String Theory linked to Alchemy
-
I don't understand how something that is unfalsifiable is automatically irrational? I think perhaps the general understanding of the definition of "rational" is probably incorrect, amongst many people. (No disrespect intended at all) Anyway, if something is theory it doesn't mean its not true. Also, just because most people believe a theory is true, doesn't make it a fact. Science is full of "facts" that are almost 100% accepted, but can never be fully proved (either in principle, or they can't be proved *yet*) Science is also full of half-truths that are just accepted as they are, because nobody can offer a proper, provable solution to the rest of the problem. However we (the masses) just accept it because, well, what else are we supposed to do? Science, and the world, works just fine like this really. (And some examples: gravity, which is still not understood; theories of what *really* makes aeroplanes fly, also only partially understood/explained)
In science the term 'falsifiable' has a specific meaning; if you have a theory - like matter bending light - and the theory predicts that under certain conditions it can be verified, then you say the theory is falsifiable. The wording may seem strange, but that's really all it means. String theory is not falsifiable; it makes no predictions that can even remotely be tested. A similar thing can be said about the word 'irrational' in this context. The dictionary definition is 'not having a rational basis', meaning that there are no facts, data, or irrefutable evidence to support the belief. Hence, it is an irrational belief. This does not imply that irrational beliefs are stupid, or an indication of insanity. Very simply, it means that there are no facts to support it, there is no data that you can show to someone else, or any observable evidence. Why do people hold onto an irrational belief system? Because they want to, because it gives them comfort, because it helps them get through the night. That works for me too.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
In science the term 'falsifiable' has a specific meaning; if you have a theory - like matter bending light - and the theory predicts that under certain conditions it can be verified, then you say the theory is falsifiable. The wording may seem strange, but that's really all it means. String theory is not falsifiable; it makes no predictions that can even remotely be tested. A similar thing can be said about the word 'irrational' in this context. The dictionary definition is 'not having a rational basis', meaning that there are no facts, data, or irrefutable evidence to support the belief. Hence, it is an irrational belief. This does not imply that irrational beliefs are stupid, or an indication of insanity. Very simply, it means that there are no facts to support it, there is no data that you can show to someone else, or any observable evidence. Why do people hold onto an irrational belief system? Because they want to, because it gives them comfort, because it helps them get through the night. That works for me too.
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Hi Hans I think we are then in (almost) complete agreement :) My only contention is that "irrational" can also be defined as "not having reason to support (a given argument)"; in other words, it is not limited to empirical data or hard provable facts, nor even seemingly inadequate reasons: it can simply mean an idea without *any* reason (or more accurately, "thought" behind it). (Irrational can also of course be used to describe a disproportionate response or conclusion, but that of course is in a different context, and is often slightly colloquial) HOWEVER, I don't want to get into a debate about dictionary definitions: its almost as bad as arguing on the internets. :) regards
-
Hi Hans I think we are then in (almost) complete agreement :) My only contention is that "irrational" can also be defined as "not having reason to support (a given argument)"; in other words, it is not limited to empirical data or hard provable facts, nor even seemingly inadequate reasons: it can simply mean an idea without *any* reason (or more accurately, "thought" behind it). (Irrational can also of course be used to describe a disproportionate response or conclusion, but that of course is in a different context, and is often slightly colloquial) HOWEVER, I don't want to get into a debate about dictionary definitions: its almost as bad as arguing on the internets. :) regards
That reminds me of the French saying The heart has its reasons, which reason cannot know.. Thanks for the (rational) discussion! :)
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
That reminds me of the French saying The heart has its reasons, which reason cannot know.. Thanks for the (rational) discussion! :)
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Hurhur, that's a nice saying... It has a certain, as the French say, "I don't know what" ;) Kind Regards
-
Kevin McFarlane wrote:
But a theory is needed to handle the situation where neither QM nor GR seem to work, i.e., very small and very dense matter.
That is correct. I like it myself (also as a laymen) since it holds the promise of solving some real problems. If it was able to make real, experimentally verifiable predictions that were different from either QM or GR, people would run experiments and check it. As I understand it, it just isn't there yet. But it looks like it might, and that's why people are working on it. Still trying to prove QM and GR wrong ;)
Silver member by constant and unflinching longevity.
RichardM1 wrote:
Still trying to prove QM and GR wrong
It's an interesting conundrum. Both theories seem to resist all attempts at falsification. Yet they're incompatible with each other. Maybe what's required is another genius like Einstein who can identify some deep principle, such as the principle of equivalence, that has profound consequences. Or maybe someone can deduce some unique prediction of string theory that doesn't require a super duper particle accelerator to verify it.
