On 6 February 2014 11:36, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
