DMc: > The string-theory must, I'm guessing, fall into one of the following > categories:- > > a. inconsistent with observable physical phenomena (in which case falsified > though scientific); > > b. consistent with observable physical phenomena in ways that, were those > phenomena otherwise, the theory would be falsified (in which case it is to > that extent testable and scientific); > > c. consistent with observable physical phenomena but only in that it is not > inconsistent with them (the hypothesis "God exists" might be said to be such > a theory also) but where it would also be consistent (as might God's > existence) with any instance where the phenomena were otherwise:- in which > case it is not scientific since it simply prohibits no possible state of > affairs. > > Paul seems to suggest it takes the form of c. And I wonder if he might > clarify if this is so? I would agree that 'c' is closest. > If so, is string-theory akin to a deistic explanation in that it simply > posits in mathematical form an underlying reality behind the world of > observable phenomena that nevertheless could never be inconsistent with such > phenomena no matter how they were? Sort of, but it's not even that. It keeps changing as they come up against inconsistencies. They just keep inventing. It's like a maze that is being built with more and more dead ends but with no actual escape path. At least a religious dogma (unless it's Roman Catholic) is consistent and insistent. The 'beautiful' part of superstring theory is the theory -- just the conception of it. The math is actually a mess. >If so, is there a possible bridge somewhere further down the line where it >might take a testable form that prohibits certain possible observable >states-of-affairs? Sure, but it won't be string theory. p ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html