String Theory

adam_ccfc

I know this isn't a Science Board but anyone have info on String Theory? I do know bits and pieces about it.

I've been told that it will eventually prove the non-existence of God.

Zillah

Uh...what? Look, try wikipedia first then come back to us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

adam_ccfc

Sorry sorry I know I should have read a bit more on it, but I was talking to a fellow atheist (admittedly not a Physicist) who told me about it. Think he read it in New Scientist magazine.

He told me that it was not far off being proven and that when it is, it will basically prove God's non-existence.

However, it clearly isn't that simple.

stevejazzx

adam_ccfc wrote:

Sorry sorry I know I should have read a bit more on it, but I was talking to a fellow atheist (admittedly not a Physicist) who told me about it.

He told me that it was not far off being proven and that when it is, it will basically prove God's non-existence.

However, it clearly isn't that simple.

Em...you've got a lot of reading to do there, and yes it's far from simple indeed.

adam_ccfc

stevejazzx wrote:

Em...you've got a lot of reading to do there, and yes it's far from simple indeed.

The theory is based on the notion that the world around us is made not of zero-dimensional point particles but tiny one-dimensional filaments (called "strings"). I do study Physics but unfortunately String Theory ain't on the LC higher level course!:D


I was just wondering if anyone could help me out.

Sapien

adam_ccfc wrote:

The theory is based on the notion that the world around us is made not of zero-dimensional point particles but tiny one-dimensional filaments (called "strings"). I do study Physics but unfortunately String Theory ain't on the LC higher level course!:D

However, the guy who told me must have got the notion from somewhere.

I was just wondering if anyone could help me out.

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that String Theory may lead to a Grand Unified Theory of physics, which would leave no room for mystery or the actions of a god.

Dades

adam_ccfc wrote:

I was just wondering if anyone could help me out.

I'll help you out - you can't prove something doesn't exist.

You can find explanations (theories) as to what causes things the object in question is supposed to be responsible for - thats about it. Also be prepared for the phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

edited for gimpness

adam_ccfc

Sapien wrote:

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that String Theory may lead to a Grand Unified Theory of physics, which would leave no room for mystery or the actions of a god.

Cheers Sapien. He did mention "The Theory oF Everything" aswell, which I'll have to read up on.

Wibbs

This was posted in the physics forum a while ago. It covers the whole ten dimensional vibe of which string theory is a part. http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

While it seems to have taken off and is popular as a theory, there are a few dissenters to the whole deal. There are some serious holes in it that need plugging. Some learned physics types consider it a fancy mathematical construct more than a proveable theory. The lack of experimental proof, indeed because of the nature of it, the inability to even create experimental results is a sticking point for many.

Dunno how it would disprove or prove a deity though. In fact a grand unified theory of everything might even bolster some theists with the whole plan of God bit. A ten dimensional inteligence would know everything, be everything past future etc across ten dimensions. Pretty Godlike an all that if you were of a mind to look at it like that.

stevejazzx

Einstein went mad trying to come with a theory of everything, he thought that God had created a beautiful perfect world and that he could find elements in this symmetary that would lead to grand unified theory.
Now we have superstring theory which says that if we has a supertelescope we could look at electrons and see strings vibrating changing the electon into light or units of gravity etc, like notes on a string. This theory can in principal explain the fabric of the universe but not wihtout opening up more perils along the way. The greatest scientific minds in the world are wrestling with it dialy so we have a long way to come perhaps.

It's a maths construct mainly, it doesn't look like it's verifiable or will be
and it's got nothing to do with a god or lack thereof o.O

Zillah

adam_ccfc wrote:

He told me that it was not far off being proven and that when it is, it will basically prove God's non-existence.

As said, you can't prove a negative of that sort. As science gathers a more comprehensive understanding of the universe it will become harder and harder to rationalise the exist of God into it, but thats about it.

Hundreds of years ago people went crazy because of the concept of a vacuum, because apparently the idea that there was an empty space went against religious doctrine, God is everywhere. Hence we get the luminferous ether, a fanciful construct that was said to be the medium through which light waves travel. But they concluded that no such thing existed (you can occasionally prove a negative, such as when two concepts are mutually exclusive or when the claim has enough detail to conclude that that specific claim is false).

Tar.Aldarion

bluewolf wrote:

it doesn't look like it's verifiable

Oh, it's quite verifable, it's just not going to be easy, I don't partcularily see gravitons disappearing every day...but anyway...

There are issues with that ten dimension flash yoke, he only takes time into account after the third dimension, making string theory 3+7 dimensions, instead of 9+1, per se. >_>
He doesn't appear to have read flatlanders. After the the thrid dimension it becomes a bit of a mess...


