= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Matt_Simpson comments on The Strong Occam's Razor - 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 (71)
Ok, so don't call the existence of Odin or what's happening inside the box "predictions." Then I'll rephrase my question:
Why do we only care about "predictions" and not "everything a theory says about reality?" Clearly all three pairs of theories I mentioned above say different things about reality even if it is impossible in some sense to observe this difference.
(I'll add to this later, but I'm pressed for time currently) edit: nothing to add, actually
How can we distinguish statements that are "about reality" from statements that aren't, if we just threw away the criteria of predictive power and verification?
How about counterfactual predictive power and verification? If I could observe the inside of that box, then I could see a difference between the two theories.
I realize this opens a potential can of worms, i.e., what sort of counterfactuals are we allowed to consider? But in any case, this is how I've understood the basic idea of falsifiability. Compare to Yvain's logs of the universe idea. (He's doing something different with it, I know)