String Theory: Science or Philosophy

String Theory is the theory of everything, finally uniting the large world and the quantum world, uniting gravity with the other force (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force combined, though I don't remember the name of the combined force or anything as to how the three forces were combined), and explaining things on a macro and micro level. However, it is impossible to see an actual string, and thus impossible to prove String Theory. This raises the question: Is String Theory science or philosophy? If this topic is approved, I'll introduce my theory as to how String Theory conforms to the philosophy of Kant by establishing itself as a categorical imperative.

String Theory is a categorical imperative and would thus fall under the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.1: Understanding and Reason
A: Understanding
Understanding is when we take what we have learned from experiences and the senses and turn this data into concepts and ideas. It doesn't create ideas, it just forms them from what knowledge we have. This is exactly what has happened concerning the theories leading up to string theory.Whether it's Newton's Law of Gravity, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, or any other theory that helped form the groundwork for String Theory, we can see that all of these previous theories were derived from previous knowledge and experiences, and confirmed by experiments. The reason why all of these fall into Understanding is that such theories are conditional.Before String Theory we had two separate sets of laws: one for the large world, and one for the quantum world. Neither set of laws could work in the other world, so neither was absolute.
B: Reason
Reason takes the concepts and ideas we have formed from understanding and points them to a big idea, which is absolute, unconditional, and independent of experience. This is called a categorical imperative. String Theory is the theory of everything. It will always work, whether it's in the quantum world or the larger world. Thus, String Theory is an absolute truth, and therefore is a categorical imperative.2: Further Similarities
A: The Nature of a Categorical Imperative
Reason allows us to think about absolutes, but it doesn't grant us knowledge about these absolutes. Likewise, we can learn String Theory, but we'll never understand exactly why strings conform to this theory, and why they couldn't just be governed by a different set of laws. We can never see an actual string, either, since even the particles that our eyes process to produce an image are made of strings. We don't know why strings act how they do, and we can never prove their existence by traditional methods. We can only learn that they exist through Reason.B: Other Sources of Morality
Categorical imperatives must come through Reason. Other factors, like society, personal feelings, and emotion, can't determine categorical imperatives. Indeed, String Theory is true despite what society, our feelings, and God may say.3: String Theory and Moral Law
String Theory IS moral law. String Theory is the theory of everything, so everything is governed by String Theory. Any action is moral because ultimately every particle involved in any action behaves according to the laws of String Theory.I'll admit that my knowledge of Kant's categorical imperative is probably better than my knowledge of String Theory, so if I left out anything important, let me know.This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-26-2005 07:27 AM

Thanks for reminding me the name of that three-part series I watched in AP Physics class. It was a three part series called "The Elegant Universe" (also by Greene) originally hosted on PBS (I'm not 100% sure it's PBS), and now available on videotape. I remember something in the third part about M-theory, which resolved the problem of five different string theories. Well, regardless of whether it's M- or String- Theory, or whether or not it's complete, the ultimate goal when it's complete is the law of everything (also a categorical imperative according to my argument).This message has been edited by commike37, 12-28-2004 14:44 AM

If Einstein's theory of relativity is untested, then that puts String Theory on even shakier ground as science. 1. I'd like you to refute the categorical imperative, not Hume.
2. If String Theory is a philosophy of the categorical imperative (as I'm arguing), and categorical imperatives are disproved, then String Theory is a false philosphy. 1. Establish why morality is subjective.
2. I've said that String Theory is more than simple calculations because of its similarities to the categorical imperative. The point is that these "mathematical calastintics" aren't just describing some random law, they're describing the theory of everything.

You're missing the point that whether it's M- or string theory, whether or not Mbranes or SST exist, the final goal is still the same, and this goal when accomplished will likely be claimed to be a scientific achievement. I'm arguing that String Theory is not science, but philosophy.

First off, looking to general relativity, I did some research and found out that it was pretty much accepted when it made an accurate prediction about light being bent by the sun. So in that aspect it has been verified by traditional methods. But my concern is that String Theory, in its final form, may be used to claim that science has proven that there is no God, only strings. However, the question is whether String Theory is science or philosophy? I believe it's philosophy, and my comparison to the categorical imperative could be considered of an extension of what Sheldon Glaslow (winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics) said:NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS"So the nature of the quest to form a theory of all of the forces of nature, including gravity, drives on to a domain of energies and distances that is inaccessible to the experiment. No experiment can ever check up what's going on at the distances that are being studied. No observation can relate to these tiny distances or high energies. All we can do is look at the distant consequences, 10 or 20 orders of magnitude removed from these effects.The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don't understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn't make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?"We can test and prove single, limited theories like gravity, but can we test and prove and unconditional, absolute theory such as String Theory? You can prove a certain experience, but you really can't prove an absolute. That is why String Theory is philosophy.And if only strings exist, then morality must be dictated by strings. Even if morality is dictated by society, as you say, even society, when broken down, is composed of one thing: strings.

If you want to know what I mean by philosophy, then why don't you read message 3, which explains the similarity between String Theory and Kant's categorical imperative. You can test a single thing like gravity, but can you test everything? If you could find a gravitron as String Theory describes it, you could prove the part of String Theory in relation to gravity true, but the rest of String Theory remains to be proven. The fact is, an a priori theory can not be proven a priori.edit: Let me rephrase, an a priori theory can never be scientifically proven a priori. Philosophically it could.This message has been edited by commike37, 12-29-2004 22:31 AM

If evolution is true, then Genesis 1 is false. Science is not directly aimed at disproving religion, but people often use it as a means to disprove religion. My concern is that people will do the same with String Theory. You talked about how methods must be tested, verified, and repeated independently no matter who tests them, but that leads to the key question: Can String Theory even be tested in the first place? I'm saying that such morality would have to hold true if the world was only composed of strings, and nothing more. The true question is whether or not you want to accept the premise that there are only strings, and nothing else (perhaps God or whatever you think that something else is)? If the answer is no, then you don't have to adhere to such morality.

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?

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.

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.

You're taking me out of context here. I said this in reply to this quote from 1.61803. I said that if he maintained this (namely that Relativity is not tested), then the following statement. Furhtermore, 1.61803 explained how I misunderstood what he was trying to say and we later agreed that Einstein's theory was proven. But the real question is, is it even possible for the String Model to become science?

The university example doesn't seem like a quality proof of math falling under science. The key thing about the math here is that it explains something in our world. y=x^2 is math, but it isn't the formula for speed in physics. To be considered science, the math has to explain something in our world. It's a similar question, does the math of the String Model really describe our world, or is it like calculating speed with y=x^2?