>>15
If I was Red Cream, I would at this point suggest that if a theory was an "accurate description of reality" then there should be reams and reams of proof, emanating from that reality it describes. For how can a statement that applies to reality be untestifiable, if reality is there for us to observe?
And that's what RC was getting at, the APPLICATION to reality. String theorists are digging themselves into a mathematical myriad of symbolism, such that what they're doing isn't even ATTEMPTING to apply itself to generating a workable model of a physical universe.
Furthermore, I stand by my comment of
>>13. Just as you were not commenting whether or not string theory is a useful theory, RC was not commenting on whether or not string theory was right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate. The generation of some kind of description or model of the universe is intimately entwined with, and inseparable from, the generation of predictions concerning its behaviour thus.