Here David answers a question that I had: If we have mathematical theories then why do we need explanations? Aren't they just superfluous, or merely aesthetic? And his answer points at the problem with string theory and the last 50 years of physics: Theorists keep generating new mathematical theories and testing them, and they don't work. I've read that the string theory landscape, or swampland, has something like 10^500 different theories in it. Good luck testing all of those to see which one fits our universe, if any. So, is an explanation a tool for generating better mathematical theories? Or is it something that serves a purpose in addition to a mathematical theory? If the latter, then the mathematical theory is incomplete, and it should be possible to take the explanation and incorporate it into the mathematical theory such that it's complete.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
22:00 if someone is consistency better at something, it’s due to knowledge
Here David answers a question that I had: If we have mathematical theories then why do we need explanations? Aren't they just superfluous, or merely aesthetic? And his answer points at the problem with string theory and the last 50 years of physics: Theorists keep generating new mathematical theories and testing them, and they don't work. I've read that the string theory landscape, or swampland, has something like 10^500 different theories in it. Good luck testing all of those to see which one fits our universe, if any.
So, is an explanation a tool for generating better mathematical theories? Or is it something that serves a purpose in addition to a mathematical theory? If the latter, then the mathematical theory is incomplete, and it should be possible to take the explanation and incorporate it into the mathematical theory such that it's complete.