Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
52 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, kjsimons (3 members, 49 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,362 Year: 1,008/14,102 Month: 411/597 Week: 21/168 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is String Theory Supernatural?
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 53 of 181 (697538)
04-27-2013 12:34 AM


What theory?
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]


  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 95 of 181 (698062)
05-02-2013 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Taq
05-02-2013 6:50 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
Around we go.

I keep answering that and you keep asking it.

I understand where GDR is coming from. And, as usual, he can slap me around if I get this wrong.

He is not saying “science shows god did this.”

When science says “this is how it happened” GDR says “So that's how god made this happen. Interesting.”

Whenever science comes up with an accurate effective model GDR pulls out his trusty sledge hammer and beats on Occam's Razor till it's all warped bent and dull then adds his god to the equation purely as a blind article of faith.

Science is not saying his god did it but science has informed him of the model so he can say this is how his god did it.

Quite refreshing from the usual religionist “NO NO NO CAN”T BE. YOU SCIENTISTS ARE ALL WRONG. YOU KNOW NOTHING! THE BIBLE SAYS...”

Just as wrong but refreshing none the less.

Edited by AZPaul3, : usual


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Taq, posted 05-02-2013 6:50 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by 1.61803, posted 05-03-2013 9:29 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 103 of 181 (698187)
05-03-2013 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by New Cat's Eye
05-03-2013 1:22 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
But he's still using science to form... wait... what does he mean by "form" the belief?

Form? Who said "form?" What I read from GDR was "inform."

[aside]

Damn CS, the more I see that avatar the more intreguing it becomes.

Good show, man.

[/aside]

Edited by AZPaul3, : added aside


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2013 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 05-03-2013 6:55 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-03-2013 7:18 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 106 of 181 (698192)
05-03-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Taq
05-03-2013 6:55 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
So what science informed GDR that God used evolution to create humanity?

A number of them. Biology, palentology, in total I think we call it Evolutionary Science.

As I said in my message above, the science does not say anything about his god. He adds his god to the mix.

GDR has already formed his philosophy around god and that god made all things happen. What science does is inform him of the specific methods he can now say his god used to accomplish the task.

To us science discovers the models and mechanisms (descent with modification) while to GDR science discovers the models and mechanisms his god used (descent with modification). The science is the same.

Quite simple really. The one thing GDR is NOT saying is that science is proving or confirming his god. He doesn't need that. God is a foregone conclusion to him. The only question is "how'd he do it?" and science provides him with the answers.

Hey, GDR, I'm putting a lot of words in your mouth. Feel free to spit them back out.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Taq, posted 05-03-2013 6:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by GDR, posted 05-03-2013 8:18 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 9:49 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 109 of 181 (698195)
05-03-2013 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by GDR
05-03-2013 8:18 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
It seemed to me that I was clear enough in saying that ...

Glad to help.

Remember where we are. In the vast majority of cases it's "science proves this in the bible" and "the bible pre-empted science here" and the like.

I think most of these folks do not know how to handle a religonist saying "reality is as reality is and ain't it grand, beautiful and wonderful ..."

It's the " ...the way god done it" part of that sentence that raises the red flag. We gotta look at you crosseyed to see if there are any hidden hooks in there.

Now the trick is to keep the grand, the awe, the miraculous wonder and incredible beauty that is the reality of this universe in your mind and lose the irrational security blanket of god done it. I can imagine it's scary but you are so close to standing with your own intellect freeing your mind of ghosts.

Push, Grasshopper! Push!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by GDR, posted 05-03-2013 8:18 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 05-04-2013 1:03 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 118 of 181 (698564)
05-08-2013 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Taq
05-06-2013 9:49 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR is claiming that he used science to form his beliefs.

Semantics, Taq. To form vs to inform.

GDR is claiming that he uses (not past tense "used") science to "inform", not "form", his beliefs.

Science, as I understand GDR's stance, cannot "form" his beliefs which have already been established without any input, confirmation, reinforcement from science. Science simply informs, teaches, him how god done what he done.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Taq, posted 05-06-2013 9:49 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2013 8:48 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 122 of 181 (698697)
05-08-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
05-08-2013 8:48 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
But how can science inform one's belief in miracles?

You are assuming that science shapes all his beliefs. I'm not so sure this is the case. If it was then he wouldn't be a theist, would he.

I can see where science has informed him of evolution and thus, in his view, of his god's use of evolution to create humans. I can see where science has informed him of cosmology which he takes as his god's method to construct a universe.

He professes a belief in the miracle resurrection of some long ago jew in long ago Palestine and professes a belief in some magical miracle of eternal life if he pushes the right buttons and doesn't PO the big boss, but I have no idea how anything in science could have anything to do with these beliefs.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Of course. He is, after all, a theist.

I understand the attempt to reconcile one's theistic beliefs with science. I just don't think it works. They are not 'congruent'.

Not in all things, I agree. But in GDR's case it appears that he accepts the information science has to offer in cosmology, evolution, the world-wide flud, a way-old earth and other realities to which a lot of other theists plug their ears. To his credit.

But that still leaves a disconnect between accepting the science in some aspects but not in others. But, then again, he is a theist and the complete reality is sacrilege to such philosophies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2013 8:48 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2013 8:37 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 123 of 181 (698698)
05-08-2013 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Straggler
05-08-2013 8:48 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Furthermore (and to get vaguely back on topic) if the parallel universes suggested by theoretical physicists as being responsible for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter are the supernatural dwelling place of God (AKA heaven) then physicists are effectively positing supernatural realms as potential answers to observable phenomena.

