On 9/5/2012 9:18 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote:
I started reading the new Maudlin paper "Time and the Geometry
of the Universe". I got it and started reading. I stopped dead when
I read the following:
"Empirical considerations cannot establish the existence of such
point events, but the geometrical tools discussed herein presuppose
them. It would be pleasant to construct mathematical tools of
geometrical analysis that do not rest on this presupposition, but
that is work for another time."
So what is the point of this paper? The author explicitly
jettisons empirical considerations. How is there any hope for
falsification of anything in it? I will continue reading but I am
AH! Maybe this remark only applies to the discussion of
Contrary to Richard's comment, I think he is saying there currently is
not the technology to experimentally test the theory. As such, it is
in good company. Most string theory is like that. As to whether the
paper is worth reading, that is a personal taste. So long as it is possible to
test experimentally, or provides a satisfactory explanation (ie
non-instrumental) for existing phenomena that does not have that, it
is not a waste of time.
I agree with your comment.
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