belligerent drunk
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,482
A scientific law typically describes how something happens, not why it happens
True. Not just typically, but always. The "why" question in terms of absolute purpose is not a question science tries to answer. It's a silly question.
QM often seems to tie how and why together, for example Schrödinger's Cat
No. The "why" here is the same kind of "why" the theory of gravity gives to the question "why an object falls towards the Earth".
I agree, then again I need to study more on QM.
A simple way to look at it is think about what scientific models are. They are a concept we came up with (through experiment/observation) to explain said observations. Our models are not exactly consistent with each other, there is a lot of simplification. I and Dr. Kitty talked about this in some other thread. For example, in organic chemistry, which concerns reactions between carbon-based molecules, you don't need to take QM effects into account for the most part. That is because they're fairly irrelevant in that context. It doesn't mean they don't influence the processes - if we COULD take them into account, then our model would be more precise, but the difference is too small to make a difference. Another example I like to use is MD/MM modeling of chemical processes. We don't take gravity into account. But not because gravity does not affect these processes - it does. But because the effect is so minuscule that the calculations are made simpler without taking it into account, while the loss in accuracy is non-existant. The same goes for other models. The theory of evolution does not take QM into account, which makes it, in principle, inaccurate. However, anyone with half a brain cell knows that it'd be impossible for us to implement QM into it, and there really is no need to do that either.
I don't know if you can make sense of what I said, but that's how I would explain it in simple terms.
Last edited: