Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
40 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 37 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,814 Year: 1,562/23,288 Month: 1,562/1,851 Week: 202/484 Day: 20/105 Hour: 0/6


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?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 17 of 48 (394141)
04-09-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rob
04-09-2007 6:12 PM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
Just a quick review:

... in the context of 'Parrallel Universes' which 'String' and 'M' theory do not necessarily imply, ...

In other words Rob is not discussing M- and string- theories per se, but Rob's concept of them ... his straw man.

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.

OR Rob's concept of morality is wrong. Now, seeing as he can't tell us whether he is in one of those other universes or not, the only valid conclusion is that (a) his concept of these theories being false is invalid or (b) his concept of morality is invalid OR (c) both are invalid.

Now that we have disposed of this canaard, can we get back to discussing what M- and string- theories are and whether they are valid scientific theories?
Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rob, posted 04-09-2007 6:12 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Rob, posted 04-10-2007 6:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 19 of 48 (394381)
04-10-2007 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Rob
04-10-2007 6:37 PM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
Why don't you just admit that you like the idea of 'm' and 'string' theory precisely for the reason I mentioned Razd?

Except that I don't. Ask Cavediver or Son Goku ...

Perhaps I am wrong.

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.

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.

Does not follow from whether multiple universes exist or not.

The rest of us riff raff obviously don't get it, nor can we handle it.

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. We see that morality does exist, therefore your concept is falsified.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would like to hear Cavediver's explanation of why M- and string- theories are anything more than just mathematical constructs ....

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Rob, posted 04-10-2007 6:37 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 04-11-2007 8:39 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 25 of 48 (394556)
04-12-2007 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rob
04-11-2007 8:39 PM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?
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...

We know that there is at least one.

But your argument comes down to {X} can't happen because then {Y} would be false.

You assume {Y} to be true and therefore {X} can't happen.

You have no other evidence that {X} can't happen -- as you point out we don't know whether or not there are others.

The fact that there could just as easily be others as not means your assumption of {Y} being true is a false assumption.

...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.

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?

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.

Agreed. Like dark stuffs ... but nothing is proved by math theories, what they can show you is possibilities. That is where testing of predictions comes in.

And either way you cut it, what we know about this universe is a small fraction of reality.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rob, posted 04-11-2007 8:39 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 04-12-2007 9:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 29 of 48 (394736)
04-12-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rob
04-12-2007 9:45 AM


Re: Not valid theories?... or is it just more muddled thinking by Rob?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Rob, posted 04-12-2007 9:45 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 41 of 48 (404017)
06-06-2007 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by cavediver
06-06-2007 9:13 AM


My 2-bits
And this is where it gets bizarre... what have the public to do with it?

... we desperately need new experimental results and very very high energies - but no-one wants to pay.

This is where the public comes into it: paying the bills.

The trouble is theory has been outpacing experiment for so long - all of the results of the past thirty years have effectively been confirming what we alreay suspected from theory.

There are huge holes in the SM, and it is more a statement of how little we understand. The answers may be in reach of the LHC but more likely they will be far far above in energy. If the new colliders reveal no new physics, it just confirms what we already know: that when it comes to energy-scales, human existence is at the arse-end of this fascinating Universe.

Agreed. :D

Can tell me why string theory is not regarded as equal to the standard model when they produce the same results from the data? Seems to me (IMHysaO)* you have two strong contenders.

Enjoy.

* or should I make that IMHNMSI(ysa)O**?

** in my humble narrow minded somewhat ignorant (yet sometimes arrogant) opinion?

Edited by RAZD, : * **


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 06-06-2007 9:13 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 06-06-2007 7:34 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20487
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 47 of 48 (404151)
06-06-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by cavediver
06-06-2007 7:34 PM


Re: My 2-bits
It is the explanation of why we have the standard model.

I've always wondered what we'd call the "standard model" when we moved on to the next level theory. Are you saying that it is not really a theory but a compendium of theories that can come and go? This would be closer to overall ToE with all the theories (punkeek, common ancestor, etc) under the umbrella terminology. That also renders it pretty unfalsifiable because you just change the parts to get a rebuilt engine.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by cavediver, posted 06-06-2007 7:34 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 06-07-2007 12:40 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020