uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Skepdick, you don't understand what falsification means.
I beg to differ. Any empirical fact which disagrees with the theoretical predictions of your model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
Call it falsification. Call it model error. Potato, potatoh.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Nor do you understand the difference between the ontological claims of GR as opposed to the epistemological claims.
Ooooh! You are claiming that there is a difference? I hope it's testable and falsifiable (so you can explain it to me).
It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn’t make a difference elsewhere – no difference in abstract truth that doesn’t express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one. -- William James
As any anti-foundationalist would argue, all ontological claims not REALLY ontological. It's just what we SAY about them, but if we were to be honest about it - we don't have One True Ontology. We have a bunch of ontologies at various levels of abstraction.
The spacetime 'ontology' is the one we use at large scales of abstraction e.g cosmic scale.
The QFT 'ontology' is the one we use at small scales of abstraction e.g quantum scale.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
That's a false dichotomy.
That's a fallacy fallacy. I didn't claim that "truth" and "utility" are disjoint. In fact - in my epistemology, the two words are synonymous.
But if you are accusing me of a dichotomy, I can only assume you are projecting your dichotomized conception of those words onto me.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
Because it's a theory. It is subject to the problem of induction and is therefore underdetermined, but that does not stop it being a theory of everything.
Of course it stops it from being a TOE. The E in TOE stands for
EVERYTHING. So a TOE must account for and explain
EVERYTHING.
To explain EVERYTHING would be to obliterate any and all explanatory gaps. Including time. When you explain time the "problem of induction" disappears.
It seems to me you are using the word "EVERYTHING" to mean something other than, you know. EVERYTHING.
uwot wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:29 pm
That is just bollocks.
Well, it's not. But you are just a philosopher. I am an actual epistemologist and I happen to have a conceptual grasp on
T-symmetry and
reversible computing. If quantum information cannot be destroyed, then all quantum computations are (IN THEORY) reversible. In this paradigm the a priori/a posteriori distinction doesn't exist except as a an arbitrary choice.
If you aren't going to explain the phenomenon of time, you are equivocating "EVERYTHING" in Theory of Everything.
I guess we could call it the Theory of Everything (except time).