# 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:** 29

<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 25, 2022, 10:17pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/quantization-string-theory/494/29 "2022-02-25T22:17:04Z")

</div>

> [@alanforr](#):
>
> I would say that a theory consists of an explanation as well as some way of making predictions like an equation of motion.

I don’t disagree with that.

> [@alanforr](#):
>
> If an equation of motion is part of a fully quantum mechanical theory then that whole package would be fully quantum mechanical. You can’t entirely cleanly separate the explanation and the equations but you might be able to arrive at the same equation in more than one way.

Ohhh, I think I understand now. The way in which the quantum equations of motion (or whatever) were derived is _part of the theory_, because it’s an explanation of why we’re considering those equations of motion and not some other equations of motion. If quantization is part of that explanation, then the theory in question is only partially quantum mechanical.

I no longer think that this is an absurd definition.

* * *

I am still not convinced that it’s a problem that our theories are only partially quantum mechanical. Could you explain in simple terms why you think it’s bad?

(I was originally going to respond to Deutsch’s paragraph, but I disagree with several different things he says and I don’t know which one to focus on).

---

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