String Theory: Science or Philosophy

Hello, That is a rational conclusion. If the Earth is round then it is not Flat.
If the Earth moves around the sun then the sun does not move around the Earth. Science forces us to accept 'truths' because not to accept them IMO is operating in ignorance. Refusing to accept the fact that the Earth is round is ignorant. Why? Because mankind has established that it is indeed round. Now if the bible told you that the Earth was flat would you believe it is flat, given the enormous data to the contrary? Then why would one accept the concept of a young Earth? Or a global flood? How much knowlege would mankind have if all the progress made in the name of science was negated by biblical proponents. How much progress would be made if all inquiry stopped and we all agreed that God did it, end of story? String theory is not just a bunch of nerds sitting around talking about strings of plankes length...there are calculations and incredibly complex mathmatics that back up the theory. It is incomplete yes but it is NOT simply a bunch of bullshit. Yes string theory can be tested. But by tested I mean mathmatically..No one can see or measure something smaller than plankes size. Because plankes size is the limit.
Anyways String theory and M theory are not the Theory of everything. "The mind of God" is still out of our grasp.

And that's exactly what people will say when String Theory is complete.
"The world is made of strings, and only strings. Everything is made of strings. There is no God, only strings."
People will be considered ignorant for rejecting science, but will they be considered ignorant for rejecting philosophy? This is exactly why this distinction between philosophy and science is so important. But that it a mathematical test, not a scientific test. The math in general relativity was correct from the start, but general relativity was not accepted until this math made a correct prediction about the sun bending light. That's exactly the scientific question: do these mathematical equations of String Theory describe our world?

Why? I do not accept the 'premise' that there are only strings. I do not understand enough about the idea of string theory to make an informed decision but from what I do know it is NOT an adequate model and at best decades from being fully developed.. But what the fuck does string theory have to do with morality? My adherence to morality is based on my own concept of what I think is moral. What I have been taught, what I have experienced, What society deems is moral and what my personal world views lead me to believe is "moral". Not God.
I am not understanding where you are going with all this..really I am trying.
1. I pointed out that a complete theory of everything does not exist yet,, but you continue to maintain it does.
2. I pointed out to you that the concept of an absolute truth and objective morality is based on ancient metaphysics
3. I pointed out that String theory is a science. Because the math can be tested and validated.
I think this thread is beginning to unravel.**edit to add : here is a link that shows that String theory is "testable"other than math.
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
**edit to fix link.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-30-2004 17:12 AMThis message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-30-2004 17:23 AM

Well after a little internet romp I found this article that seems to shit can string theory altogether. So commike37 you can rest easy that string theory is likely to amount to a unified theory.
It seems you can call it a waste of time. String Theorists Finally Admit Defeat | Not Even Wrong

Well, my concern is not that String Theory has become a unified theory, but that it will one day become a unified theory. Although that article about the death of String Theory suggests it is done for, I'm still very wary. String Theory has returned to its original state: a worthless area of study with few interested in. However, it may quickly rise up again just as quickly as it fell. String Theory was thought to be impossible due to several anomalies before these anomalies were solved, and then it achieved an amazing level of popularity. It now has lost popularity due to the reports of Glanz. If one of the few who still holds on to String Theory finds a way to solve some of the current problems, String Theory will most likely be revived. Only time will tell if such a unified theory is possible, but if the unified theory is finally reached, we must ask the question of whether it's science or philosophy. So although this topic may die, I will still leave that question on the table, should the day of a "theory of everything" come.

What does "conditional" mean here?You seem to use "absolute" here to mean "all encompassing". Why do you use the word "absolute" there? What exactly does it mean? What is this "big idea" thing. In what way are any of the examples you have given "independent of experience". It is exactly the tie back to "experience" (that is observation) that we need to check out any cockamammy theories that someone may dream up.What, again, does "absolute" mean here and what does "unconditional" mean?String theory is an "absolute truth"?? It is simply an attempt at a model of the behavior of matter and energy that is attempting to have a wider scope of application than has gone before. Whether it leaves unanswered questions or not isn't at all clean yet since it certainly isn't finished. You seem to be making some distinction between things that we observe with our eyes and things that we observe by other means. That has been a meaningless distinction for a long time. There are many things which are not observable with our eyes. But the models which include them are not weaker in anyway. E.g., we can't "see" electrons either.We will not have a good theory if we can only reason it out. Relativity was very interesting when it was "reasoned" out but it was only when it's effects were observable that it became a really big deal. That will have to be the same with string theory.We don't yet know what any new theory, (string, M or whatever) will leave as unanswered questions. If it does or doesn't doesn't seem to me to make a difference to it's usefullness. So far there are unanswered questions left by quantum mechanics and relativity they were still pretty darn useful. IIRC, this has been brought up before.If string theory has something to say about morality then why doesn't QED or quantum mechanics since everything behaves according to those laws? This is rather a large leap and I don't see how you made it.

