# Discussion trees

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [February 28, 2022, 1:29am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518 "2022-02-28T01:29:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmf/32/1302_2.png) [@lmf](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/lmf)
#### Post date: [February 28, 2022, 10:12pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518/5 "2022-02-28T22:12:12Z")

</div>

Here’s one for the discussion Alan and I had about quantization. It covers everything from the beginning all the way through until the line on [this post](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/29), after which I start to ask Alan to give his own reason for why he thinks partially quantum mechanical theories are bad. I see that line as basically starting the conversation anew with my better understanding of what Alan means by partially/fully quantum mechanical theory, and if I was going to put it in the tree it would be a new tree.

 ![02-28-22_tree1](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/uploads/default/original/2X/f/faf4113d112a798a0fce80250cfc2482d46d3464.png)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/discussion-trees/518)._