This is a strange belief to hold, considering we can prove this not to be the case with pure logic.

Suppose we observe that when A happens, B occurs. This does not imply that A causes B. In fact, we can never confirm that A causes B, regardless of how closely we measure the reaction. 'Preposterous!' I hear you say on the other end of the intertubes.. but alas, it is true. Beyond the realm of reality and hubris we might observe that in fact X causes Y, and that A is simply an observable effect of X. Similarly, B is just an effect of Y. If you really want to explode that mind, think about how broadly this concept can be applied.

This is a flawed argument. Nothing can be proven in that sense. We cannot even prove that 1 = 1. I cannot prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but there is a high probability it will.

I had a professor in college who, when challenged with that kind of "but we can't knoooowwwww" argument, would reply "Alright, you are correct. But for the sake of not being an insufferable twit, let us assume that 1 = 1 and move on..."

Science is about creating a model that reflects the predictable outcomes in the natural world. If something is unpredictable, science works to understand why. If something that previously was predictable suddenly became unpredictable, science would happen and our model would change.

Science is not a mindset or field. It is an act of accomplishing understanding. If there is something mankind can reason about, we can also do science-y stuff with it.

Then we have the famous quote: "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don’t".

"What about a poll among 33 leading thinkers at a conference in Austria in 2011. This group of physicists, mathematicians and philosophers was given 16 multiple-choice questions about the meaning of the theory, and their answers displayed little consensus."

"One of the most telling questions in the Austrian poll was whether there will still be conferences about the meaning of quantum theory in 50 years time. Forty-eight percent said “probably yes”, only 15% said “probably no”. Twelve percent said “I’ll organize one no matter what”, but that’s academics for you."

From a BBC article by Philip Ball.

If you asked a group of 33 physicists, mathematicians and philosophers 16 multiple choice questions about number theory you would probably also not get much consensus. All that would prove is that physicists and philosophers and mathematicians who are not number theorists do not know much about number theory. Or that the questions are vague.

We might observe that X causes Y, and A is just an effect of X while B is an effect of Y.

When we observe this, we come up with explanations as to how it happened, describe it using mathematics or chemical symbols or whatever is appropriate. In this way, science is done.

There are still a lot of mysteries out there today. Scientists are working on explaining them.

No.

Case in point: mathematics. It's completely misguided to think mathematics is empirical or within the realm of science. Math has empirical applications and is useful for scientific endeavors, but the actual discipline itself is entirely proof-based and rational.

So can science explain how a photon traverses the slits in the famous two slit experiment? So far, it has provided any number of ideas about that, but it's not been able to settle the question: and some believe it's beyond the realm of knowing (the predominant position if I'm not mistaken.)

To be fair, I actually agree with you. Science may not have all the answers today, and it may not have some answers for a very long time. But I don't think there are aspects of the universe that are inherently "unknowable". Many times throughout history we have not had access to certain facts due mostly to our technical progression and eventually we have found ways to overcome those obstacles. I see a reality that is, in fact, real and knowable, even if our access to some of that knowledge is not yet possible.

Of course, that thinking would be due to my positions on metaphysics. :-) This is where metaphysics can be important; because it can inform your choices about what can even be pursued.

Actually, science does explain how the photon traverses the double slit in the double slit experiment. That's what quantum mechanics is all about. It was literally invented to explain exactly that.

Yes, he picked a poor and kinda disproved himself there. Even something as weird and crazy as that is under the purview of science. Back long ago I bet people thought lightning was unexplainable but it only proves science will eventually push back any limits people set on it.

It gives a predictive model, but it doesnt give us a mechanism.

Actually it gives us both. It predicts the outcome of say double slit experiment but it also tells us the "mechanism".

The "mechanism", if you can call it that, is the wave function, which is a complex valued function, norm squared of which is probability amplitude - roughly speaking the probability that the particle is located at a point in space.

So what is really happening is the wave function is propagating though space and interfering with itself as if it were a "normal" wave (say water wave). So wave function propagates through the two slits in double slit experiment and the two resulting waves collide just like water waves would passing though the slits with the resulting troughs and crests of the wave function (remember this is complex valued function whose absolute value squared is the probability that particle is located at that location in space).

So, in the quantum model, what is "waving" and spreading through space is in a way a probability of the particle being there.

This explanation is very rough and contains a lot of inaccuracies (you really have to look at the math to know what is really going on) but it does give you some flavor of what is going on.

> The "mechanism", if you can call it that, is the wave function, which is a complex valued function

I think that's where I originally disagreed. I wouldn't want to call that a "mechanism", just a model, but I can see how these words become less useful as you examine them further.

I'm now thinking that there isn't such a difference between the word "mechanism" and "model". They're both synonyms for a way of perceiving a part of the universe.

Science can explain how a photon traverses the slits. The trick is explaining why it does so, which is still an active area of research.

We need metaphysics mainly because of two things:

1 - Science hasn't yet discovered why something as it is => Metaphysical explanation

2 - Mankind needs an explanation for things they cannot understand => feel better with the unknown

Scientific knowledge is the enemy of any religion as it can eventually explain why something is the way it is.

> it can eventually explain why something is the way it is.

Not exactly. It can explain "how" it is, but not "why" it is that way.

Unless you take "why" as a shortcut for "how it works in a more detailed framework", which is not how philosophers understand it when doing metaphysics.

I did a shortcut on my comment mixing religion with philosophy, not to start any kind of big discussion.

> Science hasn't yet discovered why something as it is => Metaphysical explanation

This is a bit of a myth. If you look at the metaphysical problems that, say, Aristotle was grappling with a few thousand years ago, pretty much all of them are still unsolved philosophical problems that have barely been touched by any developments in science. To pick an example at random: are statements about the future true or false?

(To say that these problems remain unsolved is not to say that there's been no progress. We understand the space of possible and plausible solutions a lot better than Aristotle did.)

I agree with the philosophy part, I was actually hitting at something else while trying to not injure susceptibilities.

Depending on how you define "explain" and "everything" the answer can also be no. Defining words seems to be the major occupation of philosophers.

Only if you have a limited definition of "science."

No, there are questions you can't answer in general. Look at undecidable problems. There are more questions you can't answer in practice because computing the answer would take too long. For example, it's unlikely that science will ever answer the question "Which string has the sha-512 hash c706680d51e14feef6e97d9b714061facfca91f84cc5d6fb5a8fa6bffe545e0d2eaa686e7eec51b40feb12c1beea9ad9ae805ebef61a28110a343e5ecb90874d".

Clearly you haven't looked into the current state of quantum physics. Lots of unexplained phenomenon.

The poster didn't write that science explains everything. They wrote that science can explain everything.

There are some philosophers like Colin McGinn that think that some features of empirical reality are in principle impossible to explain with human science (it's slightly more complex than that but..) - but they are a distinct minority.

> The poster didn't write that science explains everything. They wrote that science can explain everything.

But where's the evidence for that supposition? All we really know for sure is that science hasn't explained everything yet.

Quantum physics makes very specific predictions about the probabilities of outcomes. That is not the same as making strict, absolute predictions as with classical physics, but it does not leave it open for anyone to come along and whimsically insert whatever theory they want in there -- unless those whimsical theories are also consistent with the experimental results we have that underpin the predictions made by quantum mechanical theory.

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are not two different things. Quantum mechanics predicts the same results which classical physics predicts but with more accuracy. Classical physics is just an approximation of Quantum mechanics at larger scale.