Why scientific theories need not make predictions

In my exploration of Wolfram Physics, I’ve come across one objection more than any other.
Over and over again, people have told me that the Wolfram model must be rejected because it makes no predictions.
I could respond by saying that Wolfram Physics does make predictions. It predicts Einstein’s equations. It predicts Schrödinger’s equation.
But it’s true that it doesn’t make any predictions that differ from those of general relativity and quantum mechanics. At least, not yet.
So here’s my more robust response to the objection: all scientific theories make no predictions when they’re first formulated.
If we dismiss any new theory solely because it doesn’t make any predictions, then we’d dismiss all new theories.
It’s time for academics to learn the lessons of the history of science, and open their minds to bold, new ideas, like Wolfram Physics.
-
Ideas:
• Tycho Brahe en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_B...
• The paths of the planets are elliptical en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%... according to Johannes Kepler en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanne...
• Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso... by Isaac Newton en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_N...
• Astronomers’ test en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddingt... of Albert Einstein’s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_... general theory of relativity
• Against Method en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against... by Paul Feyerabend en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Fe...
• The Newtonian Casino www.amazon.com/Newtonian-Casi... by Thomas Bass
Ancient astronomies:
• Egyptian astronomy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptia...
• Babylonian astronomy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon...
• Inca astronomy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_Em...
Images:
• Paul Feyerabend Berkeley commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi... by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend reproduced with permission
-
The Last Theory lasttheory.com/ is hosted by Mark Jeffery markjeffery.com/ founder of the Open Web Mind www.openwebmind.com/
Prefer to listen to the audio? Search for The Last Theory in your podcast player, or listen at lasttheory.com/podcast/048-wh...
The full article is at lasttheory.com/article/why-sc...
Kootenay Village Ventures Inc.

[@Zeuts85]

Many comments here seem to be reacting more to the video's title than engaging with its actual content. The main point isn't that predictions are unimportant. Instead, it's about the danger of dismissing new ideas too quickly because they haven't yet made predictions, potentially hindering future scientific advances. The Wolfram model is abstract and might not align with conventional intuitions, which could make it challenging for some to accept. That's no excuse for dismissing it without understanding.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Matt, you put it really well. It's no doubt my fault for putting the words "Predictions? Who cares?" in the thumbnail! Still, it does get a lively conversation going!

[@User53123]

Great video, many physicists think understanding is not necessary, but understanding is the difference between operating in the dark or turning on the light. When you turn on the light all the puzzling objects reveal themselves, why wouldn't you want to do this?

[@lasttheory]

Yes, you put that well, thanks Jaime!

[@Terpsichore1]

Yes Mark, I am! Like you, EXTREMELY interested and open to exploring new theories. The prevailing ‘Scientism’ throughout our once great institutions is shameful and regressive. Thank you for all your hard work in bringing Wolframs’ theory into the public understanding.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, that's good to hear, as ever!

[@NightmareCourtPictures]

Thank you Last Theory. You explained this so perfectly. My opinion: The new kind of science is such a departure from the paradigm of traditional science, that there will be blood on the battlefield for sure. It spells the end of the central tenets of traditional science as we know it; reductionism and perfect prediction. The way I see it, everyone's theories will eventually if not sooner then later, converge hard, to the Wolfram Model, and we pretty much already see this right now to a large degree, in people like Joscha Bach, Micheal Levin, Donald Hoffman...each with slightly different interpretations, but interpretations none the less on what is at the base level, of the same thing : The Wolfram Model. We already see information theoretic evidence of the universes behavior in things like the holographic principle. Mainstream science will simply "prove" the wolfram model true eventually as they continue to do science, with or without any predictions coming out of the model. I need to make a set of video's myself like you, because I've learned enough about the Wolfram Model to create and model my own systems with it, and enough so that I can provide operational definitions for the laymen, for each of the component theories they've been developing (Multi-Computation, Ruliology, Observer Theory) and at this point, if anything is going to happen, it's gonna be traditional scientists holding on to the old ways, versus the new kind of science that will leave them in the dust. One of the strengths of the Wolfram Model is it's applicability to anyone with just a computer. So if the nay-sayers don't want to take it seriously now, it's going to be there loss. Cheers,

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, and yes, I agree, this is such a paradigm shift that people who hold to older models may never be convinced. I'd love to see any videos you create about this: let me know!

