bigjeff5 comments on The Futility of Emergence - Less Wrong

36 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 August 2007 10:10PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (125)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bigjeff5 30 January 2011 10:03:24PM *  0 points [-]

Yes, there are a number of hypothetical non-atomic particles that would need to exist as well, since by their very nature neutrinos have almost no mass. These additional particles have not been discovered, and discovering them would be extremely difficult.

I'd agree that it has the potential to be another phlogiston, but you've got to at least give the Dark Matter theorists a chance to falsify their theory. If it becomes a situation where new evidence comes out that DM can't predict, yet is adapted to describe DM, then you know DM is utter poppycock. There are, however, a number of avenues for experimentation, so it's certainly not the case that you can call Dark Matter a modern-day phlogiston yet.

At the same time, if DM is poppycock, then GR is necessarily very, very broken (we already know it's broken, just not for big stuff).

Comment author: Sniffnoy 30 January 2011 10:46:07PM 0 points [-]

I should note, I was not claiming it to be unfalsifiable, I was just picking nits (incorrectly). :P