Kevin
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation
i thought the idea behind a theory is that it is accepted as "fact" until proven false, i.e., is it falsifiable...
If it's been proven in some way, then it's a fact. If not, well, then it's just a hypothesis with some extra cream.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
...at the cutting edge of modern physics, string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe based on 11 dimensions and imperceptibly tiny strings. Alchemists wouldn't recognize the mathematics behind the theory. But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit. Read more here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/15/good_as_gold/[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
Isn't it a bit early to speculate in any of the string research? Countless scientists during the ages have been ridiculed, and in some cases had their lives threatened, for their efforts. In the end, it turned out to be solid work. 100 years from now, articles like these may be just as an amusing read as old sentences issued by the Vatican.
-- Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit
-
...at the cutting edge of modern physics, string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe based on 11 dimensions and imperceptibly tiny strings. Alchemists wouldn't recognize the mathematics behind the theory. But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit. Read more here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/15/good_as_gold/[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
The issue is that string theory is a framework for a theory, not a theory itself. You can disprove a particular implementation of string theory by showing that expected particles or forces do not appear at a given energy, but then you can just tweak a parameter to create a new theory that works at higher (and untestable until they build the Super-dooper large hardon colider) energies.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
Actually, my understanding is that string theories are regularly disproven using pendulums. Pendula? Though you're right, the framework itself seems pretty much untouchable.
Pendulii.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
-
peterchen wrote:
Is XKCD still quotable
No.
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
*LALALA* I CAN'T HEAR YOU
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit.
That's because any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, regardless of the advanced state of the culture. Oh, wait... Marc
Marc Clifton wrote:
That's because any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic, regardless of the advanced state of the culture.
Is string theory science? :-D
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles] -
...at the cutting edge of modern physics, string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe based on 11 dimensions and imperceptibly tiny strings. Alchemists wouldn't recognize the mathematics behind the theory. But in its grandeur, in its claim to total authority, in its unprovability, they would surely recognize its spirit. Read more here: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/03/15/good_as_gold/[^]
Best wishes, Hans
[CodeProject Forum Guidelines] [How To Ask A Question] [My Articles]
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
...I believe in God and for very rational reasons.
Fine, but believing in God is completely different to following or believing in a religion. Religion, the opiate of the masses, is a powerful tool used by people for personal gain. Anyone not using it for this purpose is on the other end of the stick; brainwashed and blissfully ignorant to the reality of organised dogma. ALL religions ARE irrational belief systems. Believing in God, as far as I am concerned, is a way to negate the fear of mortality, which can hardly be regarded as irrational. It's quite rational. It takes balls to stand against the universe believing you are on your own, and actually be comfortable with this belief. Religion/God as a way of escaping the thought of a meaningless existence would be, for me, too easy. Arrgh! Religion! It's a bastard of a topic. I mean NO OFFENCE to anyone, this is purely my opinion. If you don't like it, ignore it, cheers!
MichaelGallagher wrote:
Religion, the opiate of the masses, is a powerful tool used by people for personal gain. Anyone not using it for this purpose is on the other end of the stick; brainwashed and blissfully ignorant to the reality of organised dogma. ALL religions ARE irrational belief systems. Believing in God, as far as I am concerned, is a way to negate the fear of mortality, which can hardly be regarded as irrational. It's quite rational. It takes balls to stand against the universe believing you are on your own, and actually be comfortable with this belief.
At the risk of coming off ironic may I shout a hearty AMEN! to that Michael. <couldn't find a smiley with it's hands folded in prayer>
Mike Devenney
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Super-dooper large hardon colider
Ah, you've met my ex then? :)
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
COFFEE, MEET MONITORS. :laugh:
Mike Devenney
-
I remember watching a documentary about evolution and creationism and the guy they were interviewing was a scientist who believed strongly in the big bang event, and also in creationism, meaning that he believed that God logically created the universe and everything in it, but no in seven days; he believed that God created the big bang itself. ( Sounds much more likely than anything i've heard from fundamentalist christians, etc, but I still disagree ;P ) Anyway, the guy being interviewed said something like
Scientist on TV said:
"When I tell people about a theory such as the big bang, or evolution, they say 'Yeah, thats right, it's JUST a theory!' and, baffled, I explain to them that a theory gains credibility based on many variables, one of which is the number of people who accept said theory as a possibility. Evolution, as a theory, is accepted widely by the scientific community, by thousands and thousands of educated and accredited professors and intellectuals. To the majority, the word theory has connotations of some crazy hair-brained scientist sitting in a dark cellar for decades with a half-baked idea. [they believe this].. most likely because the majority are barely educated, and tend to react rather than reason..."
