4 ms·
It seems to me that a theory which uses precise, hard-to-vary explanations to make falsifiable statements about observables is in fact a scientific theory. One
by boole1854 4y ago
It seems to me that a theory which uses precise, hard-to-vary explanations to make falsifiable statements about observables is in fact a scientific theory.
One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. This is demonstrated via the experiment. So I'm afraid I do not understand your remark that "you could take the constructor theory language out and have the same paper". Taking the constructor theory language out would undermine a major point the authors are trying to make in the paper.
- whatshisface 4y ago>One of the points of the paper is that constructor theory makes such statements in a way that is compatible with other known laws. Yeah, but known laws are already compatible with themselves. You might make them more comprehensible by establishing a conceptual meta-framework that offers a consistent way to phrase statements about them, but that is clearly a philosophical task.
- bordercases 4y agoThe fact it is philosophical does not make it irrelevant to physics. As such to point out the distinction here does little work. I.e. What QM interpenetration do you support and why are the others unendorseable?