On 6/26/2011 8:54 PM, Rex Allen wrote:
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 8:49 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
> 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
>>> > 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
> to say that any better theory must do just as well in predicting
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at