Physicists - the new theologians

[zjl56]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but how can string theory be a scientific theory? Doest't a theory have to have a results or partial experimentation results?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but how can string theory be a scientific theory? Doest't a theory have to have a results or partial experimentation results?

Apparently you can count how many strings can dance on the head of a brane and call it "science" now.

No...wait...that'd be a calculation.

They can't even do that.

Medieval theologians still have one up on them.

 

[Chalnoth]

Tell me if I'm wrong, but how can string theory be a scientific theory? Doest't a theory have to have a results or partial experimentation results?

The answer is basically that string theory is difficult. Apparently people like ArnautDaniel want a theory of everything to be easy.

 

[Chalnoth]

The general definition of "consistent" in mathematical circles is that you cannot deduce both A and not-A in the theory.

Assuming you have started with a consistent set of postulates and all your mathematical moves are all legitimate, then the theory should be consistent.

That is what good mathematics is all about.

You are either complaining of a consistent theory with properties you don't like, or a theory where someone has made a mathematical error introducing a contradiction somewhere.

I suppose you may be correct here, but I don't see how it actually matters. Clearly an unstable vacuum doesn't work.

 

[Maxwell511]

Except it's proven to be an excellent guide in the past. And it's not entirely subjective, as in large part it's just another manifestation of Occam's Razor.

It has kind of gone full circle since Newton's day. Newton developed new mathematics to describe observations. Now mathematics are the observations.

Non-linear and discrete systems are relatively new. There could be a mathematics that we are missing. The lack of the proper maths could lead to wrong conclusions.

While I agree that maths has lead to great discoveries in the past that does not mean it could in the future.

Loop Quantum Gravity is a potential theory of quantum gravity. I don't believe it works as a theory of everything. Now, I will state that at the current time, I don't have enough information to say whether LQG or ST is more likely to be accurate. But ST is quite a lot more than LQG is.

And "God did it" isn't even a theory. At least ST has the potential to act as an explanatory framework.

God could do alot of things if he had the money.

Which is one reason why I think it's got promise as a candidate theory of everything. While it's not strictly true that it's a theory of anything at all, it does have a mind-boggling number of possible solutions, which I would naively expect to be the case for a "theory of everything", as otherwise we're left with the strong anthropic principle, which is just nonsense. It does, of course, make it fantastically difficult to make predictions from, but I don't think we should expect a theory of everything to be easy.

True.

 

[Chalnoth]

It has kind of gone full circle since Newton's day. Newton developed new mathematics to describe observations. Now mathematics are the observations.

Well, no. No competent physicist would substitute mathematics for observations.

While I agree that maths has lead to great discoveries in the past that does not mean it could in the future.

Well, it does mean it could in the future. It just doesn't mean it will.

Anyway, the main reason this whole discussion irks me is that physicists who study string theory aren't steadfastly claiming that it's accurate. They merely believe it's a promising theory. That's all. Nobody is claiming knowledge of that which is unevidenced, unlike theologians.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nobody is claiming knowledge of that which is unevidenced, unlike theologians.

Someone needs to QV, don't they?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Someone needs to QV, don't they?

And someone needs to contemplate the difference between

• accepting a measurement that, while numerically impressive, is something everybody has personally experienced in principle (the sea is deeper in some places than it is in others) and which has been independently verified multiple times by well-established technology, even if oneself hasn't personally set sail and measured the depth of the Mariana Trench themselves
• accepting speculation about things so far removed from our everyday life that not even their existence has been conclusively demonstrated and that cannot be tested even in principle.

Really, AV, you are reaching, even for your standards.

 

[AV1611VET]

And someone needs to contemplate the difference between

• accepting a measurement that, while numerically impressive, is something everybody has personally experienced in principle (the sea is deeper in some places than it is in others) and which has been independently verified multiple times by well-established technology, even if oneself hasn't personally set sail and measured the depth of the Mariana Trench themselves
• accepting speculation about things so far removed from our everyday life that not even their existence has been conclusively demonstrated and that cannot be tested even in principle.

Really, AV, you are reaching, even for your standards.

Excuse me, but what further need of testing is there when one achieves this:

To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Calling infallible proofs "speculation" is like calling mathematics "guesswork".