[@Vectorized_mind]

I don't think so..i think that wolfram physics will be forgotten as a NEW THEORY emerges out of some lonely intelligent individual going against mainstream logic. WOLFRAM PHYSICS in my opinion is BOGUS. A paradigm shift is building up in physics and i bet my life it's not coming from WOLFRAM'S work.

[@User53123]

Me too!. Wolfram has it mostly figured out I think but he has a difficult time explaining it so that people understand. The computational model is the future of physics I believe.

[@Ratboycure]

Hey fellah found you at the grocery store stopped in to check it out. I am into it! Nice work

[@lasttheory]

Wow, that’s the first time I’ve ever found a viewer while I’m getting my groceries! Thanks so much for checking it out!

[@brygenon]

Having made a hobby of studying crank nonsense, I see a problem in at least how this idea plays. So many self-styled researchers proudly proclaim their theory which explains everything. Alas, it does so because it can explain anything, as can magic pixies. No matter what we observe, their theory stands. Making predictions is pretty much the same thing as being falsifiable. It's not so much that correct prediction gives us confidence in the theory. It's that wrong prediction is how we know to look elsewhere.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks, I agree with that. And I'm very happy to hear that someone else likes to study crank nonsense. It's a good hobby. What I'd add is that there's a problem with timing. We need ways to evaluate theories _before_ they're able to make firm predictions. Falsifiability is one such way. As you mention, magic pixies don't make for good scientific theories, precisely because they're unfalsifiable. So we need to distinguish. Unlike magic pixies, Wolfram Physics is entirely falsifiable. If, for example, when Jonathan Gorard tried to derive Einstein's equations from the Wolfram model, he found that the geometry _differed_ from what we observe, then we would have been able to reject Wolfram Physics immediately. But that's not what happened: he succeeded in deriving Einstein's equations exactly as we observe them. That gave him - and me - confidence that this framework _might_ be on the right track. And that it's _certainly_ not crank nonsense. I'm not arguing for pseudo-science or non-science here. We need standards. I'm arguing instead for patience: assess new ideas on their merits; don't reject them immediately just because they're not yet able to make predictions that differ from what we already know.

[@planmet]

A tentative prediction that some process will happen is only useful if the prediction can be repeated any number of times. One prediction often leads to another predictable process - and this is how sound theories develop.

[@lasttheory]

Yes, thanks Andrew. I agree that, over time, sound theories develop by making predictions. But that requires patience, and what I'm seeing is the opposite of patience, a knee-jerk response to any new theory that unless it immediately makes testable predictions, it must be rejected. I hope Wolfram Physics will soon make some predictions that differ from existing theories - there are plenty of promising possibilities for this - but until then, we need the patience to give it a chance. Thanks for the comment!

[@Julian.u7]

Excellent, excellent, excellent explanation! This episode is a gem.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Julian! So many people just don't get the idea of this episode, so I'm glad to hear from you that you do!

[@danellwein8679]

thank you for this .. good stuff

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Dan!

