|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is String Theory Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Onifre writes: One last question. Is this being that you are calling a god, living in this other universe, is it ju st another evolved biological organism that has reached a level of super technology that is able to create universes and set in motion the laws of physics? Because if it is, it's super cool but not supernatural. Hi Oni I appreciate the other questions but I have no answer for them. All I’ve done is speculate by trying to putmy theological beliefs together with the little science I know. Even if the scenario I painted was 100% correct it wouldn’t mean that I would have answers for any of the questions you posed. My point was to ask Straggler if under that scenario would Jesus be considered supernatural. It seems that the idea of what is supernatural varies considerably and I don’t have any firm idea myself. The question you posed here is about whether God is supernatural or not as opposed to Jesus which is what I was asking. However, I don’t have any problem agreeing with the statement in the last part of the quote from your post. What if God was eternal and God’s dimension was an eternal universe with more than one time dimension. Would He be supernatural then? CheersHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: If the laws of our universe were a subset of the multiversal laws, then the multiversal laws that do not apply to our universe would be "super" or "extra". So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: Is String Theory Supernatural? CS writes: I don't know because I don't know what supernatural is. CS writes: Then how can you claim to believe in the supernatural? CS writes: It usually works in getting the point across when you're talking about gods n'stuff. If you know what it means when applied to "gods n'stuff" then just apply the same meaning of the word to the question of whether string theory is a supernatural theory. If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis. If you literally have no idea why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then much of your contribution to numerous EvC topics over the years makes little or no sense. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I don't think anything you have described there is remotely suggested or supported by any concepts in modern physics.
All you have done is replace "heaven" (or "spiritual realm") that would normally be used to describe god's dwelling place and instead use the phrase "parallel universe". I can see, given the success of science, why theists like to feel that their beliefs are congruent with science. But ask yourself why you feel the need to go to such lengths to convince yourself that science is compatible with your beliefs..... A god that is unbounded by any physical laws at all would be congruent with any laws of physics of the multi-verse or anywhere else. If unfalsifiable compatibility with science is your aim then why not just go down that route? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you know what it means when applied to "gods n'stuff" then just apply the same meaning of the word to the question of whether string theory is a supernatural theory. If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis. I thought that's what I did. With the god definition, aka "magic", string theory is not supernatural. Rather than trying to prove it wrong, I'm trying to make sense out of the statement. That why I said that if they are using the word to mean "outside our universe" then I can see how it would work for describing string theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis. CS writes: I thought that's what I did. With the god definition, aka "magic", string theory is not supernatural. Right. So, unless you intend to equivocate, you know what we are talking about when we use the term "supernatural" and the multiverse doesn't qualify. Case closed.
Straggler writes: Do you know what "magic" is? Do you believe in magic? CS writes: Don't know, don't care. Well apparently you do know and do care enough for it to be central to the distinction you make.
CS writes: That why I said that if they are using the word to mean "outside our universe" then I can see how it would work for describing string theory. Without equivocating can you answer the following - Is the multiverse a natural or supernatural concept?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: By the Webster's definition that I quoted earlier dark matter would be considered supernatural. Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena?
GDR writes: ..but I'm still not clear on what you would use as a definition of supernatural. 1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable. I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and the physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
If this thread is going to continue in the vein of semantic masturbation I might as well add my own two cents worth. Since the Canadians have announced that they no longer will mint or distribute pennies I suppose I'll have to use two US pennies instead which seems appropriate since I live in the US and don't use Canadian pennies anyway.
