Science String Theory

[Krazeh]

A highly enough evolved species could be defined as god, but if you're stuck in the magical sky fairy thought process, you're restricting yourself as much as religious folk who claim it as fact.

You could define them that way if you had a lack of understanding about their nature I suppose but then we're heading away from the common definition/understanding of God as a supernatural creator or deity. Either way it doesn't alter the fact it's not falsifiable and therefore not science.

On the second part; outside influence on the evolution of this planet is not completely impossible.

No, just unlikely and not needed. It may have happened but a far simpler explanation is that it didn't.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You could define them that way if you had a lack of understanding about their nature I suppose but then we're heading away from the common definition/understanding of God as a supernatural creator or deity.

Quite, that's what i usually try to do, to get away from the supernatural creator thing. The common definition is false to start with and this is where i think religious folk are wrong too, there's nothing magical about it. But usually when it's discussed, both sides start discussing the magical beardy fella as the only way and it can only lead to problems. In that sense both sides are equally pigheaded.

God is simply a term, much like dark matter(which i doubt is that dark in complexion) to simply define the category.

So let's ask it differently, a bit mroe pedantic perhaps; is string theory as valid as a theory as a supreme race of creatures creating galaxies? JUST based on theorising and possibility.

No, just unlikely and not needed. It may have happened but a far simpler explanation is that it didn't.

I never did like the simpler explanation thing as it feels like a cop-out to remove things from the tasklist. Hell, half of theories bouncing around there could be removed from the equation based on it, so it makes the rule a bit arbitrary.

 

[Krazeh]

Quite, that's what i usually try to do, to get away from the supernatural creator thing. The common definition is false to start with and this is where i think religious folk are wrong too, there's nothing magical about it. But usually when it's discussed, both sides start discussing the magical beardy fella as the only way and it can only lead to problems. In that sense both sides are equally pigheaded.

God is simply a term, much like dark matter(which i doubt is that dark in complexion) to simply define the category.

And the category that God defines is supernatural deities. An advanced species is not God and any attempt to define them as such would be based on a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge about their nature.

So let's ask it differently, a bit mroe pedantic perhaps; is string theory as valid as a theory as a supreme race of creatures creating galaxies? JUST based on theorising and possibility.

Assuming we're talking about scientific theories then string theory is far more valid on the grounds it's the only one that could actually be described as a theory. Even if we take a wider view of what a theory is it's still far more valid due to it actually being based on pre-existing frameworks and knowledge which themselves are based on earlier frameworks, knowledge and evidence. The idea of a supreme race of creatures creating galaxies isn't built on anything or have anything to support it.

I never did like the simpler explanation thing as it feels like a cop-out to remove things from the tasklist. Hell, half of theories bouncing around there could be removed from the equation based on it, so it makes the rule a bit arbitrary.

Such as?

 

[old.Tohtori]

But to bring it around back to string theory in itself and more to the original point;

The problem comes when people use completely unproven theories to explain stuff. Like using string theory to explain faster then light particles. THAT is like pulling out the magical skybeardy card.

And the category that God defines is supernatural deities.

And it's false.

The idea of a supreme race of creatures creating galaxies isn't built on anything or have anything to support it.

What exactly supports string theory?

 

[Krazeh]

But to bring it around back to string theory in itself and more to the original point;

The problem comes when people use completely unproven theories to explain stuff. Like using string theory to explain faster then light particles. THAT is like pulling out the magical skybeardy card.

Yeah, how crazy to attempt to use a current theory to attempt to explain an so far unexplained phenomena. Those crazy scientists and their ideas.

And it's false.

And you're basing that claim on?

What exactly supports string theory?

You mean aside from the science it's based on? And mathematics? I guess not a lot but ya know, I'd argue the first two are a good basis for support.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well let's say a supreme being landed on earth, showed all the god like features; big beard, life and death control, portal to heaven yada yada.

All the religious folk would flok and go "Yei god!", all the scientific folk would consider the tech and evolution behind the being. So if the definition of god is only "supernatural being", then it's based on religious beliefs instead of defining god as a creature that posesses all the tech required to be percieved as god, as defined by those who believe it to be magical.

