On 2/5/2013 7:47 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Bruno Marchal<marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
>On 04 Feb 2013, at 16:43, Roger Clough wrote:
>I agree with Craig. And I've never understood how there can be any
>consequence of an emulation,
>or how it can be proven or not that comp works, since no comparison can be
>If comp is true, then we can explain why we cannot prove it.
>But we can refute it, because comp explains the details about what the
>physical reality can be. So to test comp, just compare the physics inferred
>from the emprical reality, and the comp physics.
If so, then string theory is true
as it also predicts explicitly the Standard Model.
However that is not sufficient evidence for physicists
to think string theory is true.
What is needed for string theory to be true
is new physics to be experimentally verified
like the string theory prediction of the viscosity
of the quark-gluon plasma which has already been verified.
Does comp predict any new physics that can be experimentally verified?
Forgive me but string theory predicts a HUGE landscape of possible
physics, not just the Standard model. This is its fatal flaw, IMHO.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.