By the way, there is a lively debate going on about the Sabine Hossenfelder article How Popper killed Particle Physics <https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/11/how-popper-killed-particle-physics.html?m=1> posted just yesterday. It could make a good thread, as a few of you on the list seem to agree with her rant and it would be good to hear as to why that is so ... I am guessing this sentiment has something to do with Thomas Kuhn in Nick's case at least.
Kuhn's criticism of Popper seems to be saying that logical positivism (verificationism ... looking for ways to prove we are right ... instead of wrong) dominates science ... still ... and not in a good way. I think that is right (e.g., LHC), but it doesn't undermine what Popper is saying about how to be sure and honest about what we really know ... lest we backslide into epistemological relativism or intellectual totalitarianism (e.g., a leading paradigm doesn't shift until its authors die off ... something like that). Sabine seems to be backing off the rant a bit, I think; she says she is not criticizing Popper, only saying that falsification is not enough ... and it should not halt any theory development. I would have to believe that even Popper might agree with some of this with some clarifications. I thought the reply comment about "mathematicism" was interesting and kind of funny. Looking back over this particular thread, it turns out that I did not mention String Theory per se. I did mention that Smolin's "Genesis" theory is claimed to be testable. Perhaps this is what prompted Carl's insertion of Sabine's rant. Good to see Smolin getting a shout-out in the comments along with Lisa Randall. Kum ba ya. [image: Inline image 1] Cheers On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 1:20 PM, gⅼеɳ ☣ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > Excellent! Yes, complement is a much more appropriate relation between > the ideas than compete, I think. Thanks. > > On 11/06/2017 11:08 AM, Robert Wall wrote: > > > > Actually, I think I said that Smolin's idea "competes" with > Mareletto's. That was sloppy; I meant that Smolin's theory can exist in > the same space with Constructor Theory as an explanatory system, but one > that operates on the macro scale (cosmological), especially with respect to > initial conditions (constraints) to our universe. Constructor Theory > proposes a physical universe at the microscale that could start here and > unfold with new constraints "evolving" from earlier ones. I see the > heavier elements (e.g., carbon ... gold) being generated from later > generation suns as a possible example of this. England seems to take this > history into the abiogenesis by appealing to the idea of metabolic > homeostasis with the production of dissipative systems being a likely > outcome in this universe. Anyway, I should have used the term "complements" > versus "competes." > > -- > ☣ gⅼеɳ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
