Anemia filosófica

A buen entendedor...

Stephen Hawking& Leonard Mlodinov:

 En la historia de la ciencia hemos ido descubriendo una serie de teorías o modelos cada vez mejores, desde Platón a la teoría clásica de Newton y a las modernas teorías cuánticas. Resulta natural preguntarse si esta serie llegará finalmente a un punto definitivo, una teoría última del universo que incluya todas las fuerzas y prediga cada una de las observaciones que podamos hacer o si, por el contrario, continuaremos descubriendo teorías cada vez mejores, pero nunca una teoría definitiva que ya no pueda ser mejorada

 El gran diseño.Stephen Hawking y Leonard Mlodinov 

Carlo Rovelli:

The “quest for a unified theory” is a misconception. Physicists never really searched for it. They stumbled upon string theory, which to some appeared as a possible unification of everything, and, for lack of imagination, put too much energy into strings. When the enthusiasm for strings begun to fade, many felt lost. Now that supersymmetry is not showing up where string theorists expected it, it is a disarray.
[...]Here is an example: theoretical physics has not done great in the last decades. Why? Well, one of the reasons, I think, is that it got trapped in a wrong philosophy: the idea that you can make progress by guessing new theory and disregarding the qualitative content of previous theories. This is the physics of the “why not?” Why not studying this theory, or the other? Why not another dimension, another field, another universe? Science has never advanced in this manner in the past. Science does not advance by guessing. It advances by new data or by a deep investigation of the content and the apparent contradictions of previous empirically successful theories.

 Carlo Rovelli. Entrevista en Scientifican American