[@SmittyWerbenjagermanjensen]

To me, science and theory is about control, but in an abstract sense, control of quantity in both space and time. So the abstraction is for robustness, now you can speed "things" up like a chemical reaction, or mass produce something to speed up the physical quantity of something faster than before. And I'm still talking about self-applying scenarios in science, not anything industrial yet. Now imagine doing this recursively (though not as neatly as I said), with a pinch of imagination here, and going down the wrong path a little too long there, and you get a pretty good social phenomenon I think of as science. A cooperative effort, but also about survival of the fittest in the information swarm, which most helps robustly improves the entire endeavour. Maybe some kind of improved award system built on solid political economy and optimization theory could improve the entire effort? :shrug: whatever works works, whether it takes you a year, or a lifetime to throw into the information swarm for judgement. Marketing also helps if your stuff isn't following the aesthetics of the time, people don't like using their brains to understand the odd, you gotta have some kind of hook, else it'll take all the longer edit: oh, conditional loops applied to big pseudo-brains to optimize the above is also something important that's often left out. Originally it was just conditional loops, the addition of pseudo-brains ie amalgamation of probability and optimization theory is the hot buzz the collective scientific industry has turned its gaze upon

[@lasttheory]

Yes, science is a fascinating beast, sociologically. Most people don't realize, as you do, that science is a _social_ enterprise. Thanks for the comment!

[@lordlucan529]

In the context of Einstein, Newton’s “explanation” was also totally incorrect - there is no force between bodies with mass. There this also a difference between theories that do not yet make predictions vs those that can never make predictions - and without testable predictions you don’t know whether you have gotten a step closer to “the truth” vs having just created a fancy model that matches the world we see (as were the mechanical solar systems).

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Andy. Yes, I agree, Newton's and Einstein's explanations were fundamentally different, yet each of them, I'd argue, made an important contribution to our understanding of what's really going on in the universe. (Incidentally, I don't think it's untrue to say that there's a force between bodies with mass. Given any reasonable definition of a force, there _is_ a force between bodies with mass. It's just that Einstein's explanation in terms of the curvature of space-time is even more insightful than Newton's in terms of gravitational forces.) And yes, you're absolutely right, there _is_ a difference between theories that do not yet make predictions and those that can never make predictions. I'm not interested in the latter: such theories simply aren't science. I'm very interested in Wolfram Physics: it _can_ make predictions. Thanks for the thoughtful comment!

[@lordlucan529]

@@lasttheory Taking nothing away from the quantum leap Newton gave us in maths and science, Newtons laws of gravity were “merely” a mathematical model constructed to describe and predict what we could already see. Einstein’s theory of gravity predicted time would be affected by gravity, something nobody knew or would have ever guessed, and thus predicted something completely new, which of course was eventually verified by experiment. My concern is whether Wolfram has taken a mathematical technique that could model absolutely anything, and created a model that replicates physics, resulting in the equivalent of what Newton did as opposed to coming up with something that exposes a greater insight into the material world. Only time will tell.

[@lasttheory]

@@lordlucan529 Yes, it's a good question: can Wolfram Physics model absolutely anything? If so, it might not be very useful! But Jonathan Gorard's derivation of Einstein's equations kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6XNmXhmipKgncU settles that question for me. With just three basic assumptions, Jonathan derived general relativity. That suggests to me that Wolfram Physics is a promising model of _our_ universe, not just any old universe.

[@nealesmith1873]

This makes sense but it seems that basic concepts are getting confused. These new ideas are hypothesis, not directly theories. And all your examples make predictions, not new predictions, the same ones or sometimes slightly better. A lot of this sounds like just wordplay to me. This being said I'm all for new ideas and hypotheses, no matter how wild!

[@lasttheory]

Well, yes, Wolfram's new ideas are... _new._ I won't quibble over whether to call them hypotheses or theories: I think these terms aren't very helpful, and are used to _disqualify_ new ideas when, as you say, we should be _open_ to them. Better words would be "model" or "framework". We don't have a fully-developed theory yet, for sure. But again, as you say, that's no reason to refuse to look at new ideas. Thanks for the comment, Neale!

[@nealesmith1873]

@@lasttheory Thanks for your answer. I will definitely subscribe.

