3 ms·

Without understanding any of the details whatsoever: if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's R

by prvc 5y ago

Without understanding any of the details whatsoever: if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's Razor?

Out_of_Characte 5y ago
Any theory has to have predictability, meaning your theory is more relyable in explaining every future phenomenon than the current working theory. without that your theory is as good as claiming 'god' or divine intervention at every corner.
ndsipa_pomu 5y ago
With a similar lack of knowledge, I believe that although conceptually simpler, the maths is much harder to work with.
pfortuny 5y ago
Yes but it does nothing of the sort…
- prvc 5y ago
  Ah... there's the rub.
mypastself 5y ago
Prior to reading Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, I was unfamiliar with the details, but under the assumption that the string theory is sound. Greene is one of its chief popularizers (as well as a minor researcher), and writes with great clarity on the topic. I enjoyed the book. Yet I ended up becoming agnostic on the string theory after reading it. There seem to be some genuine contributions to mathematics, but those are side products. The theory has yet to make any correct predictions regarding physics and our understanding of the universe, and it is likely completely unfalsifiable. To this layman, a lot of it seem like a bunch of extraordinarily smart people twisting their minds (and our conception of the universe) into a pretzel attempting to make post hoc explanations of existing phenomena.
naasking 5y ago
> if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's Razor Yes, but it doesn't describe known phenomena only, it describes things we haven't seen, things we can't ever see, and can be tweaked so much that it can accommodate phenomena that we know can't be true.

3 ms·

Without understanding any of the details whatsoever: if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's R

by prvc 5y ago

Without understanding any of the details whatsoever: if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's Razor?

Out_of_Characte 5y ago
Any theory has to have predictability, meaning your theory is more relyable in explaining every future phenomenon than the current working theory. without that your theory is as good as claiming 'god' or divine intervention at every corner.
ndsipa_pomu 5y ago
With a similar lack of knowledge, I believe that although conceptually simpler, the maths is much harder to work with.
pfortuny 5y ago
Yes but it does nothing of the sort…
- prvc 5y ago
  Ah... there's the rub.
mypastself 5y ago
Prior to reading Brian Greene’s The Elegant Universe, I was unfamiliar with the details, but under the assumption that the string theory is sound. Greene is one of its chief popularizers (as well as a minor researcher), and writes with great clarity on the topic. I enjoyed the book. Yet I ended up becoming agnostic on the string theory after reading it. There seem to be some genuine contributions to mathematics, but those are side products. The theory has yet to make any correct predictions regarding physics and our understanding of the universe, and it is likely completely unfalsifiable. To this layman, a lot of it seem like a bunch of extraordinarily smart people twisting their minds (and our conception of the universe) into a pretzel attempting to make post hoc explanations of existing phenomena.
naasking 5y ago
> if it does provide a simpler explanation of known phenomena only, shouldn't it then be adopted by Occam's Razor Yes, but it doesn't describe known phenomena only, it describes things we haven't seen, things we can't ever see, and can be tweaked so much that it can accommodate phenomena that we know can't be true.