And yeah, it is crazy since as you said, simpler explanations are there so should just dismiss the string theory from the equation.

 

[dysfunction]

What it really boils down to is that both of you are talking utter bollocks...

 

[Zarjazz]

<puts on Physicist hat />
String Theory is regarding by some scientists as a waste of time. The best you can say about it is that it's mathematically elegant and a self-consistent theory.

However it's completely untestable which all scientific theories need to be. The energy scales, time scales or length scales required to measure any possible ST effects are impossible to achieve.
<removes hat />

 

[Tuthmes]

 

[Krazeh]

Well let's say a supreme being landed on earth, showed all the god like features; big beard, life and death control, portal to heaven yada yada.

All the religious folk would flok and go "Yei god!", all the scientific folk would consider the tech and evolution behind the being. So if the definition of god is only "supernatural being", then it's based on religious beliefs instead of defining god as a creature that posesses all the tech required to be percieved as god, as defined by those who believe it to be magical.

Except the definition of God is based on it's religious beginnings. We don't define god as a creature that posesses all the tech required to be percieved as god unless we don't have knowledge or understanding of the technology. It's similar to Arthur C Clarke's quote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Magic and technology aren't the same thing but given a lack of understanding/knowledge advanced technology can be perceived as magic.

And yeah, it is crazy since as you said, simpler explanations are there so should just dismiss the string theory from the equation.

Like what?

What it really boils down to is that both of you are talking utter bollocks...

What have I said that is utter bollocks?

<puts on Physicist hat />
String Theory is regarding by some scientists as a waste of time. The best you can say about it is that it's mathematically elegant and a self-consistent theory.

However it's completely untestable which all scientific theories need to be. The energy scales, time scales or length scales required to measure any possible ST effects are impossible to achieve.
<removes hat />

Indeed, there are issues with testing with our current technological level but as far as i'm aware it's not the case that it's accepted that it'll never be testable or that we can't propose methods in which it could be tested if we had sufficient technology to do so.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Except the definition of God is based on it's religious beginnings. We don't define god as a creature that posesses all the tech required to be percieved as god unless we don't have knowledge or understanding of the technology. It's similar to Arthur C Clarke's quote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Magic and technology aren't the same thing but given a lack of understanding/knowledge advanced technology can be perceived as magic.

Like what?

Yes and like i said, the definition of god is based on false definition. If you simply give up and say "It's magic" if you simply don't understand it, or lack the knowledge to do so, i wouldn't call myself a scientist. That's why science shouldnt' define god by the religious definition, much like back to the future fans shouldn't base their timetravel hypothesis on the terminator rules.

Like the GPS satellites in orbit, malfunction of equipment, einstein being wrong.

Dys, yes i am, simple bar talk bollocks that has little basis on the scientific, or even religious, community at large. This is afterall an internet forum

 

[dysfunction]

What have I said that is utter bollocks?

Oh I won't go into specifics cos that would mean I would have to discuss it all with you.

Dys, yes i am, simple bar talk bollocks that has little basis on the scientific, or even religious, community at large. This is afterall an internet forum

Absolutely!!

 

[Krazeh]

Yes and like i said, the definition of god is based on false definition. If you simply give up and say "It's magic" if you simply don't understand it, or lack the knowledge to do so, i wouldn't call myself a scientist. That's why science shouldnt' define god by the religious definition, much like back to the future fans shouldn't base their timetravel hypothesis on the terminator rules.

The point Arthur C Clarke was making was that when you see sufficiently advanced technology it can be mistaken as magic due to lack of understanding/knowledge. It doesn't mean that the technology is in fact magic or that the definition of magic or technology needs changing, it simply means you were mistaken in your description. It's no different when you replaced advanced technology with advanced species and magic with god. The definitions don't need altering and work just fine as they are. You just stop describing the advanced species as god when you realise they're not in fact a supernatural entity and are instead just highly advanced.

Like the GPS satellites in orbit, malfunction of equipment, einstein being wrong.