Read Brian Greene. Read Lisa Randal. Read Lee Smolin. Lots of String Theorists, more correctly, M-theorists. M-theory does not posit anything outside this universe. The universe as they describe it is the same we all know and love. The Universe is everything there is. The is nothing more, nothing outside. The M-theorist just defines the universe as a multifaceted series of brane-worlds upon one of which our space-time is imbedded. That each brane-world may have distinctly different physical laws, constants and dimensions is no more unnatural than different atmospheres for different planets in our own brane-world. By Straggler's own definition in the OP M-theory cannot be said to be of the supernatural. We just do not know what the natural mechanisms are that allow different physics to manifest on different branes in this larger context of Universe. As long as we're on the subject, a wee bit of an aside: [aside] M-theory really isn't. The classic definitions we are so want to hit creationists over the head with when they go astray must apply here as well. There is a question as to whether M-theory even qualifies as a weak hypothesis. There are glimmers of a testing regimen (think super-symmetry) but at this point M-theory is untested, some accuse it of being untestable, and thus falls well outside the vaunted appellation Theory. [/aside]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Straggler writes: I can see, given the success of science, why theists like to feel that their beliefs are congruent with science. But ask yourself why you feel the need to go to such lengths to convince yourself that science is compatible with your beliefs..... Of course. Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists aren’t allowed to do the same thing? My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as I’ve said numerous times, I believe that reason in general which includes scientific reasoning, should be used to help form our understanding of God. It was clear from his epistles that Paul believed that. How many times have atheists said that evolution has eliminated the need for God. I agree with people like Francis Collins that the intricacies of evolution, DNA etc, is suggestive of theism. Francis Collins goes so far as to call it The Language of God as he used it in the title of his book.
Straggler writes: I don't think anything you have described there is remotely suggested or supported by any concepts in modern physics.All you have done is replace "heaven" (or "spiritual realm") that would normally be used to decsribe god's dwelling place and instead use the phrase "parallel universe". Christianity has always taught that God co-exists with us. It was an article of faith as how could that be possible. Now science is showing us a way that we can actually get our minds around that concept. Maybe parallel universe is not the best term to use. How about co-existent universe?
Straggler writes: A god that is unbounded by any physical laws at all would be congruent with any laws of physics of the multiverse or anywhere else. If unfalsifiable compatibility with science is your aim then why not just go down that route? I’m not looking for unfalsifiable compatibility. I have that by simply saying that God did it. I’m simply speculating by suggesting points at which Christianity and science together might form a clearer understanding of God. My speculations are in the long run falsifiable but are unlikely, at least in this life, to ever be confirmed.
Straggler writes: Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena? Not at all.
GDR writes: ..but I'm still not clear on what you would use as a definition of supernatural.Straggler writes: 1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable. That sounds good, but in practice it seems that what seemed supernatural will, in some cases, with scientific advancement be shown to be natural.
Straggler writes: I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and th e physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse. I don’t have a problem with that. If God exists somewhere in the multi-verse with its own set of natural laws that’s fine with me. It seems that in your mind a god can’t be restricted by any form of natural law. I don’t see why that’s a problemHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Straggler writes:
That's what I would call "supernatural". So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too? In a multiverse situation, I think the most likely situation would be that an entity could use the natural laws only in and of his own unverse (like we can). There is a possibility of overlap of those laws between universes - e.g. an entity from another unierse might be visible in ours. Less likely is an entity that could use his laws in our universe to do things that are "impossible" in our universe - e.g. make massive objects repel instead of attract each other. Least likely is a "super" entity that could manipulate every universe in that way. (Mind you, I'm looking at this from a science fiction viewpoint and I have no idea of the mathematics involved.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena? GDR writes: Not at all. Then in what sense are the parallel universes physicists are talking about and the place in which you are suggesting your supernatural god resides congruent?
GDR writes: Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists aren’t allowed to do the same thing? Well most of those who describe themselves as atheists generally subscribe to a scientific view of the world. Evidence. Epistemological stance. Skeptical approach. Human psychology as the likely cause of unevidenced beliefs. Etc. etc. The theistically inclined however necessarily advocate faith, subjective experience, divine revelation, scripture and so on and so forth as justification for their beliefs. Otherwise how on Earth could they arrive at the specific conclusions they have? So atheists aren't seeking to make their existing views congruent with science. They consider their views to be derived from a scientific approach to begin with. Theists on the other hand (ranging from outright creationists to the more reasonable such as yourself) have already opted for a different approach. Why (for example) is someone who believes that they can communicate with god on a personal level based on subjective 'evidence' going to to care whether the laws of physics are consistent with this or not? Frankly when theists start insisting that their beliefs are consistent with science it smacks of post-hoc rationalising.