[@duelme1234]

A lot of your responses seem to be regarding timing of predictions more than anything else. And while I do agree that patience is important, shouldn't this "social contract" be mutual? If scientist were honest about the flaws (at least current flaws) of their theory and weren't pushing incomplete theories/conclusions like a salesman, then sure i don't see the harm in more patience. However, considering how egotistical/deceptive these situations can get (at least high profile ones), I think the scientific community is right to be skeptical first and change their mind later once evidence comes in. I also believe that you didn't account for the damage it could cause for science communication if your mentality is dominate. Suddenly bad faith scientists (let's be real the incentive structure is messed up right now) might use "open-mindedness" to justify their egos and if the public gets a whiff to be disappointed again... well there goes the public's trust even more. And considering the current situation, that's the last thing that needs to happen right now. In my opinion, before you can make good testable predictions, the scientific community should reserve the right to be suspicious until the theory is proven correct *through predictions*. The burden of proof should be on the proponent (or any interested party), and I don't see why it's bad for the scientific community to not accept (at least completely/or even reject) theories that can not make predictions yet/give the wrong predictions. If you can't satisfy your end of the bargain, you've failed, and try again until you can fulfill your burden. Lastly you talked about new theories being consistent with older ones and nothing else. Wouldn't there be a difference at least in fringe cases and that's what we test? I'm not a physicist but quantum mechanics and general relatively not "in conflict" with each other? So if Wolfram is consistent with the rest of physics shouldn't we try to test places with the theories collide (or at least scales where the physics blur between quantum, classical, gr,...etc)?

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, you make some good points here. I agree, skepticism is a good default position when it comes to new theories. We do need _some_ stance beyond skepticism, though, if we're not going to reject _all_ new theories. And I don't think that stance should include judging theories according to the characters of the people who put them forward. There have been plenty of egotistical figures in the history of science. Their ego _doesn't_ make their theories any less right. You ask: "Wouldn't there be a difference at least in fringe cases and that's what we test?" Yes, that's exactly right. Those fringe cases might arise during extreme events such as the collapse of stars into black holes. Analysing the emissions from such events might allow us to distinguish, for example, between the continuous space we've always assumed and the discreteness of the hypergraph. I hope we get to such potential tests of this framework soon. I think we should worry less about public perception of the scientific community, and more about the reality. There's no shortage of crazy ideas out there, and we should be clear with non-scientists about why they're crazy. Or just ignore them. But if we dismiss _all_ new theories just because they haven't made predictions yet, or because we don't like the people who posited these theories, then we're confirming some of the non-scientists' worst fears.

[@edmundmcconnell]

IANAP but I'd love to know how Wolfram physics links to QM and GR at a high level

[@lasttheory]

Thanks Edmund. My two conversations with Jonathan Gorard about first GR then QM are a good place to start: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6XNmXhmipKgncU and kzbin.info/www/bejne/j4vLdIyCj8ahe6c I'm slowly working on easier-to-follow explanations of these things. I'll have lots of new ~10-minute videos that'll get us there as soon as I can!

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

Ai ai. Bad example: Newton explicitly said that he did not understand "why" planets moved around stars. In his principia he says: "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction."

[@lasttheory]

Right, Newton was a humble fellow, wasn't he? And you're right, Newton didn't truly understand why, and Einstein didn't truly understand why, and we _still_ don't truly understand why. But, with his laws of motion and gravitational force, wasn't his theory much, much better at _explaining_ what was going on than a table of numbers or even of ellipses?

[@lordlucan529]

Gotta love Newton. Wasn’t quite there and he knew it.