Some time (maybe in a decade or two) we may well have a theory of everytying.It is my impression that your complaint with it is based on some god of the gaps theology. This area (the original creation and set up of the laws of the universe) is a gap into which many still want to insert their god. This is bad theology for exactly the reason that you seem to be thrashing about trying to find something wrong with the whole concept. It is a gap which, like so many others, may close up.We may well find that the universe and it's laws have to be just as they are with no room for fine tuning.But don't worry. Even a "theory of everything" will leave gaps for a long time to come (probably indefinitely). If you need a gap there will be one.

I'll differentiate between absolute and unconditional with some synonyms here. Also, Understanding and Reason will most likely denote their philosophical sense (assigned by Kant) when they're capitalized. This fact really isn't relevant, but Emerson also did something similar when he assigned nature a philosophical meaning (though he rarely capitalized nature). Speaking of which, I think I'm inadvertently giving String Theory a philosophical meaning, too, because many times when I mention it I'm referring to a completed String Theory, which is what scientists hope to have (but don't have yet).Laws of Understanding: conditional, based on experience, a posteriori, inductive
Laws of Reason: absolute, independent of experience, a priori, deductiveAll laws prior to String Theory are conditional. For example, quantum mechanics are based on experience and knowledge concerning the quantum world, and are conditional (they don't work in the larger world). As man continues to develop all of these laws (general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.), man is somehow directed towards finding the law of everything, which is what String Theory attempts to do. Kant does a similar thing. By learning how it is good to tell the truth in certain situations, he uses his Reason to determine that it is always good to tell the truth, no matter what the situation is.As for quantum leap from quantum mechanics to string theory (bad pun intended) concerning morality, I'll explain that, too. Quantum mechanics and general relativity could only explain part of the world, and thus couldn't explain everything. String Theory (or a completed one, I must be using the philosophical sense again) can explain everything, and the fact that everything is governed by strings would thus eliminate the possiblity of another force (God, free will, human nature, etc.). Therefore, even the decision-making structures of our brain would be governed solely by String Theory.

Whoa whoa whoa.
The Theory of Relativity is one the most well-tested theories in physics. I have never heard of the theory failing ONE test that it has come up against. Who knows, maybe Gravity Probe B will find something that will pose a problem for relativity, but chances are slim.String "Theory" is not much more than math right now.
For the very brief period before the first experiment that tested relativity, that's all relatvity was, math and gedanken experiments.So, is math a science? Well, the study of math can be done scientifically, but a mere equation or set of equations is not "science."I think that mathematical theories are called theories when they are mathematically consistent, etc, not really when they've been tested physically. When that does happen it can be a physical theory.But really they need to stop calling it String Theory for the time being and call it what it is, The String Model.

Wow. That must have been put up when I was out at the bars on Atheists' day.

From my conversations with epistemologists I would have to disagree. I think people are hung up on the abstractness of Math. A theory is also abstract, yet one wouldn't go as far to suggest that theorizing isn’t scientific.

It has nothing to do with abstractness per se, but whether the "set of equations" is tested empirically. Without empirical tests, math is not science.One can start with any premises one desires in math, and create an unlimited set of conclusions based on those premises. But only if those premises have some empirical basis (either directly or by testing the derived conclusions) is one doing science.

Hey, I’ll grant yours is the most commonly held position, though it wasn’t that long ago when math was considered metaphysical.I think we’ll see more and more people arguing that empiricism is not the sole determinate of what constitutes a science. In the case of mathamatics, one can argue collective knowledge (Kuhnian paradigm), links to other scientific disciplines, and creation of new knowledge.People do seem currently more happy labeling it as a language or tool.

String Theorists Finally Admit Defeat | Not Even Wrong From what I gather this page is a joke.
I doubt seriously that Witten would have made the biology comment.
I could be wrong, but I'm sure this isn't real.

why don't you look and see what department math is under at your local university.*pauses*that's right. science. math works because it follows scientific, testable laws. what do you think physics is? math. do you believe in black holes? do you somehow think that they can be seen? no. they can only be detected mathematically. same with dark matter. same with a lot of things that simply have to exist because of how the math works. math isn't invented usually. it's discovered. fibonacci? discovered his stuff picking flowers and eating oranges. well not exactly but you get the idea.why doesn't 1+2=5 (in a base ten system)? because if it did the universe would literally fall apart, not because some muslim decided it should be so. it really is "dangerous saracean magic".