First of all, you have to find an M-theorist who actually believes this crap about some heaven in the universe of brane-worlds. Then we'll talk.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2013 8:48 AM Straggler has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 12:16 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 125 of 181 (698708)
05-09-2013 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by GDR
05-09-2013 12:16 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Actually I don't see it that way at all. All any scientist should do is look for the truth without any preconceived notion, be they theistic or atheistic.

Oh, I agree most assuredly. So this most egregious speculation within what can at best be described as a weak hypothesis is totally inappropriate.

In more plain language ... it's crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 12:16 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 1:47 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 127 of 181 (698722)
05-09-2013 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by GDR
05-09-2013 1:47 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Why? I'm just saying that science should go wherever the evidence leads, without preconceived ideas.

And I agree. Further I say this speculation on some "Heaven in another brane-world" is a preconceived idea that has no place on the table.

Relativity and Quantum Theory certainly did not initially give rise to speculations on some god's holy heaven in sub-nano meter space. Why should we now speculate on some god's holy heaven in the warped passages of brane-worlds?

Speculations are fine. Some of our best technologies and ideas began as speculations: transistors, integrated circuits, plate tectonics, GPS, cell phones. But there are always underlying realities that hint at the possibility in the speculation. This god's heaven crap is nothing more than wishful thinking based upon an emotional need. There is no underlying reality that could possibly hint at such a speculation. Until there is a more realistic underpinning to M-theory's brane-world hypothesis, and some realistic underpinning to the concept of a god, let alone some heaven for it to live in, then the speculation is unfounded, inappropriate and just plain crap.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 1:47 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 130 of 181 (698777)
05-09-2013 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Straggler
05-09-2013 8:37 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
So overall the theistic beliefs in question are not 'congruent' with science.

As you said, in some aspects they are, in some they are not. From a big picture perspective, an all inclusive view, then ... in some aspects they are, in some they are not.

Are GDR's beliefs congruent with science? In some aspects they are, in some they are not.

I really don't feel like engaging in a semantical quibble so I will yield to the gentleman from London ... who is probably right anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2013 8:37 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Straggler, posted 05-09-2013 2:38 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 165 of 181 (699334)
05-17-2013 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
05-17-2013 3:42 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Science studies natural law. Natural law is not science. Science does not tell us that natural law cannot be suspended.

Of course there is a conflict. Natural Law is just that: law. It holds at all times in all situations. That is why it is law. If it was not then such a phenomena would be a dependant variable not a law.

The reason we call them laws is precisely because we have never seen them violated. To assume your god can cause such violations becomes just another article of faith of the superstition that conflicts with the reality we see around us.

ABE: I assume we're talking the laws of nature as in the physical laws and not the Natural Law as in human morality and the quest for justice.

Edited by AZPaul3, : gee guess.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 3:42 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 5:10 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 167 of 181 (699346)
05-17-2013 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by GDR
05-17-2013 5:10 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
Humans make laws and they are broken all the time.

BZZZZZZZZZTTT!

Sorry Contestant #1, that is an incorrect answer.

Human law takes the form of this:

Sometimes some people do this and we, society, in our collective subjective opinion, don't like that because it's bad for others and bad for society. So if you are a people who does this thing then we are going to slap your peepee real hard.

Scientific law takes the form of this:

Every time we do this or see this then this here happens. Every time! I mean everEVERY every figgin time! It is so consistent that I can predict with extreme accuracy that when I do/see this then this here is going result everEVERY every figgin time whether that is here, there or on the other side of the galaxy. And looky there we just saw it happen again on the other side of the universe.

That is scientific law.

Now you can say that your favorite flavor of god made those scientific laws so he is entitled to break them, which he seems to do when there are only the deeply devout watching with no skeptics, and most telling for me, no one to write it down until someone who wasn't even there gets a bug in their butt some decades to centuries later.

It's OK. You can say that. In fact you did say that.

But such a pronouncement can only be regarded as an article of faith stemming from your superstitious beliefs that not only conflicts greatly with the science we most certainly know, but violates egregiously the reality this universe has already shown us in stunning detail and accuracy to be true.

When this happens, GDR, your article of faith falls aside rejected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 5:10 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 11:34 PM AZPaul3 has responded
 Message 177 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 5:51 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 169 of 181 (699365)
05-18-2013 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by GDR
05-17-2013 11:34 PM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
If the material world that we perceive is all there is then I'll buy it. If it isn't then we have no way of knowing if the laws that we see are merely derivative of or superseded by other laws.

And unless there is reason to suspect such then there is no reason to consider such a possibility in any way whatsoever.

Science has no way of knowing whether or not those natural laws having been broken or not. It only knows that if it has it can't be repeated or verified.

And unless there is reason to suspect otherwise there is no reason to consider such a possibility in any way whatsoever...

... other than as an article of faith, which, sorry GDR, means nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 11:34 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 2:13 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 5582
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 171 of 181 (699370)
05-18-2013 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by GDR
05-18-2013 2:13 AM


Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
GDR, do you ever give serious consideration to the thought the sun is carried across the sky on Apollo's chariot or that it might really be turtles all the way down?

There is nothing to show such things warrant any consideration and there are facts that negate such things.

The same applies to the physical laws being suspended or broken.

Nothing in human experience warrants such a consideration and all the facts show otherwise.

As an article of faith you can go there and take Apollo and the Turtles with you. But reality as the universe has shown itself to us cannot. And, yes, the universe has shown us sufficient reality to dismiss such speculations without even blinking.

Edited by AZPaul3, : expanded a bit

Edited by AZPaul3, : oops


This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 2:13 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 10:54 AM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021