And varselect still seems wholly incapable of actually explaining something like particle interactions, beyond giving the trivial remark that the theory that fits best to our criteria will be selected.
-
-
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @EmojiPan and
well, that's definitely speculative, but the idea is that universes reproduce (or replicate), therefore allowing for variations in particle interaction - some leading to fecund, stable universes, some leading to instantly destroyed universes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @EmojiPan and
You still get no closer to the question as to why certain particle interactions survive, thus to how these work. Look I agree on the theorychoice part (of which this is just a material variation), but don't you see the limit I'm pointing to?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @cyborg_nomade and
At some point you have to see it, as you're consistently bumping up against it. Maybe this is a concise formulation: the criterion of survivability needs a qualification which can itself not be explained in terms of survivability.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @EmojiPan and
I guess it's just that it definitely doesn't worry me why some things ultimately works, as long as I know what works and what doesn't.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Psychonothing1 and
which I think is a consequence of instrumentalism
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @EmojiPan and
Ditch the instrumentalism and embrace pragmatism then.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Psychonothing1 @EmojiPan and
instrumentalism is just pragmatism about science.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cyborg_nomade @Psychonothing1 and
Instrumentalism about science is fine so long as you see its strict limitations. But an overblown instrumentalism will have the same fate as that of logical empiricism. Duhem's critique regarding the underdetermination of theories by data tests alone is still uncontested.
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @NegarestaniReza @cyborg_nomade and
Reza, how does a philosopher keep track of the relevant science? Do you have a method for that?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
I think its impossible at this point even among scientists themselves. Think of a string theory seminar as a complete shit show. What we need are scientists with honed out critical views or philosophers with actual scientific education so they can accurately point out the cracks.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.