3 ms·

I really hope it doesn't sound like that is what I'm asking. I went back and re-read what I wrote and it doesn't seem like that at all to me, but maybe I'm not

I really hope it doesn't sound like that is what I'm asking. I went back and re-read what I wrote and it doesn't seem like that at all to me, but maybe I'm not a good writer.

abrichr 5y ago
Perhaps I am the one who is not a good reader! Please also note that I am not a physicist or a mathematician. > What I am asking is why would α = 0.0072973525693 be more of a problem than electromagnetism or the speed of light being constant or e=mc^2? If the fine structure constant was exactly 1 would that make it better? Why is 1 less arbitrary or more good? α = 1 is less arbitrary / more good than α = 0.0072973525693 because the former requires fewer bits of information than the latter. Fewer bits => more parsimony. Similarly: > See, I also don't see how one central guiding metaphor would be any less arbitrary than none, or ten metaphors. 1 < 10, therefore if parsimony is desirable, 1 is better than 10.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > if parsimony is desirable That is what I'm asking. However you want to define this or label it. The article says a whole lot as far as I can tell without really saying anything. Or at least not what I'm asking. The "paradigms" all start with "sometimes", and they don't seem to be backed by anything scientific beyond handwaving. I agree that if you had two theories that are equally expressive and accurate, all else being equal the simpler one would be preferable. That's not really what I'm asking about though. We do not have two equal theories one that requires the fine structure constant and the other which does not. We have a theory with a fine structure constant and lots of other things. The question is why is that "problematic"? We don't look at e=mc^2 and think that ^2 is problematic and think that it suggests there should be a simpler better theory without it. Why does alpha get singled out?

I really hope it doesn't sound like that is what I'm asking. I went back and re-read what I wrote and it doesn't seem like that at all to me, but maybe I'm not a good writer.

abrichr 5y ago

Perhaps I am the one who is not a good reader! Please also note that I am not a physicist or a mathematician. > What I am asking is why would α = 0.0072973525693 be more of a problem than electromagnetism or the speed of light being constant or e=mc^2? If the fine structure constant was exactly 1 would that make it better? Why is 1 less arbitrary or more good? α = 1 is less arbitrary / more good than α = 0.0072973525693 because the former requires fewer bits of information than the latter. Fewer bits => more parsimony. Similarly: > See, I also don't see how one central guiding metaphor would be any less arbitrary than none, or ten metaphors. 1 < 10, therefore if parsimony is desirable, 1 is better than 10.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> if parsimony is desirable That is what I'm asking. However you want to define this or label it. The article says a whole lot as far as I can tell without really saying anything. Or at least not what I'm asking. The "paradigms" all start with "sometimes", and they don't seem to be backed by anything scientific beyond handwaving. I agree that if you had two theories that are equally expressive and accurate, all else being equal the simpler one would be preferable. That's not really what I'm asking about though. We do not have two equal theories one that requires the fine structure constant and the other which does not. We have a theory with a fine structure constant and lots of other things. The question is why is that "problematic"? We don't look at e=mc^2 and think that ^2 is problematic and think that it suggests there should be a simpler better theory without it. Why does alpha get singled out?