Anonymous B replied with this 11 years ago, 10 minutes later, 15 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,575
@previous (A)
Based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, you cannot be certain that is true.
It is certainly the case that I am not certain about my position either. This is in accord with the position, that the more precisely the position of the argument is determined, the less precisely its accuracy can be known, and vice versa.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 14 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,578
Syntax replied with this 11 years ago, 4 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^][v]#542,581
@previous (Metæ)
Based on the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, I cannot be sure.
squeegee joined in and replied with this 11 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#542,595
it is incomplete. if you're working with partial information then you sort of have to rely on probability to fill in the blanks. in my mind it is basically like the Newtonian problem with the orbit of mercury (i believe it was). Evidently Newton could not fully account for the motion of mercury and all kinds of theories were proposed to solve the problem (such as the aether) but none of them held up to scrutiny. Then along came Einstein with a radically different approach to the problem and solved it with unorthodox and unintuitive thinking.
the same thing will happen with modern physics and many of the intractable problems with Quantum Mechanics (wave particle duality and uncertainty) will make sense in a different framework than the one in which, to us, everything looks like unexplainable magic.