[@lordlucan529]

@@lasttheory Sorry to debate this, but I’m not sure it was - if we are to believe Einstein’s theory the planets move in “straight paths” through curved space-time according to Newton’s first law, as opposed moving in ellipses as believed by Newton and the application of his second law of motion. Anyhow, I hope there are pubs in the afterlife, as I can imagine the conversation between Newton and Einstein would have been fascinating ;)

[@lasttheory]

@@lordlucan529 Thanks, Andy. I like debates! My take on this is that Newton's and Einstein's _concepts_ - gravitational forces in Newton's case, curvature of space- time in Einstein's case - are ideas that help us understand the _behaviours_ they modelled. The _behaviours_ are real: the planets really do follow approximately elliptical paths through space. The _concepts,_ however insightful, are just in our minds. Just because Einstein's model is more accurate, in terms of predicting behaviours, I don't think his _concepts_ are any more or less real than Newton's. At the very least, I think we should hold Einstein's concepts as lightly as Newton held his - see my video _Space-time is dead_ kzbin.info/www/bejne/mavNn5efjNeraKM - otherwise they risk limiting our ability to explore new concepts. So I don't think Newton's concepts are _wrong_ in the light of Einstein's more advanced theory, any more than I'll think Einstein's concepts are _wrong_ if the Wolfram model shows that space is discrete rather than continuous. Thanks for the debate!

[@discoveringthegardenofeden7882]

@@lasttheory That would be misunderstanding the difference between an explanation and a description. Examples: - Newton didn't explain anything. The force concept does not explain gravity, nor its cause. - Force asymmetry does not explain 'push' (as any asymmetry by itself is not causal of movement). - The warping of non-physical mathematics (Einstein relativity and its non-physical interpretation of 'space') does not explain gravity as non-physical things (the symbolic language of relativity and 'non-physical space) cannot bend, push or attract anything. These are merely mathematical descriptions, imaginary constructs only in that they do not explain causality. The deeper question is the following: Why does an object start moving when there is an asymmetry in forces, i.e. when suspended in empty space? What is the cause? Answering this question and showing the mechanism by which one "thing" causes the other to move would be a physical explanation. The rest is useful as a description but imaginary.

[@ThinklikeTesla]

Karl Popper on line 2...

[@lasttheory]

Hello? Hello? Karl?

[@kostoglotov2000]

Yes

[@duncankilburn7612]

Testable predictions are the basis of all scientific knowledge. That's what makes a theory a scientific theory rather than mere belief.

[@sadface7457]

Logical consistency not prediction makes a belief scientific.

[@duncankilburn7612]

@@sadface7457 A flat Earth is logically consistent

[@lasttheory]

Thanks, Duncan. I agree that to be scientific, a theory must measure up to what we observe. And eventually, that means making testable predictions that differ from other theories. But this is just _one_ criterion for assessing a theory, and it’s not a very important one at the earliest stages. I maintain that _explanation_ is more important than _prediction._

[@rickybloss8537]

​​​​​​@@lasttheoryIn your example in the beginning the theories that prevail ultimately make better predictions. It seems to be nessicary, in order to be justified to believe, as there are infinite possible explanations that can post hawk explain it away.

[@henryjfischer]

They're called conjectures and hypotheses. Not mere beliefs. Your first point stands, though.

[@gJonii]

This seems like desperate push for making fertile ground for some flat earth type nonsense. Predicting things is important, and being efficient with ideas-to-predictions ratio is largely the measure of quality of theory(or, better, assumptions-to-predictions). This seems to mystify this "predicting same things with less assumptions", and me being unfamiliar with this channel, all I can say is, this mystification seems to align well with how all pseudoscience works, blur things, mystify them, to make the next step, incoming bullshit, harder to criticize. After all, when you sell your perpetual motion machine concept to the suckers in the next video, you can just say it's fine if it doesn't work, it's just an idea, that's how science works.

[@gJonii]

Ah, yeah, here it comes, the last minute. Wolfram physics seems to be the BS sold. No idea what it is, but it seems to require pretty significant disarming of basic science skills.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the comment, Joni. Rest assured that I am definitely _not_ into any pseudoscientific nonsense. Wolfram physics is definitely not that: it's consistent with both general relativity and quantum mechanics, which makes it highly scientific. I do think, though, that if we're to make progress in science, we need to be open to new ideas, and I worry that we're not. After all, it's our openness to new ideas that got us here: that got us general relativity, that got us quantum mechanics.

