On the one hand, he makes interesting and insightful observations on all sorts of phenomena; on the other, he never really synthesizes those observations into a single, coherent argument. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. Again, both German and English versions of each are reproduced, though the task was made considerably easier than in other cases by the fact that the edition I used was a dual-language edition.
Now do it with another pair of points, but make sure they meet somewhere else.
Imagine taking a point on the sphere, and its antipodal point, and pulling them together to meet somewhere inside the sphere. When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them.
So it is an element of science, but incomplete. Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification.
That formulation is, as I believe I have said before, perfectly monstruous. If our only experience of the world is of an existent reality, such that something uncreated or destroyed is literally unimaginable, the superfluity of religion becomes very evident.
It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics. In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time.
Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions.
Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. So is the surface of a donut, or a saddle, or an idealized version of the rolling hills of your favorite pastoral scene. The dilemma is that when individuals pursue personal gain, the net result for society as a whole may be impoverishment.
In other, the goal is not to not be wrong but to achieve a definitive positive answer.
Now maybe we see a revision in the valuation of these ideals, and in both Laughlin and Mandelbrot a movement away from final solutions, formulations and summations. When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them. However, he also thinks that theories are conventions and definitions of concepts, not true descriptions of physical phenomena based necessarily on experimental results.
On the one hand, he makes interesting and insightful observations on all sorts of phenomena; on the other, he never really synthesizes those observations into a single, coherent argument.
It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics. Every hypothesis, in essence, is a prediction about the future. In other words, a view of the universe from a materialist perspective at any given moment shows that everything in the univese is different in the sense of being distinct. Slightly more abstractly, think of a rubber sheet stretched and twisted into any configuration you like so long as there are no holes, tears, creases, black holes or sharp corners.
Conversely, if a hypotheis is corroborated with a positive answer, the theories behind it stand validated until a hypothesis receives a negative answer.
Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Of that I have no doubt-it would be impossible for me to refute even if I wanted to.