Hacker News Reader

Comment by pwny | Hacker News Reader

You can say the exact same thing about any scientific model. My view on this has always been that as long as the model accurately predicts experimental results, assume it is correct for your calculations until it is proven to be wrong.

Even then, we never stopped using classical mechanics even though they were proven to be wrong at a variety of scales. They just happen to very closely approximate reality in some contexts and are useful.

The fact of the matter is, we have tools that are correct as far as we know and they point towards thinking that every quantum system is computable. Until this has been proven wrong, the fallacy is believing the brain is different, not the other way around.

View on HN

Theories not only have to predict outcomes of events, they must also be falsifiable (and must expand on something thus far unexplained by other theories, you can't just recreate gravitational theory, for example).

You are, by your own admission, working with an incomplete understanding of how a scientific model functions. So I ask you, why should you be even commenting on this topic? Why should anyone take what you have to say seriously on this specific topic?

So no one should be commenting on this topic unless they have a perfect understanding of scientific theory? That seems terribly counter-productive.

I'm commenting on this topic to share my opinion and, to the extent of my knowledge, try to explain why I believe someone else's reasoning is flawed.

Now if you believe my reasoning is false, you're free to call that out. You're not free, however, to dismiss my contribution to the discussion simply because I'm not operating under perfect understanding of a field that isn't mine.

Call it out, explain why, participate in the discussion, and drop the personal attacks. I think at least part of my point is valid, even after what you pointed out.

I'm pretty sure I am free to dismiss your contribution "simply" because you don't know what you're talking about.

But let's not get caught in the weeds here; I don't think you're correctly conveying the level of certainty with which we understand quantum mechanics. There's a ton we don't have the slightest idea about in this area of science, so let's not forget that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com