dtj1123

I'm not to certain about the healthcare and aircon.

Google or ask an LLM about the technological application of solid state physics or many body quantum physics.

You can make an identical argument with respect to classical physics, e.g. outstanding issues in fluid dynamics or statistical mechanics.

Nobody takes this to mean that classical physics is generally incomprehensible.

We understand quantum mechanics well enough to build machines that depend almost entirely on quantum principles.

It sounds all superior and mysterious to quote Feynman here, but the fact is many people absolutely do understand quantum mechanics.

Average is 33% different, which is still a far cry from 99% similar.

"93% different"

Same here. I'm a bioinformatician, and most of the software I'd have historically been expected to use was cobbled together by biologists then left to rot once the accompanying white paper was published.

I've been able to create my own tooling that beats out the preexisting best across every metric. It's incredible.

That's only the case if each question has a yes-no answer.

May be worth submitting this to the front page

Heuristics and common sense intuition are quite obviously not the same thing.

You don't have to posit that scientific breakthroughs come from hunches, you can actually cite examples from books or Wikipedia :D. There are plenty! Again, that has nothing to do with whether or not a given scientific breakthrough is based on common sense intuition.

Your point about interior experience not being empirically measurable is an interesting though, but again, has no bearing on whether or not scientific breakthroughs come about as the result of common sense intuition.