>   Simplicity by itself is in no way an indication of correctness, nor
> a proof of anything.
> 
>   And by "correct" I mean the theory accurately describes the phenomenon
> as it really is, not "what is by current knowledge, inside the limits of
> our measurement capabilities, most plausible".
> 

But then your definition of "correct" implies that nothing is ever 
correct... You define it as necessarily outside of current knowledge...

Well that's OK. No theory is ever correct. Not much to discuss about 
starting from there, I'm afraid.

-- 
Vincent

Post a reply to this message