GDR writes: My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as I’ve said numerous times, I believe that reason in general which includes scientific reasoning, should be used to help form our understanding of God. GDR writes: Because these two universes are interconnected God is able to subtly speak to the hearts, minds and imaginations of humans, but again however we are able to reject His influence. However, in the middle of time He chooses one man, namely Jesus, to perfectly embody His heart for us. Through Him He is able to bring about miracles that foreshadow the renewed world that He has planned for us, by bringing His healing and love directly to the world through the man Jesus. Mankind rejects God and His messenger and puts Him to death. However, God demonstrates that death is not the last word and does for Jesus what is planned for all of this creation at the end of time and resurrects Him. The sort of communication back and forth between 'god' and us as well as miracles and resurrecting Jesus and suchlike all sound a long way from being compatible with anything modern science tells us about parallel universes (or indeed anything else) Take this "influence" you speak of for example. How? Via wormholes? Via gravity? If there is any physical communication between the universe in which this god of yours lives and our own we should be able to detect it - Right? Here is an example of the sort of detection mechanisms we are already putting in place: Link quote: Straggler writes: 1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable. GDR writes: That sounds good, but in practice it seems that what seemed supernatural will, in some cases, with scientific advancement be shown to be natural. Then that doesn't just sound good. It also sounds accurate. How many things have humans believed to have supernatural causes which we now know are entirely natural......?
Straggler writes: I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and th e physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse. GDR writes: I don’t have a problem with that. If God exists somewhere in the multi-verse with its own set of natural laws that’s fine with me. It seems that in your mind a god can’t be restricted by any form of natural law. I don’t see why that’s a problem. If god is just utilising the natural laws of the universe in which he finds himself then he's little more than a technologically advanced version of us asking himself where the laws of his own universe came from..... Maybe this god of yours worships a higher being?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too? Ringo writes: That's what I would call "supernatural". Me too. Which is why I wouldn't call the natural laws of another universe (or the multiverse itself) "supernatural".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1533 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Straggler writes: And that bit means they are observed indirectly que no?
Due to colour confinement quarks cannot exist in isolation. So we can only observe the hadrons (e.g. the neutron) they collectively form. Straggler writes: Indirectly. I believe by observing the shit thats happening around them.
So how do we detect the existence of black holes? Straggler writes:
Cue the Eagles music: We can’t observe the Big Bang either. And as I have pointed out above — Nor can you observe a quark. What we can do is observe the predicted effects of their existence.Well Straggler when your traveling down a dark desert highway, cool wind in your hair......and you see up ahead in the distance.. the lights from other cars on the same highway disappear and reappear you can conclude there is a hill up ahead without actually seeing the hill. Yes the effects of the hills existence. But we could go there and walk up that hill and see it does infact exist. I mean we know how light behaves, we know how gravity behaves, we can make observations that confirm with confidence the existance of what may be behind those observations. CMB for the big bang, high energy collisions of hadrons for quarks, and light for black holes and hills. Those are things that can be verified by experiment. Straggler writes: Of which cannot be made at Planke scales as far as I know. It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions. But I do agree Mr. Straggler strings theory is not supernatural.God making strings, now that's supernatural. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If string theory makes enough experimentally verifiable predictions then we will have indirectly "detected" strings in the same way that we have indirectly "detected" quarks, the big bang, black holes, human evolution and so on and so forth.
Straggler writes: It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions. Numbers writes: Of which cannot be made at Plank scales as far as I know. The detectable predicted effects of strings existing wouldn't necessarily be at the Planck scale. That is the entire point. Verifiable predictions could involve measurable aspects of the CMB, detecting gravitational effects of parallel universes, detecting the extra dimensions string theory demands, symmetry breaking in high energy particle accelerators etc. etc. etc. All that is necessary is for the predicted effects to be a logical consequence of the theory in question. The challenge that remains for string theorists is to come up with some predictions that are experimentally verifiable. But to just say "strings are too small to detect" is to completely miss the point of how most conclusions in science are actually drawn. The logical consequences (aka predictions) of string theory being correct could manifest at all sorts of size levels from the cosmological to the Planck.
How to spot a multiverse quote: quote: Link quote: quote: quote: Link See? It might be difficult. But it's silly to insist that it's impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Of course. Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists aren’t allowed to do the same thing? My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as I’ve said numerous times, I believe that reason in general which includes scientific reasoning, should be used to help form our understanding of God. It was clear from his epistles that Paul believed that. Then show us the science that supports these claims:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024