So this is a change. It's something that began to develop in the '80s, grew in the '90s, and today attracts many of the best and brightest physicists. It's called superstring theory and it is, so far as I can see, totally divorced from experiment or observation. If not totally divorced, pretty well divorced. They will deny that, these string theorists. They will say, "We predicted the existence of gravity." Well, I knew a lot about gravity before there were any string theorists, so I don't take that as a prediction.
...
The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don't understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn't make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?
To be scientific, a theory must be ”falsifiable”. It must make predictions
such that if they are wrong the theory is wrong. One can can evade
falsifiability (sometimes for a long time "epicycles by both Ptolemy and Copernicus") by making the model more complicated.
**broken link removed**
It seems to me we are just finding random patterns in random noise with S/M theory and using increasing complex models where anything can happen to explain it in a belief that it actually has meaning.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-supersymmetry-dead
Are there fundamental facts about the Universe we will never know, I hope not and admire those who keep looking.
Finding meaning in random events is what makes us human. That's the beauty of M theory, there are a infinite amount of universes, a infinite amount of realities and anything is possible so there are no random events because all possible things are happening at the same time but all these imaginary universes have no observable consequences in our universe but we can calculate what might happen if they could.
...
Mr AL said:...
With some theories though, the main point is that if you can predict something new with it then it may have merit.
...
Careful there, you're treading very close to a belief in sorcery. And if you head far enough in that direction you can never quite find a way back to the same reality as others. Science is what it is because it reinforces a concrete and shared reality, that's the entire point of science.
And again that's in the realm of science. Science predicts or attempts to predict the future. Sorcery makes the future happen. There's a fundamental difference in the mechanism.
I'll shut up now before people think Loosewire has gained control of my account.
...
Just curious why you brought that up, sorcery vs science.
...
So i guess in writing the word "This" i used sorcery because i made the word appear so i made the future happen
I thought about something similar. where we all want to be able to predict the future. But knowing i was going to type that i guess i predicted the future. So we all have the ability to predict the future to some extent.
...
Researchers think we can actually predict the future of events not initiated by our own selves, within some small time frame like 10's of milliseconds.
...
...
But here's another thing to think about...
If we can predict the future, then we would know "what they will think of next". If we knew that, then they would not have to think of anything because we could tell them, but then they would not have to think of it, but then we would be incorrect because we thought they would think of it when really we told them, so it's a paradox, so how could we ever predict the future.
...
...
Similarly, if we predict the future and we predict a given new physics formula will be discovered tomorrow, then since we've predicted it today then it could not be discovered tomorrow because now we already know it. Unless by predicting part of the future we somehow destroy that part of it. But if that is true then we would be able to predict the entire future because we would be able to predict that we were going to do that and thus we could destroy even that.
...
BTW you arent by any chance related to H.S. Black, who invented some feedback mechanisms, are you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?