Physicists - the new theologians

[Chalnoth]

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.

That's an argument for more work, not less.

 

[[serious]]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

 

[ArnautDaniel]

That's an argument for more work, not less.

Yeah it is an argument for foundational work before one goes around spouting nonsense about 10 dimensions and so on.

The problem with a lack of rigor is that it is entirely possible that a contradiction exists at the heart of things.

And as anybody in freshman logic should know, from a contradiction one can prove anything.

At least with data, if a non-rigorous model matches up with the data you have some assurance something is right with the underlying mathematics.

Otherwise, who knows....

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Good for you --- so please don't try and convince me that Jesus' miracles aren't well-documented.

 

[Chalnoth]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE

Hmm. Somehow it seems manifestly unlikely to me that LISA could detect primordial gravitational waves. Our best chance of doing that is to detect them is indirectly through various CMB polarization experiments (such as EBEX or CMBPol). That should, I hope, occur before LISA actually launches, and once that's done we'll have a better idea as to whether or not LISA has a chance of detecting them directly.

I was also rather annoyed that he didn't seem to draw a distinction between the various multiverse ideas that get confused so much. It just seemed to me that he dumbed things down too much, to the point of confusing more than informing.

 

[Chalnoth]

Yeah it is an argument for foundational work before one goes around spouting nonsense about 10 dimensions and so on.

Again, nobody's claiming it's true just yet. At least, nobody rational is.

The problem with a lack of rigor is that it is entirely possible that a contradiction exists at the heart of things.

Which is an argument for more work.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Again, nobody's claiming it's true just yet. At least, nobody rational is.

You yourself have claimed there is a quantum theory of gravity there.

There isn't a theory of anything, because it hasn't even been shown the mathematics even works.

I mean I can write formulas on a page and claim it proves invisible pink unicorns exist....

Which is an argument for more work.

Eventually it is an argument to work on other things that might actually be doable.

I mean the advocates of the old ptolemaic system could have argued that all the criticisms of their system were arguments for more work and that a sufficiently complicated version of it would work.

It still would have been a waste of time.

The basic reason for rejecting the ptolemaic system was that every time a problem showed up they just made it more complicated.

As any statistician knows, any data set can be fit perfectly to a sufficiently complicated model. The fact that the fit is perfect doesn't make the model either correct or useful.

All your "more work" amounts to is making the theory more and more complicated.

Well sure if you do that long enough you will have a theory so complicated that we would need more data than there are measurements in the universe to show it wrong.

But that isn't useful to anyone.

 

[Chalnoth]

You yourself have claimed there is a quantum theory of gravity there.

Right, as an argument that it's a theory worth investigating.

There isn't a theory of anything, because it hasn't even been shown the mathematics even works.

I'm not sure that's the case. But even if so, it's irrelevant to whether or not string theory should be investigated further. Perhaps it's an argument to place string theory on stronger mathematical footing, but it's not an argument to abandon it altogether.

To do that, you would need to demonstrate that there is a fundamental, irreconcilable inconsistency within string theory, or put forth an alternative theory that is significantly more promising.

Eventually it is an argument to work on other things that might actually be doable.

Which sounds to me not like an argument against string theory per se, but rather an argument against any investigation into pure theory. And I'm sorry, but that just isn't going to work. Some physicists are interested in working on pure theory much moreso than just phenomenology or things directly and easily relatable to phenomenology. Telling them that their field of study is pointless would be a waste of energy.

All your "more work" amounts to is making the theory more and more complicated.

I did not say that the "more work" solely involved ways of adding new things to the theory. What I mean by "more work" is:
1. It needs to be put on more solid mathematical ground. For instance, the M-theory that has grown out of string theory depends upon the existence of a number of dualities. Some of these dualities have been proven, others have not. It would be good to prove these other dualities.
2. We need to know more about what the theory implies, hopefully with the end goal of direct connections to experiment. Because of the nature of string theory, this is fantastically difficult and alone needs lots of work.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Good for you --- so please don't try and convince me that Jesus' miracles aren't well-documented.

Huh? I'm well aware that you believe those stories to be well-documented. I was merely criticizing your nonsensical argument that Jesus' miracles are well documented because most people know the stories.

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? I'm well aware that you believe those stories to be well-documented. I was merely criticising your nonsensical argument that Jesus' miracles are well documented because most people know the stories.

--- um --- what??? ---

 

[Chalnoth]

--- um --- what??? ---

Does the fact that most people know about The Lord of the Rings make it "well-documented"?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Does the fact that most people know about The Lord of the Rings make it "well-documented"?

Exactly.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the fact that most people know about The Lord of the Rings make it "well-documented"?

Ya --- why? What's your point?

 

[Chalnoth]

Ya --- why? What's your point?

The point is the fact that many people are aware of The Lord of the Rings is in no way whatsoever an indication that its contents are true. It is, therefore, just as meaningless to use the fact that many people know of the contents of the Bible as evidence that its contents are true.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point is the fact that many people are aware of The Lord of the Rings is in no way whatsoever an indication that its contents are true. It is, therefore, just as meaningless to use the fact that many people know of the contents of the Bible as evidence that its contents are true.

As if you've even been following the conversation - (which it looks like you haven't been) - what if I said this about your Lord of the Rings:

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

Why don't you just let MrGoodbytes handle the conversation?

He's the one that doesn't know what he's talking about, and he doesn't need you to prove it --- I'm doing it well enough.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't see how The Lord of the Rings is in any way, shape, or form well-documented. Neither do I see how the Bible is. So I can't say I would disagree with you if you echoed him.

And yes, MrGoodBytes can answer quite well on his own. The topic just interested me enough to spend a few seconds to respond, that's all.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't see how The Lord of the Rings is in any way, shape, or form well-documented. Neither do I see how the Bible is. So I can't say I would disagree with you if you echoed him.

And yes, MrGoodBytes can answer quite well on his own. The topic just interested me enough to spend a few seconds to respond, that's all.

Then please respond as it was written.

He didn't say "the Bible" --- we were talking about Jesus' miracles.

Here --- catch up ---

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

Do you mean Jesus' miracles?

Precisely ---

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

 

[Chalnoth]

Is not the documentation you are talking about in the Bible?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is not the documentation you are talking about in the Bible?

Yes, Jesus' miracles are documented in the Bible --- your point?

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Is not the documentation you are talking about in the Bible?

Well you've done nothing to show that this isn't a valid avenue of research and that more research into the area isn't perfectly reasonable.