I'm not entirely sure what these are supposed to be like?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The point Arthur C Clarke was making was that when you see sufficiently advanced technology it can be mistaken as magic due to lack of understanding/knowledge. It doesn't mean that the technology is in fact magic or that the definition of magic or technology needs changing, it simply means you were mistaken in your description. It's no different when you replaced advanced technology with advanced species and magic with god. The definitions don't need altering and work just fine as they are.

That's a false premise though. While he did say it can be percieved as magic, it doesn't mean he said that it should be dismissed as that.

So if the scientific community denies the existance of magic as a possibility, defining god only as a magical being would be double standards.

I'm not entirely sure what these are supposed to be like?

Follow your own discussion

By me: "And yeah, it is crazy since as you said, simpler explanations are there so should just dismiss the string theory from the equation."

You asked: Like what?

 

[Krazeh]

That's a false premise though. While he did say it can be percieved as magic, it doesn't mean he said that it should be dismissed as that.

Where did I suggest that he did say advanced technology should be dismissed as magic? Like anything else it should be studied which would then lead to us realising it wasn't magic but technology.

So if the scientific community denies the existance of magic as a possibility, defining god only as a magical being would be double standards.

Except that the scientific community didn't define magic or god. And i'm fairly sure the scientific community doesn't really consider either to exist so I don't really see the issue with describing something that doesn't exist as a being that exhibits another thing that doesn't exist.

Follow your own discussion

By me: "And yeah, it is crazy since as you said, simpler explanations are there so should just dismiss the string theory from the equation."

You asked: Like what?

And as far as i'm aware all of those have been proposed as explanations for the seemingly faster than light neutrinos and are being considered to see if they do in fact explain what has been seen. Altho i'd argue that Einstein being wrong is a simpler explanation.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Where did I suggest that he did say advanced technology should be dismissed as magic? Like anything else it should be studied which would then lead to us realising it wasn't magic but technology.

Except that the scientific community didn't define magic or god. And i'm fairly sure the scientific community doesn't really consider either to exist so I don't really see the issue with describing something that doesn't exist as a being that exhibits another thing that doesn't exist.

Because the definition of god could be right, but explained by science as a supreme being with bigass tech. That's why dismissing god as a possibility due to non-science defining it as magic is false.

God, as defined by religious folk, is a possibility with high enough tech.

And as far as i'm aware all of those have been proposed as explanations for the seemingly faster than light neutrinos and are being considered to see if they do in fact explain what has been seen. Altho i'd argue that Einstein being wrong is a simpler explanation.

Well yes, einstein being wrong would be the most problematic of the solutions, but still the point stands that by the definition of "simpler explanation" used by you as an argument, should define string theory as an equally false basis.

 

[Krazeh]

Right, spent long enough now procrastinating by seeing what bizarre reasoning you could come up with in this latest 'god' related discussion but I now have things to do.

 

[old.Tohtori]

There's yer problem, you think of it still as a religious nutter trying to prove god or something

 

[Raven]

You see? It's just not worth the effort

 

[DaGaffer]

Wow, 3/4 of a page about Physics, 3 1/4 pages of drivel. Par for the course then.

 

[Krazeh]

You see? It's just not worth the effort

It served it's purpose of allowing me to procrastinate for a while so it wasn't entirely wasted from my point of view.

 

[old.Tohtori]

You see? It's just not worth the effort

It's talking bollocks, it's a waste of time and it's interesting to see what others think of stuff. Never understood the seeming english apprehension towards just talking about stuff and what if'ing

 

[Tuthmes]

Once more!

 

[Lamp]

BBC iPlayer - Faster Than the Speed of Light?

 

[Cadelin]

<puts on Physicist hat />
String Theory is regarding by some scientists as a waste of time. The best you can say about it is that it's mathematically elegant and a self-consistent theory.

However it's completely untestable which all scientific theories need to be. The energy scales, time scales or length scales required to measure any possible ST effects are impossible to achieve.
<removes hat />

Wow, an intelligent post among all the bollocks. I would go further than saying "some scientists" and say "all experimentalist consider it a waste of time and so do most theorists".

