> Until his "theory" makes a single experimentally verifyable prediction, all of this are just empty words of a deliusional pseudoscientist that thinks too much

> Until his "theory" makes a single experimentally verifyable prediction, all of this are just empty words of a deliusional pseudoscientist that thinks too much of himself. Hey, we give string theorists tenure! But for real, while it doesn't seem like this is going anywhere, I'm not sure I wouldn't be convinced by something similar that was. If I walked out of my room with a set of equations that made few additional assumptions and allowed for derivation of both relativistic and quantum equations, it kind of seems like that would be good evidence. Like even if all the predictions are the same as those two systems, the fact that it's much simpler would give it Occam's approval. Now would such a single simple system fail to make new predictions? Probably not. There are holes in our understanding, and a unified theory couldn't really be simple and still tiptoe around those holes. But in the hypothetical scenario that there really was a simpler model with the same predictions, I wouldn't be opposed to it.