Thinker

Mathematics has been the primary tool for scientists to describe the reality in which we live. However, describing something in mathematics does not mean it is true in reality. If we wish to pursue the concept of mathematics' decent from philosophy, then we know that existence is not a predicate and cannot be part of the concept of something. This Law of Philosophy (and by decent, mathematics) holds that just because something exists mathematically (a consept), does not mean that it also exists in reality. Unless we want to debate mathematics' decendance from philosophy and logic. So in the spirit of the origional topic: String theory should be considered a hypotheses (in physics, not neccessarily mathematics), as it has not the scientific exidence to make it a Theory. Though I would like to raise another point: a string theorist once told me that it (string theory) predicts gravity, and that can be used as evidence. any combats to this idea?

Hello, I am thinker. I created this account a while back and I think I made one post. So I think it may be good that I introduce myself again. Hello All! -Thinker-

I have a question about observance. I am reading a book called "The Trouble With Physics" by Lee Smolin, and he adresses a "problem" with Quantum Mechanics: The point that you put a boundary between you and the observer by being the observer, which is usually ok exept for the fact that your observing has an effect on the experiament itself, and I think the point he was trying to make was that if you expand the observation to someone watching the experiament then they become the observer and the person doing the measurements and the atoms themselves become the sytem onserved. I guess he has a problem with a theory that is based on what effect we have on something, and therefore an either incopleteness in the fundamentals of QM, or altogether wrong. First off is this a valid point? and second if you base a theory on what effect we have on something if we can prove that we covered all the bases then why should it be incomplete? thanks Thinker