Watch this, it is superb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

stevejazzx

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Watch this, it is superb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

cool....thanks

Dades

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Watch this, it is superb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

Uh oh. No work gonna be done by me tomorrow.

Tar.Aldarion

I'm too ashamed to say how many times I've watched this and similar things... enjoy.

stevejazzx wrote:

Einstein went mad trying to come with a theory of everything, he thought that God had created a beautiful perfect world and that he could find elements in this symmetary that would lead to grand unified theory.

Einstein did not believe in God, he believed in Spinoza's god, which basically means none.
I'm fairly confident a theory of 'everything' does exist, we just have not been able to get it yet and reconsile quantum physics with real world physics.

Now, how do people like the program?

iFight

Very interesting subject. Thanks for the link btw. Ill be reading up on this ALL night :P

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

You can occasionally prove a negative, such as when two concepts are mutually exclusive or when the claim has enough detail to conclude that that specific claim is false.

An excellent point, and not made sufficiently often!

cheers,
Scofflaw

pH

As said, you can't prove a negative of that sort.

Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be.
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

Scofflaw

pH wrote:

Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”

Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be.
http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html

Another good point! You can disprove the existence of any sufficiently specified supernatural being, but cannot disprove the existence of all supernatural beings, because you cannot disprove something that is unspecified except by not being constrained by the normal rules of reason and evidence.

Having said that, it does really depend on your definition of a god. As I've said before, I have yet to see any requirement that a god actually be a supernatural entity.

I use the definition "that which you worship". So if you worship, say, a chair, without imbuing it with any supernatural characteristics, then I clearly can't disprove your God. Most people would consider this a deeply unsatisfactory God, but that merely indicates that they wouldn't worship it. I don't worship the Christian God, because I find him deeply unsatisfactory, but that clearly doesn't stop other people.



cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

A claim must be falsifiable to be logically consistent. Wow. Thats beautiful. I'm disappointed that such an elegantly simple concept has not occured to me before.

democrates

IMHO 11-dimensional string theory or any TOE proving there is no God is the same category of error the 'Intelligent Design' proponents make. Ironic bedfellows, attempting to dress up leaps of faith as science.

Bertrand Russell believed it was futile to attempt a once and for all time defenition of reality from either the scientific method, logic and mathematics, or even philosophy. I've come to share that view though that's based on my lesser knowedge and comprehension, and I'd add organised religion to the list.

Like Socrates too, I tend away from absolute beliefs, the psychopathology of certainty if you will, but for practicality I make certain assumptions, eg whatever the truth behind this 'reality' I perceive, I may as well engage with it.

Also I've opted to believe in God (though not organised religion creation stories), arguably that's motivated by a Freudian desire for the idealised parent figure who will provide all my needs in 'the afterlife', so I have only good things to look forward to. Rather than worry about why, it feels good to believe it so I say why not? The bonus for society is that I probably behave better too.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

A claim must be falsifiable to be logically consistent. Wow. Thats beautiful. I'm disappointed that such an elegantly simple concept has not occured to me before.

It does make for a good soundbyte alright.

Mind you, next time you're hob-nobbing with some believer about God - drop that into the conversation and watch their eyes glaze over. Then spout a few bits from pH's link, and prepare to pull your hair out when they say that God is outside of science.

democrates wrote:

Also I've opted to believe in God (though not organised religion creation stories), arguably that's motivated by a Freudian desire for the idealised parent figure who will provide all my needs in 'the afterlife', so I have only good things to look forward to. Rather than worry about why, it feels good to believe it so I say why not? The bonus for society is that I probably behave better too.

Sometimes I think when I'm older, I'd like to be able to do this too. Forget my pugnacious youth, and live the dream in my final years.

democrates

The Atheist wrote:

Sometimes I think when I'm older, I'd like to be able to do this too. Forget my pugnacious youth, and live the dream in my final years.

Yes, churches always have a dedicated contingent of older attendees who are, as my dad delicately put it, "closer to the bury hole", he says that focusses their minds a little.

For a long time I've held that to be good you don't need to believe in god or partake in organised religion be it a la carte or lock stock and barrel, an aetheist can behave by a moral code. Many scientists choose to believe there is no God, and yet are key defenders of the environment, are anti-war and so forth, in short, they are social role models of the highest calibre.

I'd like to know how they feel about free will though if they choose to believe in pure causality, I found no comfort there. I choose to believe in free will because it feels good to, and because without it there is no such thing as right or wrong, just the laws of physics inexorably rolling forward like some great clockwork device.

