On 6 February 2014 11:36, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2/5/2014 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 18:32, meekerdb wrote: > > I have criticized it for it's seeming lack of predictive power - a problem > with all theories of everythingism so far, and also string theory. > > That is a technical issue only. As comp has to predict or re-predict all > of physics, it is hardly not predictive. In particular, comp + Theaetetus > already provide the logic of the observable, and up to now, it fits with > the facts. > > Well it's no good saying it *must be* predictive - if it's true. One can > say that about many theories - including string theory. > > True, but I wouldn't say that's a reason to not pursue theories, either, or at least not until they seem to have reached a dead end. I imagine most theories go through a phase where they are being worked out when the correspondence with experiment and predictive power are still "up for grabs" - it's just that with string theory that phase has lasted 30+ years (and counting...)
(!) Some people think that is dead-ending, of course. You pays your money... -- 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.
