What is a Theory?

erikp responds to me:

quote:

---

If it is infinitely falsifiable, the theory is presumably false.

---

But the theory is true. Therefore your "measure of falsifiability" is itself false. Thus, your claim that all theories are false is also false.How do you distinguish between the "perfect theory" that is true and the "other theory" which is false?

quote:

---

That has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of any claim made by the theory

---

So how do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"? If it isn't by throwing scenarios at them and seeing which one deviates from the observed results, how is it? All we have are the observations. Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The latter because it is a theory.So how do you distinguish between them? Your "measure of falsifiability" declares the perfect theory to be false which is a contradiction. Therefore, the "measure of falsifiability" is false.

quote:

---

However, it does not matter how likely an observation will contradict the theory.

---

I never said it did. You're avoiding the question. For the umpteenth time:How do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"? If it isn't by throwing scenarios at them and seeing which one deviates from the observed results, how is it? All we have are the observations. Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The latter because it is a theory.So how do you distinguish between them? Your "measure of falsifiability" declares the perfect theory to be false which is a contradiction. Therefore, the "measure of falsifiability" is false.

quote:

---

This perfect theory would have to take everything into account. It would be the Theory of Everything.

---

No, not the theory of everything. Just the perfect theory for the subject that it covers. There are theories in chemistry, but chemistry isn't really concerned with where the atoms come from. That's a question for physics. Suppose we have a perfect theory of gases. Since it is true, it conforms to all observations we have made. But current theory of gases also conforms to all obserations we have made.So how do you tell the two of them apart?Stop avoiding the question:How do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"? If it isn't by throwing scenarios at them and seeing which one deviates from the observed results, how is it? All we have are the observations. Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The latter because it is a theory.So how do you distinguish between them? Your "measure of falsifiability" declares the perfect theory to be false which is a contradiction. Therefore, the "measure of falsifiability" is false.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

If you do agree, then since the "other theory" necessarily conforms to all observations we have ever made (because it is a theory) and since the "perfect theory" also conforms to all theories we have ever made (because it is true), how do you distinguish between the two of them? The only thing we have to go on are the observations we have made.

---

The point is that such "perfect theory" cannot exist. It cannot be phrased.

erikp responds to me:

quote:

---

If you can convince Stephen Hawking

---

Ahem.Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, not a mathematician. I would not expect him to understand the field of set theory.I'm still waiting for you to explain how gravitational theory is an axiomatic set theory. If I recall correctly, you agreed that it isn't. Therefore, how could incompleteness possibly apply since incompleteness is a trait of axiomatic set theories.And on top of that, incompleteness doesn't declare an axiomatic set theory to be false. Instead, it declares it to be incomplete, meaning there will be some statements that cannot be decided.The continuum has a size. We just don't know what it is and can never know given our current axioms of set theory. That doesn't make set theory wrong. It simply makes it incomplete.

quote:

---

But then again, you would first have to demonstrate that Gdel was wrong.

---

Incorrect. I am not saying Godel was wrong.I'm saying you don't understand what Godel said. We've been through this. Do we really need to go over it again? You seem to think that the Incompleteness Theorems apply to gravitational theory. You have yet to explain how gravitational theory is an axiomatic set theory.Incompleteness is a trait of axiomatic set theories. Until you explain how gravitational theory is an axiomatic set theory, then incompleteness does not apply.Why isn't gravitational theory like Presburger arithmetic? Presburder arithmetic is complete, consistent, and decidable. But doesn't that contradict the Incompleteness Theorems?Of course not. Presburger arithmetic is not complex enough to model simple arithmetic, which is when incompleteness kicks in. Since Presburger arithmetic does not meet the standards for the Incompleteness Theorems (an axiomatic set theory sufficiently powerful to model simple arithmetic), it is not constrained by them.I'm still waiting for you to explain how gravitational theory can be used to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. Russell had to take 65,000 steps to do it and that was using math. Your declaration that it can be done is insufficient.And of course, all of this is naught but a distraction. Hawking isn't here. You are. Therefore, you need to justify your claims. Your attempts to push your feelings onto Hawking is projection in the extreme.Now, stop avoiding the question:How do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"? If it isn't by throwing scenarios at them and seeing which one deviates from the observed results, how is it done? All we have are the observations. Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The second because it is a theory.So how do you distinguish between them? Your "measure of falsifiability" declares the perfect theory to be false which is a contradiction. Therefore, the "measure of falsifiability" is false.How many times do I have to ask before I get an answer?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

erikp responds to me:

quote:

---

The point is that such "perfect theory" cannot exist. It cannot be phrased.

