3 ms·
They're trying to come up with a new way of modelling the foundations of physics. In order to be "even wrong", they need to make falsifiable predictions. As far
by m12k 5y ago
They're trying to come up with a new way of modelling the foundations of physics. In order to be "even wrong", they need to make falsifiable predictions. As far as I can tell, they're not at (or claiming to be at) that level of maturity of the model, they seem to be slowly working toward feature parity with existing models. Whether they ever achieve that remains to be seen. Whether they manage to coalesce all this into a single coherent theory remains to be seen. Whether they manage to make novel, falsifiable predictions or not remains to be seen. And if they do, whether these predictions will be falsified or not also remains to be seen.
Long story short, I don't see why being "not even wrong" at this phase is some great sin.
- posix_me_less 5y agoIt's an old reference, see e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/19/ideas.g2
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago"Not even wrong, but still making all these grand claims about revolutionizing everything" is a bit worse than just "not even wrong", though. I mean, take quantum loop gravity. It might revolutionize, not everything, but quite a bit. Last I checked, it was as the same stage - not mature enough to make actual predictions. But it was touting itself as "there might be something here, and if there is, it could be really important", not as "we hold the secrets to everything". I guess what I'm looking for is "under promise, over deliver". When you over promise your scientific theory, it stops looking like science and starts looking like marketing. That's... you know what a code smell is? That's a science smell. The more it looks like marketing, the more skeptical I am of it as science.