[@gJonii]

@@lasttheory Being open to new ideas is a balancing act between being too easy to accept bad ideas and being too difficult to accept good ideas. Without doing justice to this tension between the two extremes, you're not going to end at a reasonable compromise. And you skipped over the entire occams razor thing, theory being better by the virtue of predicting as much but assuming less, and just mystified this as "it feels good" as a metric of scientific merit. Which could be used(and has been used) by plenty of (pseudoscience and otherwise) conartists, disarm the reason before entering the sales pitch to part the sucker with their valuables.

[@lasttheory]

@@gJonii Yes, thanks Joni, I agree, there needs to be a balance. Interestingly, though, when we're brainstorming, it's good to withhold judgement and just be creative. Yes, you need to judge your ideas eventually, but if you switch on the judgement too soon, it kills the creativity. I think that applies just as much to science as to any other creative field. Thanks for the conversation!

[@bobs2809]

Without the repeatable power of accurate predictabilty on empirical experience science wouldn't exist.

[@Elsiodur]

Imagination always proceeds prediction. Then the logical part of our consciousness follows to performil the necessary computations, & over time it leads to a more accurate translation of our observations. The higher the quality of our internal description language of our consciousness is the more accurate & refined the results of our computations are. A good example of this process is sci-fi writing ,tgat over time, tends to becomes reality. Time, in this process can be viewed as the main computational resource of our consciousness. The less refined the internal description language of our consciousness is, the more time we consume to manifest desired solutions..

[@lasttheory]

Thanks @bobs2809. I agree, we need prediction... _eventually._ My concern is that we're demanding it too early. As @Elsiodur says, imagination precedes prediction. Demanding prediction too early risks shutting down our collective imagination.

[@jxavierantu]

That is absurd man. Of course a new theory hast to predict something else, otherwise what is the point. Feyerabend was an irrationalist (taka a look in a more complete history of science on Lakatos).

[@lasttheory]

What if the new theory and the old theory make the _same_ predictions, but the new one is _simpler?_ Wouldn't Occam's Razor require that we prefer the new theory? Or should we prefer the old one just because it came _first?_ And what if the new theory hasn't been fully worked out yet, so hasn't got to the point of making novel predictions? Should we abandon it before it's had a chance to get to that point? If we _do_ abandon it, how would _any_ new theory _ever_ get to the point of making novel predictions?

[@jxavierantu]

Certainly, science tends to prefer the simplest and most comprehensive explanations for phenomena. However, in your video, it seems like you may have overlooked many aspects of this principle. The initial interest in the Newtonian theory was, of course, for its explanatory power, but the unification of gravitational forces into a single phenomenon led to new predictions and corrections in classical physics calculations, much like in the case of relativity in regard of newtonian On the contrary, consider the example of string theory. It presents a beautiful mathematical framework for unifying physics but lacks empirical testing. For it to be considered valid, it should, at the very least, propose limits, akin to Popper's criterion of falsifiability (which essentially involves making predictions and seeing whether they manifest or not). Science desires peripheral ideas, such as the Graph hypothesis, to evolve and eventually offer not just mathematical explanations (even if logarithmic in nature) but also experimental avenues to demonstrate their superiority and simplicity. Until then, it remains merely a new mathematical formulation, devoid of empirical grounding. It's crucial to remember that rational thinking can sometimes lead to absurd conclusions. For instance, during the Middle Ages, rational thought led to debates about the existence of angels and the structure of paradise. Mathematics, being a form of rational thinking, must undergo empirical testing to transition into physics; otherwise, it's merely an intellectual exercise-a beautiful one, but still just a game. @@lasttheory

[@lasttheory]

​@@jxavierantu We agree about String Theory, I think. For me, it's a mathematical game that has become far too deeply entrenched in academia without yielding significant advances in our understanding of the universe. And we agree, too, that peripheral ideas should evolve and eventually offer empirical explanation. I'm just arguing that though we should perhaps have been quicker to require real progress from String Theory, we seem to have erred in the opposite direction with the Wolfram model, requiring immediate novel predictions before it's realistic for such an ambitious new framework to arrive at them. Thanks for the discussion!

