3 ms·
It's not a predictive solution. It could very well be revealed to be true by some god type creature, but it defies the fundamentals of conducting the scientific
by peteradio 4y ago
It's not a predictive solution. It could very well be revealed to be true by some god type creature, but it defies the fundamentals of conducting the scientific method.
- naasking 4y agoWhy does it defy the fundamentals of the scientific method? I don't see what fundamentally changed just because that search is deterministic. Given all finite theories are recursively enumerable, and we clearly have enough degrees of freedom to enumerate all such theories, what's the problem exactly?
- peteradio 4y agoThe scientific method is hypothesis testing. You must be able to make a hypothesis that is testable. What method are we using to make testable hypotheses?
- naasking 4y agoAbductive reasoning, which is compatible with determinism. Even if we had to resort to blind trial and error after enumerating all possible theories, science would still work, just less efficiently. Like I said, I don't see the problem.
- peteradio 4y agoI think you might be joking. I assert that we cannot in fact enumerate all possible theories, even if you could write down a representation, they must be enumerated in meatspace to conduct an actual comparison.
- naasking 4y agoOf course we can enumerate all possible theories, in principle. This is a trivial corollary of the fact that we can enumerate all Turing machines. It's not practical but that's not the point. The point is that if we are free enough to enumerate all possible theories in a deterministic universe, then science can be conducted. Clearly we can enumerate all possible theories, therefore even if our universe is deterministic, we can do science.
- fallingfrog 4y agoSorry but that sounds like the writing of someone who has never conducted an experiment in quantum physics. Obviously we aren’t just spitballing, there’s hard evidence for every equation.