Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories?
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 5 of 48 (393904)
04-08-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Neutralmind
04-06-2007 10:38 AM


Not valid theories...
It's not complicated really...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own.
The only difference is that the word 'Theos' (meaning God) which comes from the Greek, is called 'theory' in science, instead of 'theology' in traditional and openly metaphysical religious tradition.
So either way you have religion, but only one school admits to that reality.
They are not verifiable theories, so what is their purpose in the 'scientific sense' other than what I have proposed?
Happy Easter!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Neutralmind, posted 04-06-2007 10:38 AM Neutralmind has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 04-08-2007 12:28 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 8 by fallacycop, posted 04-08-2007 1:04 PM Rob has replied
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2007 3:24 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 9 of 48 (393928)
04-08-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by fallacycop
04-08-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Fallacycop:
This thread is not about morality.
Excellent!
Then I won't have to worry about others imposing their subjective morality onto me. I can speak freely for a change...
You realize don't you, that you have answered Tazmanian Devil's question to me above?
The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by fallacycop, posted 04-08-2007 1:04 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by AdminNosy, posted 04-08-2007 2:06 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 04-08-2007 10:02 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 14 of 48 (393947)
04-08-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by kuresu
04-08-2007 3:24 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Removed out of respect for our admin...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by kuresu, posted 04-08-2007 3:24 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 16 of 48 (394121)
04-09-2007 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Taz
04-08-2007 10:02 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
Taz:
Can you explain to me how M-theory or string theory undermine morality?
I am worried that the topic has been declared off limits, so let us discuss it very briefly so that you can understand why I say that, but without getting into the debate here...
I am looking at it in the context of 'Parrallel Universes' which 'String' and 'M' theory do not necessarily imply, but are nontheless popular ideas in our current culture.
So in that sense, I am decrying the practical, though strawman created by pop-science in the broader culture.
The reasons for the moral implications are quite obvious as any moral scene that is legitimate for our universe is ultimately undone by the overlying reality of randomness of the whole.
I actually find it interesting that the 'theory of eveything' is being sought, and find the quantum realm more of a substantiation of my own beliefs rather than a challenge. I also believe that the true 'Theory of Everything' is already perfectly encapsulated in the concept of the 'Trinity'.
The only grounds I see anyone rejecting it on, are the moral implications to themselves.
I would be more than happy to debate this and learn more in another thread. But I have been warned to not bring it up here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Taz, posted 04-08-2007 10:02 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2007 8:49 PM Rob has replied
 Message 20 by fallacycop, posted 04-11-2007 12:44 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 18 of 48 (394339)
04-10-2007 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by RAZD
04-09-2007 8:49 PM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
In other words Rob is not discussing M- and string- theories per se, but Rob's concept of them ... his straw man
I made it clear in my post that it is not my straw man. The interest in the theories is what is intriguing. Their practicality and viability is not visible except for what I mentioned.
At least to me. Perhaps I am wrong.
Why don't you just admit that you like the idea of 'm' and 'string' theory precisely for the reason I mentioned Razd? Just be honest if what I ma saying is true.
If it is not true, then I am just a crazy man like my Lord.
Hear me out and tell me if I am mistaken...
That way you can say (and have faith) that we do have moral responsibility in this universe, but... since the real and over-all reality is one of randomly ordered universes, you are off the hook as to being ultimatley accountable for any crimes.
Only the smartest people (like you) know that, and can handle or balance the responsibility of such a deep and sophisticated worldview...
The rest of us riff raff obviously don't get it, nor can we handle it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 04-09-2007 8:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 9:29 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 22 of 48 (394514)
04-11-2007 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RAZD
04-10-2007 9:29 PM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
Just a couple comments and we'd better let this thread get back to it's restricted, course guidelines.
Razd:
No perhaps about it: logically your concept fails to stand up. You cannot tell whether multiple universes exist or not, ergo your personal concept of morality's dependence on there being just one is invalid.
I'll give you that... But I am arguing against it, not for it.
But... I'd like to add one observation that is verifiable emperically. And that is that we do know that there is one universe. We don't know whether or not there are others...
Razd:
It ain't rocket science, Rob, it's just plain logic: morality has nothing to do with the number of universes. It is either the same for all, or it just doesn't exist.
Agreed! My apologies for assuming you to be in the other camp.
Razd:
We see that morality does exist, therefore your concept is falsified.
Not my concept...
And I am really not interested in theories that cannot be proven within the bounds of what can be known. THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT CAN BE CONCEIVED OF MATHEMATICALLY THAT DO NOT NECESSARILY CORROSPND TO REALITY.
So, I suppose there is no reason for me to participate in this thread any longer. My apologies for wasting any space.
And thanks Taz... for your honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RAZD, posted 04-10-2007 9:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 04-12-2007 12:20 AM Rob has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 7:40 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 24 of 48 (394545)
04-12-2007 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Taz
04-12-2007 12:20 AM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
That was not my point, but nevermind. I think Razd got the point. It's not a hit on the theories. They're bound get some of it right. It's a hit on the motivation for them, be it subconscious or not. I have no doubt that some people actually believe that they are viable theories for no mischievous reasons. So do not take my criticism as an extreme.
I don't really care if their are multiple universes or not. It doesn't change anything for me and my thinking.
Sometimes I too readily make my points sound extreme to draw the attention. I think I might finnally be figuring out that that is not a good strategy. The offensive posture keeps shutting people down. And we should be opening up not closing.
By the way, you may have a fovorite color that is different from mine, but that is only because some things are genuinely subjective. Not everything is Absolute. Pluralism has it's proper place.
There is this tendancy to think that Christians think everything is absolute and regimented. Not so...
Within the proper boundaries, anything goes. It is only the boundaries that are absolute. Within them is freedom. Outside of them is death, be it a broken physical or spiritual law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 04-12-2007 12:20 AM Taz has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 26 of 48 (394564)
04-12-2007 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
04-12-2007 7:40 AM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
I am trying to drop it...
Razd:
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not. The example gave by Taz shows a relative morality applicable in each alternate universe. Just as it is a relative morality that people use in this universe, that allows people to change channels when they see ads for help organizations for starving children in 3rd world countries. We already -- in this one known universe -- have the situation you said couldn't happen?
Do you hear yourself Razd? Do you really hear yourself?
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not.
It does not? period?
You have just posited an 'absolute morality'. And your absolute is relative.
You talk about logic and expect it from me... but you exempt yourself?
As you said, morality exists or it does not. It cannot be both absolute and relative. Why is this so hard for some of you?
What would cause you to even attempt to escape this pivotal and logical certainty, at the expense of the tremendous value offered in the basis for your own understanding of anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 7:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-12-2007 9:55 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 10:42 PM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024