hibbsa@yahoo.com [Fabric-of-Reality]
2015-08-14 19:09:54 UTC
Title of paper The Logic of Experimental Tests, Particularly of Everettian Quantum Theory.
Hi DD - you go full welly for Popper's take on Science. But I don't recall the category of 'problematic' - is that Popperian or yours?
Also you lead with the claim of misconception regarding the widespread belief the Multiverse is not testable.
Could I request that you actually perform the logic the test as a worked example of what you mean
Long experience with popper deutschians has seasoned me to understand how the popperian rules tend to get used by yourself.
e.g. you mention here "....An important consequence of this explanatory conception of science is that experimental results consistent with a theory T do not constitute support for T"
The way that is presented, I think the intuitive reading by most people imagines robust theories will heaps of corroboration no longer getting points of 'truth' for that.
But the way it always gets used is you or someone wants to assert a totally unsupported theory. You can argue that is neither here nor there.
Another example is the assertion that empirical testing is not needed, that it doesn't make any difference because a theory can't be thrown out on those grounds.
In practice that translates to an 'explanation' is asserted into place, despite no corroboration and in some cases complete fails experimentally outcomes.
I think you are misleading with your centre piece claim, because the way you 'prove' the multiverse is testable is by first eliminating all the difficult tests that multiverse can never pass. And then you finalize your 'test' with this " To understand why quantum theory is testable, it is essential to regard it as an explanatory theory"
So what you really meant was the multiverse is subject to the philosophical schema of conjecture and criticism. And that criteria is ok because you've already effectively eliminated science as a special case of something. Now it's all just popperian philosophy.
The reason that's misleading the widespread 'misconception' has never contradicted that 'criticism' is aways available. It's just an obvious fact.....say...criticism of grammar. The grammar of the multiverse explanation is totally testable.
Hi DD - you go full welly for Popper's take on Science. But I don't recall the category of 'problematic' - is that Popperian or yours?
Also you lead with the claim of misconception regarding the widespread belief the Multiverse is not testable.
Could I request that you actually perform the logic the test as a worked example of what you mean
Long experience with popper deutschians has seasoned me to understand how the popperian rules tend to get used by yourself.
e.g. you mention here "....An important consequence of this explanatory conception of science is that experimental results consistent with a theory T do not constitute support for T"
The way that is presented, I think the intuitive reading by most people imagines robust theories will heaps of corroboration no longer getting points of 'truth' for that.
But the way it always gets used is you or someone wants to assert a totally unsupported theory. You can argue that is neither here nor there.
Another example is the assertion that empirical testing is not needed, that it doesn't make any difference because a theory can't be thrown out on those grounds.
In practice that translates to an 'explanation' is asserted into place, despite no corroboration and in some cases complete fails experimentally outcomes.
I think you are misleading with your centre piece claim, because the way you 'prove' the multiverse is testable is by first eliminating all the difficult tests that multiverse can never pass. And then you finalize your 'test' with this " To understand why quantum theory is testable, it is essential to regard it as an explanatory theory"
So what you really meant was the multiverse is subject to the philosophical schema of conjecture and criticism. And that criteria is ok because you've already effectively eliminated science as a special case of something. Now it's all just popperian philosophy.
The reason that's misleading the widespread 'misconception' has never contradicted that 'criticism' is aways available. It's just an obvious fact.....say...criticism of grammar. The grammar of the multiverse explanation is totally testable.