= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on On accepting an argument if you have limited computational power. - 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 (85)
More precisely, the core of our current best available (but still known to be flawed) physics are QM and GR and we do not even have a consistent model fully incorporating both.
From what I understand, we have more than one. We just don't know which, if any, is correct.
We have some plans (including a few radically different from everything we are used to - which is good) how to build a model. I wouldn't call these plans models of anything yet, because QM and GR can help us predict the behaviour of precise tools we use, and these plans are not yet concrete enough to allow useful modelling.
And some of them have so damn many free parameters that it would be hard to rule them out but they have hardly any predictive power.