there is a reference to Peter Woit's blog, which has one entry regarding the paper
“So what will you do if string theory is wrong?” by Moataz H. Emam
I didn't want to inject the above thread with this sidetrack of mine, so I start a new thread.
This paper is a brief reflection that string theory may have a life of it's own regardless of physical relevance. But the the paper contains the following interesting and IMO ambitious view on string theory:
"I can imagine that string theory in that case may become its own new discipline; that is, a mathematical science that is devoted to the study of the structure of physical theory and the development of computational tools to be used in the real world
. The theory would be studied by physicists and mathematicians who might no longer consider themselves either."
If I read the author right, his view of string theory, is that string framework is in a fundamental way more fundamental than physical theory itself, and thus implicitly of higher generality? And somehow that the study of physical law, in a larger context (say such as evolving theories), would imply studying string theory.
Somehow that phrasing is very appealing to me and right in line with some of my thinking, but it's paradoxal that I can't see how the string framework could be a fundamental framework and strategy of sufficient generality to study physical law?
The fact that I want to understand the physical law in context, is why I find string theory speculative. I don't see how the string framework is the solution to the expressed quest?
Does most string theorists share the basic sentiment of this as expressed by Moataz H. Emam or is he in minority? or is he trying to make string theory something it's not?