On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:40 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6/30/2013 8:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 6/29/2013 6:34 AM, [email protected] 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