On the other side, even as a kid attending Foxrock church I was puzzled to hear the principle 'it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven', only to see some parishioners leaving in huge mercs. And throughout history war-mongers and terrorists acting under a God flag. If they really believe that God created the universe and all life, who are they to assume he wants some of us killed and then carry that out? Seems mighty risky to me. I don't think you can outsource responsibility for your actions by signing up as a member of a religion, do what you like and then flash your id at the pearly gates for your reward of a harem of virgins or what not.

Pope John Paul II in his thirteenth encyclical "Fides et Ratio" sought to build common ground between faith and reason, but that to me is just the standard church practice of mixing facts and faith to come up with any story you want. That strategem has resulted in a bitter trench war, round of applause for Copernicus. Science continues to gain ground against religious creation lore, each time science advances the Church says ok, god is not here, but over the brow of the next hill. The vatican warned hawking et al not to look too close to the big bang, for fear they might see the hand of god, or not. They set themselves up for repeated fights by making assertions about nature in the first place.

But scientists believing in a TOE are equally presuming in my book. Each time science settles on what are indivisible forms, they too turn out to be made of other forms. It is a leap of faith to assume this trend will cease or continue. M-theory postulates this universe resulted from a clash of two membranes in 'the multiverse', and that there may be any number more. Even a child will then ask, what's outside that? Again, a leap of faith to assert anything.

Since our minds can always postulate that everything is made of something, and everything is in something, continued uncertainty on those key questions will remain, and so there will always be room for belief in god. So for me this reality represents an infinite playground for exploration yielding endless opportunities for new technologies.

Believing life forms have free will within a causal universe as opposed to pure causality, I feel good that I have a role in creating my thoughts, and thereby my actions. So rather than feeling like an observing passenger I feel like an participating explorer, and have interesting choices to make about what is right and wrong and how I should act in this unfolding timeline. 42 doesn't cut it for me.

Son Goku

To answer the original question String Theory cannot disprove god.

String Theory is just an attempt to extend the mathematics of Quantum Field Theory. A step further down the road QFT set us out on.

Whether nature stops using that road before Strings come up, we don't know yet.

Also it isn't literally based around "tiny little strings", just as modern physics isn't really based around 0-dimensional particles. That's just the easiest thing to say to avoid a huge explanation.

Also this:
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
Has nothing to do with String Theory.

M-theory postulates this universe resulted from a clash of two membranes in 'the multiverse'

M-Theory has never even been written down, that would be the Ekpyrotic Model.

democrates

Son Goku wrote:

M-Theory has never even been written down, that would be the Ekpyrotic Model.

Never written down?
From Google:
[SIZE=-1]Results 1 - 20 of about 1,340,000 English pages for m-theory.
[/SIZE]
I'm assuming I'm picking up your figure of speech wrong (given I thought of Ghostbusters when I saw Ekpyrotic), is it that M-theory is the pop-science description whereas ekpyrotic is the academic one?

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Mind you, next time you're hob-nobbing with some believer about God - drop that into the conversation and watch their eyes glaze over.

Too true. Upsettingly so.

Tar.Aldarion

democrates wrote:

Never written down?
From Google:
[SIZE=-1]Results 1 - 20 of about 1,340,000 English pages for m-theory.
[/SIZE]
I'm assuming I'm picking up your figure of speech wrong (given I thought of Ghostbusters when I saw Ekpyrotic), is it that M-theory is the pop-science description whereas ekpyrotic is the academic one?

Articles about a theory are not the same as the theory being written down.

democrates

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Articles about a theory are not the same as the theory being written down.

Who's on first this feel like.:D
Does the phrase 'written down' mean widely accepted, or simply that the theory is not backed by adequate mathematics?

PS I'm using a graphics tablet and pen to write this down.

democrates

Zillah wrote:

Too true. Upsettingly so.

Bear in mind I'm not asserting there is a God, I have no proof, I'm not pretending it's logical, just that in my experience it feels good so why not. At the same time I tend to accept what the scientific community says it can prove, if that comes to include the non-existence of god I'll go along with that, but I haven't seen it yet.

Sorry if that's an upsetting position, maybe if people try it out for a while, as a scientific experiment, it won't seem so bad. But no cheating, you have to let the idea of a caretaker god and your eternal salvation sink in, whatever that means to you, make it up, that's what the churches did, but it's much more fun to design your own vision.

Zillah

democrates wrote:

maybe if people try it out for a while, as a scientific experiment, it won't seem so bad. But no cheating, you have to let the idea of a caretaker god and your eternal salvation sink in, whatever that means to you, make it up, that's what the churches did, but it's much more fun to design your own vision.

I did. I think two things:

1 - Its boring. Deus Ex Machina is never an interesting solution.
2 - Its utterly illogical. The various grotesqueries of faith are just that.

So no, its not fun unless you need better education and/or a more comprehensive world view.