= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
komponisto comments on Link: Strong Inference - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (54)
Not demonstrable yet. If a correct theory of quantum gravity is found that turns out not to involve such sophisticated mathematics, then you'll have a case for this. Right now all you have is the opinion of a few contrarians.
It should be string theorists' job to defend string theory by actually producing something. A proposed theory is not innocent until proven guilty.
The point is, that's not a case where we've actually found the way ahead, and shown that the mathematical speculation was a dead end. It's therefore relatively weak evidence.
And given the number of times that further formalizing a field has paid off in the physical sciences, this doesn't at all convince me that "overmathematizing" is a general problem.
In the case of quantum mechanics, the additional formalizing did certainly pay off. But the formalizing was done after the messy first version of the theory made several amazingly accurate predictions.