Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8950 total)
38 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,353 Year: 22,389/19,786 Month: 952/1,834 Week: 22/430 Day: 22/63 Hour: 9/0


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 4193 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 yet responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4193 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 responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


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

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 3865 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 20 of 48 (394394)
04-11-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rob
04-09-2007 6:12 PM


Re: Not valid theories...
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'.


Where are the admins?

how can someone post something like that in a science forum about a subject he obviously knows nothing about and doesn`t want to learn either, without getting at least a warning?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rob, posted 04-09-2007 6:12 PM Rob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 04-11-2007 1:56 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1636 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 48 (394401)
04-11-2007 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by fallacycop
04-11-2007 12:44 AM


Re: Not valid theories...
He did get a warning, and he posted further because of my personal invitation. If anything, I'm the guilty one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by fallacycop, posted 04-11-2007 12:44 AM fallacycop has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4193 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 responded

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1636 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 23 of 48 (394541)
04-12-2007 12:20 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?
Being a science fiction fannut, I think I know what you are talking about. There have been science fiction novels, movies, and shows that have tackled this very concept.

For example, in stargate sg-1 series, there was an episode (season 3 I think) where an alternate version of one of the main characters came through a "quantum mirror" from an earth ravaged by an alien invasion. According to the alternate main character, in the first day of the invasion alone, bombardment from orbit killed an estimated 1.5 billion people. In the days after, people were systematically put in chains to be shipped off into slavery by the aliens. Obviously, the main characters of this "quantum reality" found a way many months ago to protect earth from such a fate. As one of the characters described the situation, "What did we have that they didn't? Our fate." We, as the viewers, knew that the main characters of this show knew a way to save the alternate earth and the alternate population.

Obviously, any viewer who has a conscience should think that the main characters ought to have helped save the alternate earth and its people, but they decided not to. They all agreed that whatever the hell happened in the alternate reality had absolutely no consequence whatsoever on their world. Dr. Jackson turned out to be the only person that pointed out that he felt a kind of cosmic responsibility to at least lift a finger to help these billions of people who were being killed and enslaved.

I think Rob fears that if indeed there are alternate universes that we would not feel any moral obligation toward the other universes because ultimately nothing that happens in the other universes would have any consequence on this one.

I just want Rob to know that not all of us feel that way, and I think that was what the story writers of that particular episode intended. While almost all the main characters in that episode felt absolutely nothing (no sorrow, no sympathy, nada, nothing) for the billions of humans in the alternate universe who were being killed and enslaved, one character spoke up and professed that he felt a kind of universal moral obligation to at least do something to help save the remaining humans in that universe.

Anyway, my personal opinion at least... this is the only point Rob ever raised that made any sense.

Now, I would also like to point out that whether we "like" an idea or not out of personal beliefs has absolutely no bearing on whether the idea is true or not. I've said this before and I'm going to say it again. Yellow is my favorite color. I'd like the idea that the sky is yellow. But obviously the sky is blue during the day, orangish-reddish in the evening, and black during the night. No amount of my dislike for the colors blue, red, and black or amount of my positive attitude toward the color yellow is going to make the sky yellow.

In the same token, whether there is a universal morality that applies to all the quantum universes or not has absolutely no bearing on whether these universes actually exist or not.

Added by edit.

By the way, in the end, the person in charge ordered the quantum mirror destroyed, permanently disconnecting their reality from the rest of alternate universe, implying that the other characters indeed did feel some kind of sorrow or sympathy for the victims in the other universe but would rather not face the enormous responsibility. It's like changing the channel everytime one of those commercials that show victims of extreme poverty turned up.

Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.


Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!


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 24 by Rob, posted 04-12-2007 12:56 AM Taz has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4193 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 yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


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

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4193 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 responded

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

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31796
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 27 of 48 (394565)
04-12-2007 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Rob
04-12-2007 9:45 AM


Rob's old Absolute nonsense yet again.
You have just posited an 'absolute morality'. And your absolute is relative.

No Rob, he did not.

Nor has he said that Absolutes do not exist. Only fools like Ravi use such a silly argument as your's (but I imagine even Ravi knows how silly an argument it is, he just also knows that the folk he markets to will buy it without even thinking about it).

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?

Sorry charley but just more jabberwocky. An apple exists or does not exist, but it's color will be relative to its stage of maturity, its variety and the part observed.

Morality may well absolutely exist and still be relative.

AbE:

Nor as usual, does anything in your post have any relevance or relation to the question being asked.

The search to determine whether M-Theory and String theory etc are valid scientific theories also has absolutely nothing to do with morality. Your posts once again try to change the subject to irrelevant issues simply to disrupt learning and keep folk in ignorance.

Edited by jar, : add relevancy issue


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 28 of 48 (394568)
04-12-2007 10:12 AM


Morality is off topic
As I feared, the morality issue is messing up what could be a good topic. Then next person who mentions it is suspended for a short bit.

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


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

  
Neutralmind
Member (Idle past 4468 days)
Posts: 183
From: Finland
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 30 of 48 (400744)
05-16-2007 2:39 PM


rejuvenating the topic
So, I was hoping that Cavediver, whenever you have the time if you would explain how M-theory and string theory are scientific theories and not just some fancy math.

I recently watched the whole 3 hours of http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html so I hopefully have at least some basic understanding of these things


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 05-16-2007 7:29 PM Neutralmind 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 © 2019