Question

How can philosophical and scientific inquiries distinguish between proving the non-existence of something, such as local hidden variables in quantum mechanics, and acknowledging the limitations of our current understanding or the potential existence of factors beyond our current grasp, akin to the challenge of disproving the existence of a mysterious local invisible entity causing gravity?

Answer 1

In scientific and philosophical contexts, proving non-existence relies on experimental evidence and theoretical consistency, whereas the absence of evidence highlights understanding limitations and potential for undiscovered factors.

Step-by-step explanation:

Distinction Between Non-Existence and Current Understanding Limitations

Philosophical and scientific inquiries approach the problem of proving non-existence, such as with local hidden variables in quantum mechanics, by trying to demonstrate through experiments and logical arguments that certain phenomena cannot occur within the context of accepted theories.

However, in areas where experiments or observations are not currently possible, like the hypothesized influence of other universes or the true nature of gravity, researchers must recognize limitations in our current understanding. This does not equate to proving non-existence but rather acknowledges the possibility that factors beyond our current grasp may exist.

The statement 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' articulates this distinction. As science progresses, the currently unavailable experimental evidence may one day enable us to answer these questions conclusively.