---

Incorrect. The universe works, doesn't it? Would you agree that it works consistently? Therefore, there is necessarily a theory of it since a theory is an explanation for how processes work in the universe.At any rate, you're avoiding the question. The point is that your "measure of falsifiability" will declare it to be false, which is a contradiction.Stop avoiding the question:How do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"? If it isn't by throwing scenarios at them and seeing which one deviates from the observed results, how is it? All we have are the observations. Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The latter because it is a theory.So how do you distinguish between them? Your "measure of falsifiability" declares the perfect theory to be false which is a contradiction. Therefore, the "measure of falsifiability" is false.Edited by Rrhain, : Clarifying a point.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

quote:

---

Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, not a mathematician. I would not expect him to understand the field of set theory...I'm saying you don't understand what Godel said...

---

Look, we can go on and on and about Gdel, and insist that nobody understands Gdel, except for you (Wiki):

quote:

---

In his 1966 book The Relevance of Physics, Stanley Jaki pointed out that, because any "theory of everything" will certainly be a consistent non-trivial mathematical theory, it must be incomplete. He claims that this dooms searches for a deterministic theory of everything.

---

The fact that you need to introduce a "perfect theory", which inevitably takes all possible factors and influences into account to explain phenomena, and therefore amounts to the "theory of everything", invalidates your argument.

quote:

---

Now, stop avoiding the question:How do you distinguish the "perfect theory" from the "other theory"?

---

There is no need to distinguish between the "perfect theory" and the "other theory", because your perfect theory is an impossibility.Furthermore, the idea that Gdel does not apply to gravity, is refuted in "The Relevance of Physics". Now first explain why in addition to Stephen Hawking being wrong, Stanley Jaki is also wrong, before insisting again on the "perfect theory".

quote:

---

Incorrect. The universe works, doesn't it? Would you agree that it works consistently? Therefore, there is necessarily a theory of it since a theory is an explanation for how processes work in the universe.

---

Wrong. That requires a Theory of Everything (TOE), which is presumed impossible.Now, physics is apparently subjected to Gdel's Incompleteness, regardless of what you say (Freeman Dyson, Wiki):

quote:

---

Gdel’s theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. [...] Because of Gdel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gdel's theorem applies to them.

---

The idea that Gdel applies to physics, is what I originally though anyway, but I couldn't prove it, and that is why I originally conceded the point to you.But now I have to retract that concession, because: "the laws of physics are a finite set of rules and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Gdel's theorem applies to them."But then again, I don't need Gdel to demonstrate that science is false.It is sufficient to demonstrate the relationship between the probability that a theorem will be contradicted by a fact, and the total number of such potential facts. If that number is infinite, the relationship says that the theorem will inevitably be contradicted, since a TOE is impossible. Edited by erikp, : properly close quote

By your own reasoning, isn't your theory that the perfect theory is an impossibility inevitably false?

quote:

---

Thus, your claim that all theories are false is also false.

---

Only the infinitely falsifiable theories are presumably false. The other theories can be true.But you are right about one thing. "All infinitely falsifiable theories are presumably false." can only be true, if it is itself not an infinitely falsifiable theory. Therefore, the number of infinitely falsifiable theories needs to be finite.It suggests that the number of possible theories in science has a fixed upper bound.In other words, there cannot be an infinite number of scientific theories. On the contrary, the number of scientific theories that could ever be phrased, is (potentially large but) countable.The collection of numbers representing these theories has the same upper bound. This means that all past and future science can be represented by a fixed, finite series of numbers.

quote:

---

By your own reasoning, isn't your theory that the perfect theory is an impossibility inevitably false?

