Thursday, 12 June 2008

ITLAD Predictions

A good theory is best measured by its ability to make successful predictions. With this in mind, I wonder what kind of predictions ITLAD might present. Anyone have a good thought experiment for us to consider?
Posted by at

10 comments:

Karl Le Marcs said...

RAC: I don't quite agree with your opening statement that "A good theory is best measured by its ability to make successful predictions".

Personally I think a good theory is best measured by how well it sits with pre-existent established theories and how, through Hegelian Dialectics, it produces an even stronger synthesis of theory than was present before it was applied; because if accepting a new theory requires rejecting a good deal of what we've already established (as I assert that your Electromagnetic Consciousness Field would do, then it a) must also explain everything that it contradicts and b) it diminishes our understanding by instead of systematising and unifying our knowledge, it may fragment it)

ITLAD deals in MetaPhysics which is beyond empirical proof (as we within human constraints understand it) but I think that throughout the book, Tony gives numerous examples of what you may term "predictions", whether a priori or a posteriori and I'm sure the new book, The Daemon will add more personable and experiential evidence to the debate.

And I DO have an excellent "thought experiment" for you to consider, which is currently going to be a whole chapter of its own in my book.

I term it "Quantum Back Dreaming" and apart from myself there is only Tony that knows of this yet.

12 June 2008 at 11:04
Hurlyburly said...

Yeah, exactly, ol' Karl Popper says a true theory should be falsifiable.... oh dear.

12 June 2008 at 13:25
Karl Le Marcs said...

Hurlyburly: Martin mate, is this a historic moment? Have you just agreed with me?
*wipes brow with oversized gingham handkerchief*

12 June 2008 at 14:56
rac said...

Oh yes, I forgot about your custom of dissecting a rather simple and straight forward question/comment rather than participate in it; that's what makes this blog so much fun. What I should have said is a "good scientific theory":

S: (n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
S: (n) hypothesis, possibility, theory (a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena) "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
S: (n) theory (a belief that can guide behavior) "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales" wordnet.princeton.edu

12 June 2008 at 15:32
rac said...

To further clarify, that's why I specified "thought experiment", as I know this subject, by its very nature, is currently unverifiable.

"Scientists also use thought experiments when particular physical experiments are impossible to conduct (Carl Gustav Hempel labeled these sorts of experiment "theoretical experiments-in-imagination"), such as Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a light beam, leading to Special Relativity. This is a unique use of a scientific thought experiment, in that it was never carried out, but led to a successful theory, proven by other empirical means." Wikipedia

12 June 2008 at 15:45
Karl Le Marcs said...

Thanks Robert, although I would like to hear YOUR thoughts, and not just 'copy and pasted' elements of wikipedia and suchlike.
*wink*

12 June 2008 at 17:14
Hurlyburly said...

*Gloves to the ring*

IMEDIATELY!

12 June 2008 at 17:33
Karl Le Marcs said...

Hurlyburly: As long as they are your own gloves and not someone else's then ok!!

*big smile*

12 June 2008 at 17:37
rac said...

So NOW you want to hear our thoughts... and all this time I thought we were just suppose to agree with YOUR thoughts. ;)

13 June 2008 at 00:45
Karl Le Marcs said...

RAC: You don't know me very well if that is what you think!
The LAST thing I want is blind agreement, it is only through challenge and discourse that any theory gains strength.

13 June 2008 at 00:47

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)