This is not really a theory. I am not making predictions, I provide no concrete math, and this idea is not really falsifiable in its most generic forms. Why do I still think it is useful? Because it is a new way of looking at physics, and because it makes everything so much more easy and intuitive to understand, and makes all the contradictions go away.
Let’s compare it with an alternative theory that there are invisible magical wee beasties all around who make the physics actually work by pushing, pulling, and dragging all the stuff. And “there are alternative interpretations for explaining relativity and quantum physics under this perspective”—sometimes the wee beasties find magic mushrooms and eat them.
Not making predictions? Check.
No concrete math? Check.
Not really falsifiable? Check.
New way of looking at physics? Check (sufficiently so).
So much more easy and intuitive to understand? Check.
Makes all the contradictions go away? Check.
Not a theory, but a new perspective? Check.
It’s a tie! But the beasties are cuter, so they win.
On one hand, you’re completely right. On the other hand, your comment leaves an obvious opening (models made of graphs are easier to compute than models made of beasties). When I reply to something, I usually steelman it in my mind first. That often leads to interesting ideas and makes my reply sound deeper, which leads to upvotes as you can see :-)
Let’s compare it with an alternative theory that there are invisible magical wee beasties all around who make the physics actually work by pushing, pulling, and dragging all the stuff. And “there are alternative interpretations for explaining relativity and quantum physics under this perspective”—sometimes the wee beasties find magic mushrooms and eat them.
Not making predictions? Check.
No concrete math? Check.
Not really falsifiable? Check.
New way of looking at physics? Check (sufficiently so).
So much more easy and intuitive to understand? Check.
Makes all the contradictions go away? Check.
Not a theory, but a new perspective? Check.
It’s a tie! But the beasties are cuter, so they win.
On one hand, you’re completely right. On the other hand, your comment leaves an obvious opening (models made of graphs are easier to compute than models made of beasties). When I reply to something, I usually steelman it in my mind first. That often leads to interesting ideas and makes my reply sound deeper, which leads to upvotes as you can see :-)