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Excuse me, but what further need of testing is there when one achieves this:Calling infallible proofs "speculation" is like calling mathematics "guesswork".

Can we see these infallible proofs? No. Could we see these infallible proofs in principle? No. Can we duplicate them? No. Could we duplicate them in principle? No. Do we even know they existed at all? No.

These supposed proofs are on the same level as your infamous definition of "kind" - explaining A by invoking B, without knowing what B is - or even if it exists in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can we see these infallible proofs? No.

Many of them are well-documented. I'll bet even you could name about 10 of them.

Could we see these infallible proofs in principle? No.

You could with the right equipment.

Can we duplicate them? No.

Neither could those who saw them.

Could we duplicate them in principle? No.

Neither could those who saw them, and even participated in them.

Do we even know they existed at all? No.

There's a lot of stuff you don't "know" exists, that you take on faith - (like black holes and such).

These supposed proofs are on the same level as your infamous definition of "kind" - explaining A by invoking B, without knowing what B is - or even if it exists in the first place.

Except in this case, B isn't "invoked", it is documented as historical fact --- an actual happening; and to call it "invoked" in the same post as you're saying you didn't see it is ... well ... indicative.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Many of them are well-documented. I'll bet even you could name about 10 of them.

Do you mean Jesus' miracles?

You could with the right equipment.

A time machine?

Neither could those who saw them. Neither could those who saw them, and even participated in them.

Further weakening your position that belief in the supernatural and the acceptance of the depth of the Mariana trench are somehow comparable.

There's a lot of stuff you don't "know" exists, that you take on faith - (like black holes and such).

I accept that many people, all of them magnitudes smarter than me, have come to the conclusion that black holes exist after decades of research. Should somebody come along tomorrow and present a radical new discovery that replaced black holes with something else entirely, fine with me. I don't spend too much time thinking about them anyway. If you want to call that "faith", go ahead.

Except in this case, B isn't "invoked", it is documented as historical fact --- an actual happening; and to call it "invoked" in the same post as you're saying you didn't see it is ... well ... indicative.

Our ideas of what constitutes a historical fact seem to differ somewhat. Copies of anonymous second-hand reports written decades after something allegedly happened wouldn't convince me of anything unsupported but perfectly ordinary, let alone the outrageous claims of the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you mean Jesus' miracles?

Yes.

A time machine?

Precisely ---

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Yes.

Those aren't well documented by any stretch of the imagination.

Precisely ---

OK.

 

[AV1611VET]

Those aren't well documented by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, I bet you could name a few if you had to --- I'll bet even Consol could.

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, I bet you could name a few if you had to --- I'll bet even Consol could.

That's not the point. The point is that we have no reason to believe whatsoever that the stories of Jesus' life, as recorded in the Bible, are actually true. In fact, we have a lot of reason to believe they aren't.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

That's not the point. The point is that we have no reason to believe whatsoever that the stories of Jesus' life, as recorded in the Bible, are actually true. In fact, we have a lot of reason to believe they aren't.

Now you have some feeling of what it is like for non-string theory types to argue with string theory types.

 

[Chalnoth]

Now you have some feeling of what it is like for non-string theory types to argue with string theory types.

That's absurd. Barring potentially a few fringe persons, nobody in physics is arguing that string theory is true, merely that it's a valid avenue of research. Given that there are, as yet, no alternatives to string theory, I don't see how you can honestly argue against that claim.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

That's absurd. Barring potentially a few fringe persons, nobody in physics is arguing that string theory is true, merely that it's a valid avenue of research. Given that there are, as yet, no alternatives to string theory, I don't see how you can honestly argue against that claim.

I thought I gave two honest arguments against it as a valid avenue of research:

1. Lack of data

2. Lack of mathematical rigor

You can live without one or the other. But without both?

Now there's a trick.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Oh, I bet you could name a few if you had to --- I'll bet even Consol could.

Of course. I could also give you the basic dogmas of the major Islamic denominations, the beliefs of the early Gnostics or a reasonably detailed history of the Empire of Mankind, starting with the Horus Heresy. Start believing in those and you have a point.