What I find amusing is that at CERN, there are posters everywhere for conference and workshops on all kinds of physics topics. Most of them you see are for conferences in 2011 or 2012 but occasionally you see an old poster from say 2009 on a rarer topic. Stuck on one of the doors is a poster advertising a String theory conference in 1998, I think that's the last time it was taken seriously.

 

[opticle]

Something that really bugs me about all the String and M theory business.. All those extra dimensions they create in order to make their maths work.

It's been a LONG time since I read about it properly - I used to be really into it but I've forgotten most of the detail -

..but how tf can they say something like: "Yes, it works if there is this extra dimension, which is curled up very small - about 10 to the -15 metres across.

How can you have an extra dimension to reality, whose dimensions are defined in terms of other existing dimensions ? Surely that's just a weird magic intangible sphere (that must be multiplied an infinite number of times to fill the universe?).

Then again, they haven't actually decided once and for all if Time is really a dimension or doesn't even exist yet. *hides*

I'd love it if someone could explain the small dimension thing to me It may just be a case of oversimplifications in New Scientist and other magazines that end up failing to make sense..

 

[Killswitch]

Just because we can only perceive 3 dimensions (4...sort of...anyway) doesn't mean that there aren't others. Since we can perceive them, it makes sense that their "interface" with bog-standard 4-dimensional space-time would be small (or even non-existent). Science has precisely one thing in common with religion; it involves telling stories. The difference is that science is constantly writing new stories and updating or throwing away old ones that proved flawed. Religion wrote one load of stories thousands of years ago and these are "interpreted" to fit in with whatever scientific or moral ideas are currently accepted in a given society.

Another way to look at it is model-making. In Science we make a model universe, basing it on what we observe. As we can observe more and as our tools improve, we can make a better model. Look at the movement of celestial bodies from geocentric to Newtonian Heliocentric via nested spheres, weird geometric shapes and epicycles. At each stage we have a model that better describes the observable universe and allows us to make better predictions.

Someone previously said that without religion we wouldn't be here and I'm not sure if this was meant to be a joke or not. I expect that without religion, we might not have certain taboos such as polygamy and homosexuality, which would probably not even be remarked upon. I'd like to think that we could have come to the conclusion that things like murder and rape are bad without needing divine inspiration. I'd argue that without science, we definitely wouldn't be here...more importantly without the desire to write and improve stories, explore the world around us and work out how things work we wouldn't be here.

String Theory (or any controversial or currently unfalsifiable premise) encourages thinking, the asking of questions, the development of testable hypotheses and, ultimately, the writing of new stories or the throwing away of old ones. Religion denies progress; if we assume "God did it" then why look deeper?

I can highly recommend Marcus Chown's book The Never-Ending Days of Being Dead which discusses some of the more "out there" concepts of maths and cosmology in an engaging and accessible way. Want to know more about Omega? Wolfram's theories on computational complexity? Just a really good explanation of the Halting Problem and it's effects on current scientific thinking? It's a really, really excellent read.

 

[Killswitch]

Since we can't perceive them! Can't!

FUCK

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'm more in the mindset of "possible that some hightech peeps did it", which ofcourse doesn't remove other theories. I don't like including religion into it though as it deals too much in absolutes, on both sides.

Other dimensions is a possibility too, but then i've always wondered what would constitute as a dimension. Would seeing particles class as a dimension, or perhaps seeing UV. I think there's a man somewhere who had a defect, making him see Uv stuff(similar to birds eyes). That could, by some definition, be another dimension.

Well, atleast in a sense that we don't see other dimensions in our limited RBG 3D view.

 

[Killswitch]

I'm sure most people here have read it, but Flatland by Edwin A. Abbott is available to read for free from multiple sources and is the best answer I could give to anyone who reckons that spatial dimensions beyond X,Y and Z are somehow impossible (or even improbable).

Toht - have you ever read any Charles Stross? His blog and his books that deal with post-Singularity humanity seem to me that they'd strike a chord with you. Incidentally he's the guy that convinced me that it's not only possible, but incredibly likely that we all exist in a computer simulation! Think Tamagotchi or The Sims instead of The Matrix.