On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:40 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 6/30/2013 8:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 6/29/2013 6:34 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: >> >> With regard to your's and Brents' coments, how would we demonstarte >> string theory? A super-giant CERN hadron collider? >> >> >> No. You don't demonstrate physics models, you makes some predictions >> and if they are turn out to be true the you give some credence to the >> theory. String theory has the same problem as Bruno's theory, it >> apparently predicts far too much. >> > > > Too much according to which standard? In my opinion, present > "monouniverse" theories predict far too little in my as we are founded by > mysteries like the cosmological constant having to be tuned to 120 decimal > places. > > > Yes, such "everything" theories provide cheap explanation, but no > prediction. > But what is the basis for the assumption that it's possible to derive a unique set of physical laws mathematics alone? "The Anthropic Principle is essential, if one is to pick out a solution to represent the universe, from the whole zoo of solutions allowed by M theory." -- Stephen Hawking > In fact the holographic principle indicates the CC need not be "fine > tuned" at all. > Interesting. Can you point me toward papers on this subject? Jason -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.