I guess one will have to say "not fully knowable" to be completely accurate.
Not fully knowable in the sense of people approaching QM from a historical mechanical perspective (little balls bouncing around with velocity and momentum vectors). Unfortunately, physics is still taught that way. First you learn Newtonian mechanics, then QM. The wave equation and its eigenvectors are what you can say about QM. If you learned that to start with, whats the problem? Once you are comfortable with conjugate variables, are they really so strange?
I will agree with you that somehow it does not seem intuitive, and surely there must be a deeper understanding. Take beta decay. How does a group of particles "coordinate" such a process, which is quite statistically precise for the entire group, but totally random for each individual?
The utility, at least to me, is besides the point. The true question is what is the ultimate truth and whether science is closer to it or faith?
Science is not concerned with TRUTH, it is concerned with accuracy, because that has utility. Science is always seeking the most accurate description which is consistent with the most data. TRUTH is the domain of philosophy and religion, and as you note utility is not the point of those, so there is not much real use for TRUTH. IMO, faith is useful, and as I noted very widespread in our species.
I think you already answered that question - you went to Art, the realm of the intangible. And I guess that's why we celebrate artists more than scientists
I would say Art is more about beauty, but I'm not artsy. |
