My favorite HN comment ever.
__
As for that lack of a falsifiable claim, agree, not only that, but one that would allow for a preponderance of evidence.
Donald Hoffman was interviewed and topic of falsifiable observations came up and as far as I am able to tell he avoided the topic; search for “falsifiable” in this link:
https://tim.blog/2022/04/18/donald-hoffman-transcript/amp/
___
On same topic, this paper provides overview of possible different approaches testing to quantum gravity with cosmology:
In any case, Dr. Hoffman's theories are mathematically rigorous. I think it's worth listening to the podcast before dismissing.
I can't really comment on that as 1) I only skimmed a couple sections of the paper and 2) my field is more applied math than pure. I'm not attacking or dismissing anything, just asking how the claims made are substantiated.
> However, since it's able to model experiments in the Large Hadron Collider, I would assume that it makes predictions about the positions and velocities of high energy particles.
Do those models cover experiments which have yet to be run, and more importantly are they predictions which differ from those of the standard model?
There are a lot of neat theories which model experimental work we already have results for, the problem is using said theories to make falsifiable predictions which are both realistic in terms of actually finding a way to do experimental verification and are different from predictions made by the standard model. Nobody really loves the state of physics as-is, but moving on to something else requires meeting those two conditions which has been an insurmountable hurdle as of yet.
Ideally yes. But if you have two theories which make the same predictions, and one requires orders of magnitude fewer parameters than the other, then the former is, if nothing else, a valuable new perspective.
The analogy that comes to mind is the elaborate system of epicycles in the geocentric model of the solar system. These were quite accurate -- even more accurate than the first heliocentric model (if I recall correctly). But the heliocentric model was far simpler in that it required fewer parameters (and as we know it turned out to be the correct one).
It's still early days for the cosmological polytope. It's right to be skeptical, but the greatest scientific advances are usually considered ludicrous at first by the broader community. It's those who allow for the possibility that the new theory may be correct that will design and carry out experiments to provide evidence either way.
