On 6/26/2011 8:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:

On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> On 6/26/2011 2:37 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
>>> We can never be sure it's real (and in
>>> > general it may incoherent patches), but on the other hand we can't be
>>> > sure
>>> >  any particular part of it is not real.
>> Right, but asserting that the theories are true of the world doesn't
>> add anything to their usefulness,
> But I think it does. To say the theories have some element of truth is just > to say that any better theory must do just as well in predicting phenomena
> and must explain why the displaced theory worked as well as it did.

So if some Super-Einstein came up with a complete predictive framework that had no concepts in common with QM + GR, but which was more accurate, easier to work with, more intuitive, and made important verified predictions that weren't made by QM + GR - the scientific community would *still* say "No thanks...we're not interested unless you can *also* explain the success of QM+GR"?

That doesn't sound plausible to me.

Doesn't sound plausible me that such a theory could exist and *not* explain the success of QM and GR.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to