Putting aside the fact that you cannot “experimentally prove” anything as proof is for mathematics, claiming you can experimentally demonstrate fundamental uncertainty is, to put it blindly, incoherent. Uncertainty is a negative, it is a statement that there is no underlying cause for something. You cannot empirically demonstrate the absence of an unknown cause.
If you believe in fundamental uncertainty, it would be appropriate to argue in favor of this using something like the principle of parsimony, pointing out the fact that we have no evidence for an underlying cause so we shouldn’t believe in one. Claiming that you have “proven” there is no underlying cause is backwards logic.
Einstein, of course, was fully aware of such arguments and acknowledged such a possibility, but he put forwards his own arguments as to why it leads to logical absurdities to treat the randomness of quantum mechanics as fundamental; it’s not merely a problem of randomness, but he showed with a thought experiment involving atomic decay that it forces you to have to reject the very existence of an perspective-independent reality.
There is no academic consensus on how to address Einstein’s arguments, and so to claim he’s been “proven wrong” is quite a wild claim to make.
“[W]hat is proved by impossibility proofs is lack of imagination.” (John Bell)
squaresinger@lemmy.world 4 days ago
There’s a subtile difference in meaning between “proven” and “prove”, even though they have the same root.
“Proven” can mean that there’s proof for something, but it can also mean “established”, “tested”, “reliable” or “trustworthy”.
You know, as in “time-proven” or “battle-proven”.
And quantum mechanics totally fits that description. Sure, there’s no mathematical proof for anything outside of maths, but quantum mechanics has proven itself many times over.
(Btw., outside of maths, the word “proof” also means something different than in maths. The word “proof” is also much older than its usage in maths. “Proof” in the context of maths is just as much domain lingo as “daemon” is in the context of Linux. It has its own distinct meaning in the context of mathematics and doesn’t mean the same thing outside of that domain.
Same as you don’t need an exorcist to get your Linux daemons in line.)