are too old to learn about new technology, or that they can’t use a device because they aren’t very tech-y. No, you just refuse to learn.
My favorite is when someone tells me that they are too old to learn about new technology, or that they can’t use a device because they aren’t very tech-y. No, you just refuse to learn.
Anybody who claims to understand quantum physics … doesn’t. If you think it’s easy to understand, then you have a very superficial and incorrect understanding of it. Actual quantum physicists, the foremost experts in the field … they may know the math behind it and be able to figure some of it out … but they’ll be the first to tell you that they don’t understand most of it, though they’re constantly trying.
What is the distinction you are making between knowing the math and understanding it?
Quantum physicist: “This is the equation that describes the phenomenon and has so far done a very good job of predicting the outcome.”
“Cool. Why does it work like that?”
Quantum physicist: *shrug* “Hopefully maybe someday we can figure that out.”
“Why” implies an underlying ontology. Maybe there is something underneath it but it’s as far as it goes down as far as we currently know. If we don’t at least tentatively accept that our current most fundamental theories are the fundamental ontology of nature, at least as far as we currently know, then we can never believe anything about nature at all, because it would be an infinite regress. Every time we discover a new theory we can ask “well why does it work like that?” and so it would be impossible to actually believe anything about nature.