NOTE: that hair-brained scientist was a reference to Einstein I think, among others. Not to say a theory is validated due to popular opinion alone, but it does help. The theory of Evolution has millions of peices of evidence pointing to it being true, yet it is still classified as a THEORY, primarily because of the religious and evangelical people in the world... a lot of people realise that upsetting them would be a bad, bad thing, hence they stick with a "theory", but believe it completely. rant rant rant, don't even know whats in the first sentence! :confused: anyway, let the dictionary do the talking: 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. 2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. 3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. :-\ 4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather
MichaelGallagher wrote:
NOTE: that hair-brained scientist was a reference to Einstein I think, among others.
So where does the term hair-brained stem from? I know I could google it and know in a few clicks but I'm having trouble seeing through the coffee smears from my earlier eruption.
Mike Devenney
-
The universe was the result of my morning motion ealier today. It's a "complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe" so why aren't I earning lots of money from it?
hmmm pie
fly904 wrote:
The universe was the result of my morning motion ealier today. It's a "complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe" so why aren't I earning lots of money from it?
Because your "motion" requires not billions of dollars of electromagnets and real estate but a couple of dollars of saline solution in a plastic squeeze bottle to, um, "engender motion". In other words, your theory doesn't cost enough to matter :laugh::laugh:
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
string theory purports to offer a complete but possibly unprovable explanation
i thought the idea behind a theory is that it is accepted as "fact" until proven false, i.e., is it falsifiable...
ahmed zahmed wrote:
i thought the idea behind a theory is that it is accepted as "fact" until proven false, i.e., is it falsifiable...
Incorrect. Theories can be verifiable as well. Einstein's general relativity suggested that the orbit of Venus would be faster than accountable by Newtonian physics...and, in fact, it was. Einstein also described the photoelectric effect as a testable consequence of the theory of quantum mechanics, and this description was verified by others in experiments, leading to Einstein's Nobel Prize (ironically, he never received a Nobel for any of his work in special or general relativity, and the irony is compounded, when you consider his objections to the probabilistic assertions of the theory of quantum mechanics, by an award for work demonstrating the very theory to which he had so many objections).
-
fly904 wrote:
The universe was the result of my morning motion ealier today. It's a "complete but possibly unprovable explanation of the universe" so why aren't I earning lots of money from it?
Because your "motion" requires not billions of dollars of electromagnets and real estate but a couple of dollars of saline solution in a plastic squeeze bottle to, um, "engender motion". In other words, your theory doesn't cost enough to matter :laugh::laugh:
-
MichaelGallagher wrote:
Religion, the opiate of the masses, is a powerful tool used by people for personal gain. Anyone not using it for this purpose is on the other end of the stick; brainwashed and blissfully ignorant to the reality of organised dogma. ALL religions ARE irrational belief systems. Believing in God, as far as I am concerned, is a way to negate the fear of mortality, which can hardly be regarded as irrational. It's quite rational. It takes balls to stand against the universe believing you are on your own, and actually be comfortable with this belief.
At the risk of coming off ironic may I shout a hearty AMEN! to that Michael. <couldn't find a smiley with it's hands folded in prayer>
Mike Devenney
I'm going to take a flyer here and offer you and others like you a suggestion. A devotion of too great a depth to "rationality" can anesthetize you to capabilities you may have that do not "make sense." Atheism can be as binding a straitjacket as any other dogma. Humans may use reasoning and rationale, but we are, in fact, not rational except in a limited set of circumstances (conversational discourse being one of the most common of these). I still remember the plaint of a neuroscientist as quoted in Time in 1982: "I began my career thinking that the brain was like a computer. I am ending my career thinking the brain is much more like an endocrine gland." By the time I was well into my own programming career, some were comparing the mind that is the emergent property of the brain to a standing wave of quantum logic, which I assure you is not the Boolean logic we love so well in our profession/avocation which draws us here. What we are is not explainable in purely rational terms, because our rationale depends on language, and we don't have the language to truly describe what we are and probably never will. The final test of a belief system is, how well does it get you through the night, literally or figuratively. Everything else to be said about it is simply entertainment. So, feel free to entertain yourself with responses to this post :D