[@jxavierantu]

I don't believe people are simply seeking results and predictions. Rather, they're looking for a well-defined formulation of the problem. It appears to me that there isn't even a cohesive model, only fragmented conjectures that mimic in post hoc mode, the issues in physics. Frankly, I still don't grasp the entire picture. It seems erratic to me, but I'm daving to gain a better understanding and form an opinion.

[@planmet]

Take String Theory - it neither predicts anything or explains anything - it is just intellectualised nonsense.

[@lasttheory]

Right, yes, thanks again, Andrew. That's the danger, that by not holding our theories to high standards of prediction and explanation, we give too much credence to ideas like String Theory. I'd say that Wolfram Physics' powers of explanation are so great (and so much greater than String Theory) that it's worth being patient as we wait for predictions.

[@ianohlander]

String theory is a great explanation. But it's "beauty" as a comprehensive theoretical model blinds people to the lack of testability of it (as opposed to predictions it makes. Those are not the same.) At THIS stage, Wolfram is a fascinating model and paradigm shift- and frankly, is on that lean towards being a huge step in the right direction. But at the end of the say, predictability IS the arbiter of the validity of the model. Period. Maybe you can claim that it is in its early stages and therefore isn't at a place to male predictions yet. That's valid and tenable. It takes time to work it out. String theory was in the same place for many many years. But eventually, at some point the rubber needs to meet the road. Explanatory power and beauty do not make things true. For the data of the times, the theory of epicycles was an elegant idea with explanatory power....with a completely wrong paradigm. Testability is the ONLY way to verify a theory.

[@lasttheory]

@@ianohlander Yes, I agree, eventually the rubber needs to meet the road. Theory needs to match reality. But it's trivially true that multiple theories can make the same predictions. That's why we need Occam's Razor or some other explanation-oriented tool to decide between them. This surely means that prediction is not the _only_ abiter?

[@ianohlander]

@lasttheory thank you for responding. ok, I think this is a great a thing you bring up. Again, let me preface and say that I personally think Wolfram is definitely on the right track. Compatability as a paradigm has too much explanatory power to be ignored (even if we don't have testability yet.) Side note, I've looked but haven't find much mention of a connection between it and Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. I seem to remember there were some subtle differences in the one mention I found, but am unsure if it's similar to the various flavors of string theory being variants of the same underlying one. Curious as to whether you have checked it out and compared? End tangent. It is true that multiple theories may explain a single phenomenon. Or even a subset. But we are talking GUT here. As far as I know, there are only a handful of contenders, of which Wolfram is the newest. We've already talked about string theory. And I think super symmetry is another. Fragments of others too. I agree, when sifting through theories that purport to explain a phenomenon, Occams razor should play a role. But I think there is a caveat here. Occam's razor is based on our perspective. It is based on what we currently know. Sometimes, we know enough that it can make pronouncements. But sometimes, even of there is a simpler, more elegant solution it favors, it is only simple because there are data/observations we don't have yet. Case in point- if you were to present any aspect of quantum mechanics: QFT, QCD or even just a basic subset of quantum physics regarding probability waves, electron shells, quarks, etc, in the 1890s, you would be laughed it. It is bewilderingly complex in comparison to where physics was in the 1890s. Literally, there were like 2 phenonomena that still needed explanations (photoelectric effects and black body radiation), but on the whole, physics appeared wrapped up. Seems like an awful lot of complexity to introduce to explain 2 minor points. Occam's razor surely shaves it away, no? The explanatory power (and additionally, predictability) of the existing paradigm surely outweighs the ridiculous complexity being posited. And that would be incorrect. Occam's razor would select the wrong model because- and this is my point- it ONLY judges as "simple" based on the current information available, the current phenomena or observations it is trying to explain. (As I recall- perhaps incorrectly-l, the heliocentric model introduced more complexity at first even though the epicycles model did a fairly great job of explaining the then current data. Same situation.) As I said, I think Wolfram is moving in the right directions. I think not just viewing the universe as an information model but through a computational one is absolutely correct- my opinion. It should be given time to be fleshed out, challenged, put through its paces. It should be given space to grow and mature. And to get to a place where it can make testable predictions. Eventually, that will ultimately decide whether it is true, elegant or not. Nature doesn't care what we think, love or prefer. It is what it is. So it will ultimately decide. BTW, love your explanations. Esp the earliest ones where you built up the models piece by piece. It's such a paradigm shift that it can take time for it to click. The interviews have been great, but I'd like to see, at least for some small examples, the working out of how Wolfram might lead to quantum physics or relativity. As in, a walk through of some of the claims made in the conversation, step by step. You've been living in this for a long time. It is a huge difference and has a very specific vocabulary. It would help to see it explained and broken down in the same way you did your earlier videos. Hearing people talk about the beauty is one thing. SEEING , or at least glimpsing, that beauty is something else. It could generate further excitement for it.

