That which can explain anything, fails to explain at all.
Brent
On 8/5/2024 4:19 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Aug 4, 2024 at 8:15 PM Keith Henson <[email protected]>
wrote:
/>> On physicist Scott Aaronson's Quantum Computing blog he
occasionally changes topics and talks about politics; recently
he did so in a dialectic manner about Trump, and it's
remarkable how closely his opinions coincide with my own,
except that he can express them better. /
/*Never-Trump From Here to Eternity” FAQ*
<https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=8172> /
/> I replied to his screed./
*Screed? I thought it was logical and concise and covered all the
points that needed to be covered and covered nothing irrelevant. Did
Aaronson say something that was illegal or immoral or just plain
wrong? Did he keep repeating himself, did he say anything that was an
exaggeration? If he did I have not discovered it.*
/> Why is there Trump/MAGA/QAnon interest/agitation/etc now and
why is itconfined to certain areas? What is different about the
current dayand the past and what is different about those areas?/
*Those are all EXCELLENT questions and your theory can explain all of
them,BUT ONLY AFTER THEY HAVE HAPPENED. Regardless of what turns out
to have occurred your theory can ALWAYS find a way to explain it,
therefore it has zero predictive ability. A good theory such as
General Relativity predicted that when the light of a star passes near
the sun it will be deflected by a certain very specific amount, if it
had turned out that it was deflected by more or less than that precise
figure then even Einstein would've had to admit that General
Relativity was wrong because there was no easy way to change the
theory so that it would match the new measurement . You can't fudge
General Relativity because the parts it all fit together like a Swiss
watch. Einstein stuck his neck out but he won. Your theory can explain
anything, which is equivalent to explaining nothing*.
/> I have foundthis very hard for most people to grasp/
*I understand what you're saying and I'm NOT saying you're wrong,I'm
saying it's not a scientific theory because it has no predictive power. *
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
yab
> Oh and by the way, also on the blog Professor Aaronson informs
us that just a few days ago the smallest Busy Beaver number that
is known to be consistent with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory has
been reduced from BB(745) to BB(643).
fzs
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wy0ZrncCuBkaPgJjxhJhBGArGnybAcks6JAiwDGCx9w%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wy0ZrncCuBkaPgJjxhJhBGArGnybAcks6JAiwDGCx9w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ca945cb5-71aa-47be-84aa-7beb012948b7%40gmail.com.
