Re: [gentoo-user] Question of quantum computer

[<wabenbau@gmail.com>]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 03/04/2015 23:11, Fernando Rodriguez wrote:
> > That's the problem with science in general. The one thing it may
> > never be able to answer is "why?". Take gravity as an example. We
> > got really good models for it, we can predict how it influences
> > even light with great accuracy but what are the underlying
> > mechanisms? We may never know.  Einstein would say it's because
> > matter bends space, but what is the underlying mechanism for that?
> > We just take his word for it because he gave us equations that work
> > better than anything else we've come up with so far.
> 
> 
> The scientific community is very well aware that it cannot answer the
> question "why?", and in fact, true science doesn't even try.
> 
> Science never proves anything, it only fails to disprove a realistic
> workable model.
> 
> For the sake of simplicity and brevity we often says "according to
> Einstein's theory matter bands space so therefore..." or even simplify
> that to "matter bands space so therefore...", all the time
> understanding that it's just a model, and could be totally wrong
> about the real underlying truth.
> 
> This is in no way a "problem" with science. It is by design.

That's exactly the point. Theories are not the reality. They are "just"
tools to predict the processes we are detecting (Plato's Cave).

One thing that I don't understand is, why the fact that gravity can be 
described by a theory of bended space-time is leading to the assumption,
that there really exists such a "rubber cloth" like space. 
A resonant circuit can be described as a spring-mass like mechanism. But 
nobody would really assume that there exists little springs inside such a
circuit. :-)

--
Regards
wabe