A Theory of Anything

[josephpalazzo]

Or why that is such a bad idea. Excellent article from Paul Steinhardt:

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25405

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Page won't load,  but there's an old tale about theoretically and realistically.
It goes thusly:
A boy asked his dad the difference between theoretically and realistically,  but dad was busy and referred boy to mom or sister.
"Mom, would you have sex with another man for a MILLION dollars? "
"Well, a million dollars is a lot of money so I might.."
He asks his sister basically the same question.
"A MILLION BUCKS? SURE!"
Boy finds dad again..
"Dad! Theoretically we're sitting on TWO MILLION BUCKS! Realistically we live with two whores though."   #-o  :)

[PickelledEggs]

Page won't load,  but there's an old tale about theoretically and realistically.
It goes thusly:
A boy asked his dad the difference between theoretically and realistically,  but dad was busy and referred boy to mom or sister.
"Mom, would you have sex with another man for a MILLION dollars? "
"Well, a million dollars is a lot of money so I might.."
He asks his sister basically the same question.
"A MILLION BUCKS? SURE!"
Boy finds dad again..
"Dad! Theoretically we're sitting on TWO MILLION BUCKS! Realistically we live with two whores though."   #-o  :)

 :rollin:  :rollin:  :rollin:

[barbarian]

After reading this I think that the author has stretched the meaning of anything, and he had to for his own argument to work. It puts in perspective that it doesn't take much to say stupid shit like god exist and get out of the proof positive that he does.  At the same time under handing the real science that has put forth in to many theories that can not be proved by our current math and science capabilities. Most physic theorem have actually have had hypothesis in the end of their findings to back up how they came up with it. This is something more than what hypothesis religion has came up with or many would like to discount as anything such as the gist of what I pulled from this argument.

I may have to re-read it a few more times because I could be misinterpreting what the "anything:" is.

[Sal1981]

... Science is useful insofar as it explains and predicts why things are the way they are and not some other way. The worth of a scientific theory is gauged by the number of do-or-die experimental tests it passes. A Theory of Anything is useless because it does not rule out any possibility and worthless because it submits to no do-or-die tests. (Many papers discuss potential observable consequences, but these are only possibilities, not certainties, so the Theory is never really put at risk.)

Hear, hear!

If we can't exclude any theory, anything goes.

I don't know well enough to comment on the multiverse interpretation (such as the famed Young's double slit experiment), but we can't just let our lack of explainatory power let anything fly. If a theory fails the "do-or-die" of experimentation it has to be changed or dropped.