[@lasttheory]

@@ianohlander Thanks for the long response! You make some great points and obviously have a good grasp of the history and philosophy of science. Briefly: No, I haven't had a chance to look deeply into Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe hypothesis. I brought up Occam's Razor to make a point, but I don't think there are _any_ hard and fast rules when it comes to evaluating scientific theories. As you say, there are times when Occam's Razor can lead us astray. And yes, I'm planning to do more of the step-by-step explanations, especially working towards general relativity and quantum mechanics. They take a lot of time, and some coding, sometimes, too, so it takes a long time to make these videos. But I agree, they're essential to this channel. Thanks for your input here!

[@johneubank8543]

/facepalm. You're really not getting certain basic things. You've clearly not spent enough time immersed in Popper, actually trying to grasp on a deep level why he (and others) came up with what they did. Your argument that predictions may lead to too much confidence in theories where predictions work out - and not enough for those that fail - is a rank appeal to consequences. A logical fallacy. Boom. You're done. If you can't see this, you should either give up - or you need to spend a great deal of time trying to actually learn basic, (mostly) informal logic. You're being emotional, I would say. Irrational. Not logical. "The Science" is never locked in. It's always being challenged. Always. The system, as Popper described it, will (or should) eventually correct for your objections. It is the corruption of people who want to have social influence - or to make money off of bad ideas - that ruins science. Not Popper's basic system. Really. You don't know what you think you know. There is a great hole in your education. I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm saying it to try to help you. Good luck.

[@lasttheory]

Thanks for the comment, John, and your concern for my education ;-) Just one important correction: I'm not arguing that we should have more confidence in theories whose predictions fail. I'm arguing that we should be more open-minded to theories that don't yet have any predictions at all that differ from the status quo.

[@johneubank8543]

@@lasttheory That's fine. Let me humbly submit that the need to make predictions and the need for falsifiability do not necessarily force close-mindedness on us. It can, but so can many things. But in most situations, there are some motivated, intelligent scientists who are constantly looking to challenge things. As is appropriate. And they do in fact revisit failed hypotheses to see if they can be tweaked and fixed. This is awfully hard to discuss objectively, because we can't quote meaningful statistics. It's pure opinion, unless I'm missing something. The need for Popper's considerations, in my mind, far outweighs what you're saying. By delineating what is science and what isn't, he saves us from a great deal of time-wasting. Unless we stop respecting him, which sadly seems to be happening (like accepting models which are not using scientific approaches to try to force policy and the wasting of countless billions of dollars). Good luck to you.