3 ms·

When you say it's unfalsifiable and contains no new explanatory power, it would be great to dig into this. My understanding is that they are early on in the re

When you say it's unfalsifiable and contains no new explanatory power, it would be great to dig into this. My understanding is that they are early on in the research so the lack of explanatory power feels... uninteresting at this stage? They have started to make predictions (such as the existence of lighter weight particles than electrons that still have mass), but in general it just feels like they're still too early to conclude that it's not falsifiable and has no explanatory power?

jordanpg 7y ago
Well, it's fine that they are in the early stages, but Wolfram went ahead with a press bonanza to announce that he had solved physics without the corresponding predictions that would demonstrate it. That's why it's important to point out that it's not falsifiable and has no explanatory power at the moment. What he's doing is bad for science and does real harm, eroding the public understanding of how science actually works in favor of flashy headlines.
- danpalmer 7y ago
  > Wolfram went ahead with a press bonanza to announce that he had solved physics If you read/listen/watch the announcements (which I'll agree are a bit over the top), the position is very clear that they have "found" a new avenue of research that they believe has the possibility to bear fruit. They are clear that it _could_ form the basis for a "theory of everything", once much more research has been done. They are optimistic in how they talk about it, and many may disagree with that, but they are not claiming they have "solved physics".
MiroF 7y ago
I am unfamiliar with Wolfram's new theory, but some have said it is similar to his previous "Theory of Everything" via cellular automaton. It often can be quick to determine whether a theory will ever be falsifiable - it has to do with the nature of the claims being made by the theory. > such as the existence of lighter weight particles than electrons that still have mass That's not a prediction, as we know that neutrinos exist.
- danpalmer 7y ago
  Apologies, I may have meant neutrinos.
lidHanteyk 7y ago
Let's compare quickly to a Brand X. I'll choose string theory. Concrete forms of string theory have been proposed, and they predict surprising things that folks could not have easily predicted; in particular, supersymmetry and multiple compactified dimensions are concrete predictions that could be tested with particle accelerators, and we have tested (and rejected!) some supersymmetries this way. String theory also predicts some things that are congruent with existing theories but, by dint of building them differently, gives different predictions for how they work. In this, we get new explanatory power. For example, string theory predicts fuzzball black holes, giving a resolution to the firewall problem. All string theories have tachyons, which is surprising but would not be the first time that they've shown up theoretically, and they solve some questions about spacetime (while opening many others!) Some string theories have photons and gravitons, which can unify our existing conflicts between GR and QM. And, crucially, string theory admits narrowing of conjectures and explanatory regimes. It's easy to take a string theory, combine it with an observation from a satellite or a particle accelerator, and conclude that no, the theory was wrong. Horribly wrong, completely wrong, totally wrong. String theory is actually sufficiently formal that the current source of realizing wrongness is from "swampland" critiques, which are merely observations that a working string theory ought to pass some basic arithmetic sanity checks. Sure, maybe my conclusions are premature. As a cousin comment notes, though, a particle theory that doesn't immediately spit out the Standard Model is a little suspect, and one that admits basically any model of particle physics is also a little suspect.
jimbokun 7y ago
> but in general it just feels like they're still too early to conclude that it's not falsifiable and has no explanatory power? In other words, it's not science yet.

jordanpg 7y ago

Well, it's fine that they are in the early stages, but Wolfram went ahead with a press bonanza to announce that he had solved physics without the corresponding predictions that would demonstrate it. That's why it's important to point out that it's not falsifiable and has no explanatory power at the moment. What he's doing is bad for science and does real harm, eroding the public understanding of how science actually works in favor of flashy headlines.

danpalmer 7y ago
> Wolfram went ahead with a press bonanza to announce that he had solved physics If you read/listen/watch the announcements (which I'll agree are a bit over the top), the position is very clear that they have "found" a new avenue of research that they believe has the possibility to bear fruit. They are clear that it _could_ form the basis for a "theory of everything", once much more research has been done. They are optimistic in how they talk about it, and many may disagree with that, but they are not claiming they have "solved physics".

MiroF 7y ago

I am unfamiliar with Wolfram's new theory, but some have said it is similar to his previous "Theory of Everything" via cellular automaton. It often can be quick to determine whether a theory will ever be falsifiable - it has to do with the nature of the claims being made by the theory. > such as the existence of lighter weight particles than electrons that still have mass That's not a prediction, as we know that neutrinos exist.

danpalmer 7y ago
Apologies, I may have meant neutrinos.

lidHanteyk 7y ago

Let's compare quickly to a Brand X. I'll choose string theory. Concrete forms of string theory have been proposed, and they predict surprising things that folks could not have easily predicted; in particular, supersymmetry and multiple compactified dimensions are concrete predictions that could be tested with particle accelerators, and we have tested (and rejected!) some supersymmetries this way. String theory also predicts some things that are congruent with existing theories but, by dint of building them differently, gives different predictions for how they work. In this, we get new explanatory power. For example, string theory predicts fuzzball black holes, giving a resolution to the firewall problem. All string theories have tachyons, which is surprising but would not be the first time that they've shown up theoretically, and they solve some questions about spacetime (while opening many others!) Some string theories have photons and gravitons, which can unify our existing conflicts between GR and QM. And, crucially, string theory admits narrowing of conjectures and explanatory regimes. It's easy to take a string theory, combine it with an observation from a satellite or a particle accelerator, and conclude that no, the theory was wrong. Horribly wrong, completely wrong, totally wrong. String theory is actually sufficiently formal that the current source of realizing wrongness is from "swampland" critiques, which are merely observations that a working string theory ought to pass some basic arithmetic sanity checks. Sure, maybe my conclusions are premature. As a cousin comment notes, though, a particle theory that doesn't immediately spit out the Standard Model is a little suspect, and one that admits basically any model of particle physics is also a little suspect.

jimbokun 7y ago

> but in general it just feels like they're still too early to conclude that it's not falsifiable and has no explanatory power? In other words, it's not science yet.