all those constraints

[Michal Frackowiak]

Boud Roukema wrote:

>Cześć
>
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Michal Frackowiak wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Boud Roukema wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>BTW, Michał just used the word "predict" in the way many people do,
>>>to "predict" a value we already have measured. A more careful word that
>>>some people now use is "postdict". Or you can simply say "imply",
>>>which is a purely logical word, without any connotations on philosophy
>>>of science.
>>>
>>>Think of "I predict that the ZSRR will collapse around 1989-1991" or
>>>"I predict that there will be a major political revolution in France
>>>in 1789." Those are not predictions.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>In the sense that all the "constants" and "parameters" directly follow
>>from the theory without any need for experiment. independently. the
>>theory of everything should e.g. give the values of plank's constant,
>>cosmo constant, grav constant etc... and should not contain any
>>adjustable parameters.
>>    
>>
>
>
>philosophy of science:
>
>OK, so now you're using
> "directly follow"
>and
> "give"
>That's fine by me, it's more careful than "predict".  :)
>
>
>theory of everything:
>
>- cosmo constant or quintessence parameter(s) - agree that this(these)
>should be implied, not axiomatic
>
>- grav constant - disagree - as i see it, it's just a question of
>units, like converting seconds to metres, or miles to kilometres,
>or euros to f.francs (1 euro = 6.55957 f.francs exactly
>- Planck's constant - no opinion...
>
>  
>
just followed M. Heller and some other guys in this matter. not only my 
own view.