shminux comments on The Dilemma: Science or Bayes? - Less Wrong

19 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 13 May 2008 08:16AM

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

Comments (185)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: Indon 18 April 2013 03:49:20AM -1 points [-]

If I could show you an example of mathematicians running ongoing computer simulations in order to test theories (well. Test conjectures for progressively higher values), would that demonstrate otherwise to you?

And it's not as if proofs and logic are not employed in other fields when the option is available. Isn't the link between physics and mathematics a long-standing one, and many of the predictions of quantum theory produced on paper before they were tested?

Comment author: shminux 18 April 2013 04:30:40AM 0 points [-]

Here is the difference: the superstring theory is a reasonably good mathematical model which predicts a spacetime with 10 or 11-dimensions on purely mathematical grounds. It also predicts that particles should come in pairs (quarks+squarks). Despite its internal self-consistency, it's not a good model of the world we live in. Whether mathematicians use the scientific method depends on your definition of the scientific method (a highly contested issue on the relevant wikipedia page). Feel free to give your definition and we can go from there.

Comment author: Indon 18 April 2013 07:26:56PM 0 points [-]

I feel this reply I made captures the link between proof, evidence, and elegance, in both scientific and mathematical fields.

That is to say, where proof is equivalent for two mutually exclusive theories (because sometimes things are proven logically outside mathematics, and not everything in mathematics are proven), evidence is used as a tiebreaker.

And where evidence is equivalent for two mutually exclusive theories (requiring of course that proof also be equivalent), elegance is used as a tiebreaker.

Comment author: PrawnOfFate 20 April 2013 12:12:02AM -1 points [-]

Here is the difference: the superstring theory is a reasonably good mathematical model which predicts a spacetime with 10 or 11-dimensions on purely mathematical grounds.

Not quite. More like abstractly physical gorunds...combining various symmetry principles from preceding theories.

Despite its internal self-consistency, it's not a good model of the world we live in.

Not quite. it doesn't predict a single world that is different. It predicts a landscape in which our world may be located with difficulty.