# Quantization, String Theory

**URL:** https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494
**Category:** Unbounded
**Created:** [January 26, 2022, 12:36am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494 "2022-01-26T00:36:22Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 23

<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 15, 2022, 6:17pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/23 "2022-02-15T18:17:47Z")

</div>

> [@Elliot](#):
>
> it’s too disorganized and is being done using preexisting (prior to CF) automatizations (about how to think and discuss) without any visible attempt to understand and practice (and move towards automatizing) a CF idea like trees.

Why do you think this discussion is disorganized? It seems to me like we have been focusing on a really specific issue, and that there aren’t very many moving parts in our conversation. I was initially trying to understand what Alan meant by a fully quantum mechanical theory. Now I think I have a better idea of what he meant, and I am criticizing Alan’s belief that the definition he gave is sensible.

edit: I guess that’s only a description of the conversation _today_. Yesterday I was trying to defend my claim that particles are not fully quantum mechanical entities according to Alan’s definition (which is how our conversation started). After I posted [that defense](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/6), I came to the belief that his definition had problems, so I decided to focus on the definition. It still seems pretty organized to me.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494)._