A random thought
Let's say someone gave a computer scientist a copy of Microsoft Word and asked them to figure out how the grammar correction feature was implemented.
Then two years later he comes back and says that while he hasn't exactly figured out how the feature is implemented, he did figure out something much better. He created with a new programming language, complete with a mathematical proof of Turing-completeness, and it can be used to compute anything that's computable. The grammar feature in Word is simply the result of computation, therefore his new language is capable of implementing the same feature. The rest is just details.
When I hear about string theory research, it sounds like instead of a model of the universe, they've come up with a meta-model that encompasses all possible universes. Which is cool except it doesn't help you in this universe. It's like the researchers have created a new programming language, but have told us nothing interesting about the big program we are already living in.
Posted September 29, 2006 4:42 PM
Comments
Aw, I thought you were going somewhere with that! :)
I get really fed up with the way people harp on about string theory - is it science, isn't it science, will it rain tomorrow, why does my souffle sink, etc - and I apologise but you're the straw that broke the camel's back.
Ithika, September 29, 2006 6:09 PM
Sorry, I suppose this post is just a product of my desire to relate everything back to software. Even the fundamental laws of the universe.
Damien, September 30, 2006 11:39 AM
I hope to read the two new books that just came out re: String Theory.
String theory is turning into a mystic religion, where the next trillion dollar super-super-super-dooper collider will bring us the glad tidings...
I watched that "what the @#$%^% do we know" flick and it was the most bizzare thing ever. Like a bunch of whirling dervishes going on and on about how we can never behold the diety, but we should JUST BELIEVE that it exist.. take their mathematical word for it.
I've had it with string theory and it's suffocation of other research endeavours.
etc. etc.
Rantissimo, September 30, 2006 12:08 PM
Did you see this over at the New Yorker (via Kottke): Unstrung
Brian M., October 3, 2006 5:28 PM
That's a long article. Does it say I'm right? I only read long articles if they agree with me. ;)
Damien, October 3, 2006 7:33 PM
It discusses both sides, but the author leans towards you being right. The gist of it is that a theory that has been around in one form or another since before either of us were born has yet to produce a testable theory, solve an existing problem, or even present a consistent version of it self. And hardly anybody seems to think that anything is odd about that, even though "since the late eighteenth century, no major scientific theory has been around for more than a decade without getting a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down."
Brian M., October 4, 2006 8:45 PM
A Critic at Large: Unstrung
Jim Holt
String theory's beauty
Ain't enough: it's time for more
Points of view, results.
http://drunkenvolcano.blogspot.com/
Ronnie, October 5, 2006 6:09 PM
if they never come up with anything practical from it, then we should thank the gods. they'd just turn it into the most horrible weapon ever, or figure out some way to instantly turn the universe into a garbage dump. we've gone much too far toward everything having to be useful. it's quite enough to be fascinated for fascination's sake. (so sez me.)
jonvon, October 5, 2006 9:13 PM
finaly, a great site that says words that i dont understand, great job, im gonna be hanging around
SasaMaker, October 6, 2006 6:42 PM
Oh, Jesus. Don't mix up the "What the *Bleep*?!" people with real string theorists. I mean, I have pretty serious reservations about string theory, and I agree that it's bordering on pseudoscience... But string theory is not a cult based on some random crazy woman channelling a 30k year old Altantean warrior, ok?
Joshua, October 9, 2006 3:08 PM
exactly
SasaMAker, October 22, 2006 10:57 PM