---

No, because I am making a statement that can be contradicted by just one fact and not an infinite number of facts.My statement is therefore not infinitely falsifiable. It is falsifiable only by one, single fact (the appearance in reality of that one Theory of Everything).So, my statement is not necessarily false."Water boils at 100 C" is necessarily false, but saying that the TOE does not exist is not necessarily false.

quote:

---

Both the perfect theory and the other theory are in concordance with all current observations. The first because it is true. The latter because it is a theory.

---

Not only does the "perfect theory" not exist, even the "other theory" does not exist.Both my relationship as Gdel imply that there is only a finite number of scientific theories possible. This means that beyond a certain point scientific theories cannot be improved any further, in order to cover consistently additional observations. At that point, we will have reached the limits of science.Consequently, your "other theory" will not be able to keep up with the "perfect theory" beyond a certain point (beyond a certain number of observations). You simply won't be able to phrase such "other theory".

Your statement would either be unfalsifiable or false. So it's unprovable. You've equated unprovability with falseness (something which others have told you is wrong) so by your "reasoning", your statement must be false. I'm not saying that it's necessarily false. You need to be a lot more precise with language if you want to philosophise. "Water boils at 100 C" is a demonstrably true statement. "Water can only boil at 100 C" is demonstrably false.Saying that a TOE does not exist at present is true. Stating that a TOE couldn't exist in the future is a different matter. These kind of statements aren't scientific theories, anyway.

quote:

---

Your statement would either be unfalsifiable or false. So it's unprovable.

---

It is falsifiable, because the appearance of the TOE would falsify it. It is not necessarily false, because it can only be falsified by a finite number of facts (just one).

quote:

---

You've equated unprovability with falseness (something which others have told you is wrong)

---

Where did I equate that? Please, quote.

quote:

---

"Water boils at 100 C" is a demonstrably true statement.

---

It is false, because water can perfectly well boil at 50 C.

quote:

---

Stating that a TOE couldn't exist in the future is a different matter. These kind of statements aren't scientific theories, anyway.

---

Wrong. The theories about theories are mathematical, and therefore scientific theories, of which the Gdel Theorem is only one example.

So give me one "infinitely falsifiable" theory? If your "infinitely falsifiable" is a theory, then by your own definition the infinitely falsifiable idea is false thus, true = false, which is absurd.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

bluegenes statement is true while yours is false.It can be observed that water boils at 100C. It can also be observed that water boils at 105C, or 95C or 90C or 85C.All of these are true and can be observed.Reading exactly what someone wrote is a test of not only one's ability to read BUT also to accurately observe reality.What is the difference between these two statements?1.)Water boils at 100C.2.)Water boils ONLY at 100C.No.1 is what bluegenes said, No. 2 is what you read.Explain to me why I should put any faith in your theory about theories, when you have a mind which distorts 4 word sentences.This doesn't look good to me when thinking about your ability to observe and analyze the world.Have a nice day!Edited by petrophysics1, : typo

This morning on the way to work I listened to a This American Life episode that included a segment about an electrician who believed he had invalidated all of modern physics, including Einstein's equation E=mc². He believed the correct equation is E=mc, and he believed he had proved it.The story's narrator was a friend of the electrician's. The electrician had requested his friend's help in writing a book to disseminate his ideas to the world. His friend demurred on the book project and instead was able to eventually arrange a meeting for him with an actual physicist, who read the paper the electrician had produced and immediately pointed out that he was confusing momentum and energy, that he didn't even have his units right.The electrician was unswayed and still believes to this day that he has revolutionized all of physics, that all physicists are deluded because they have too much education, especially math, and that no one will listen to him because they're all just promoting the party line.The friend came across a Physics Crackpot Test on the Internet and pointed it out to the electrician, who replied that he had already come across it and taken the test, apparently scoring high. For the electrician this just underscored how biased the physics community is.The story makes the point that crackpots aren't influenced by information or arguments or logic or rationality. They believe what they believe, and that's that. Naturally I couldn't help but think of this thread as I listened.--Percy