On 6/26/2011 8:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
