Using string theory we have come to the conclusion that the big bang was created by what are known as membranes traveling in 11 dimensional hyperspace and this theory allows us to quote "read the mind of god":
M-Theory is the superseding theory of string theory. There are many forms of string theory which blend together Quantum Mechanics, Newtonian Laws of Motion, General Relativity, etc, however, there is only one M-Theory which comes to the conclusion that existence is based on 11 dimensional hyperspace and that there is this thing called the multiverse, because past the point of the singularity of the big bang there are what we call membranes or p_branes which when coming into contact with one another create big bangs. This not only allows physics to pass through the singularity and out the other side, but, also, allows for a
multiverse.
_________________ "But are you pure or are you just as corrupt as the capitalist Westerners that you despise? To me, you are ****ing slaves. You're slaves to the Saudi oil sheiks and the Wahabi oil money that funds you. And when that oil money runs out, my friends you will all ****ing disappear into the ashes of history." -- Agent Ferris
_________________ "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they always turn out to be - or to be indistinguishable from - self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." ~ Randy Waterhouse
It is. But its terribly spectulative mathmatics for the most part. A lot of m-brane theory (as its now mostly called I believe) simply posits stuff that at the moment human technology is incapable of testing.
Technically speaking it might not strictly be 'science' untill we have a few more decades of particle research under our belts. But theres good reason to be hopeful about that field at the moment. But again your correct that at the moment its simply mathmatics boarding on metaphysics untill we can figure a way out to test some of its major claims.
But thats not to say that its not a comprehensive, systemic and rational attempt to explain a lot of unobserved entities. Its also fair attractive due to its size of explanatory power (a good scientific theory should start by being as broad and general as possible, makes it easier to falsify) if it is pursued and expanded in the manner it has currently progressed at.
Its a really good, well founded, best guess of modern theoretical physics. It certainty deserves consideration by everybody.
_________________
Isaiah Berlin, Liberty, p 177 wrote:
There is no nessisary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule
So was the General Theory of Relativity until it was proven. It's theoretical physics but physics none the less.
_________________ "But are you pure or are you just as corrupt as the capitalist Westerners that you despise? To me, you are ****ing slaves. You're slaves to the Saudi oil sheiks and the Wahabi oil money that funds you. And when that oil money runs out, my friends you will all ****ing disappear into the ashes of history." -- Agent Ferris
So was the General Theory of Relativity until it was proven. It's theoretical physics but physics none the less.
Uh... careful using the word 'prove' when your talking about scientific theories. Saying you've proved something doesn't really appear possible outside of mathematics and even then its probably the stronger claim or assertion one can make.
_________________
Isaiah Berlin, Liberty, p 177 wrote:
There is no nessisary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule
Is there really not a simpler explanation than multiverse for Heisenberg uncertainty? This theory gets so much recognition because it delays philosophical problems that atheists have toward big-bang physics...not because it explains anything.
Where is the bemoaning of it's non-testability and it's non-falsifiability? Let's just go ahead and multiply entities to an infinite degree after years of somber intoning of Occam's Razor. Sure, why not?
I heard allusions to explanatory value in the clip. Franz repeated it in his post. I'd like to know what you think m-brane explains. Seems to me it has explained nothing and created infinity questions.
Still...interesting to ponder, and it might turn out to have legs..who knows?
Kaku just lost all credibility due to ice-dancing.
_________________ Jeremiah 6: 16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
Interesting, I recommend researching Terence McKenna.
Give you some insight on another perspective.
Yep. People should at least be exposed to alternative ideas.
We've known since Planck that there is no such thing as a physical reality anyway, so this whole discussion is for naught. It seems that there are no particles..no waves. Only minds.
_________________ Jeremiah 6: 16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.
It is. But its terribly spectulative mathmatics for the most part. A lot of m-brane theory (as its now mostly called I believe) simply posits stuff that at the moment human technology is incapable of testing.
Technically speaking it might not strictly be 'science' untill we have a few more decades of particle research under our belts. But theres good reason to be hopeful about that field at the moment. But again your correct that at the moment its simply mathmatics boarding on metaphysics untill we can figure a way out to test some of its major claims.
But thats not to say that its not a comprehensive, systemic and rational attempt to explain a lot of unobserved entities. Its also fair attractive due to its size of explanatory power (a good scientific theory should start by being as broad and general as possible, makes it easier to falsify) if it is pursued and expanded in the manner it has currently progressed at.
Its a really good, well founded, best guess of modern theoretical physics. It certainty deserves consideration by everybody.
_________________ "Change your thoughts and you change your world."
This morning, 11/19/2009, they're hoping to fire up the Hadron Collider again. They've had a lot of problems with it but this time it looks promising....
"...Physicists hope that the LHC will help answer the most fundamental questions in physics, questions concerning the basic laws governing the interactions and forces among the elementary objects, the deep structure of space and time, especially regarding the intersection of quantum mechanics and general relativity, where current theories and knowledge are unclear or break down altogether. These issues include, at least:
*Is the Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses via electroweak symmetry breaking indeed realised in nature?
*It is anticipated that the collider will either demonstrate or rule out the existence of the elusive Higgs boson(s), completing the Standard Model.
*Is supersymmetry, an extension of the Standard Model and Poincaré symmetry, realised in nature, implying that all known particles have supersymmetric partners? These may clear up the mystery of dark matter.
*Are there extra dimensions, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we detect them?
Is there really not a simpler explanation than multiverse for Heisenberg uncertainty? This theory gets so much recognition because it delays philosophical problems that atheists have toward big-bang physics...not because it explains anything.
Where is the bemoaning of it's non-testability and it's non-falsifiability? Let's just go ahead and multiply entities to an infinite degree after years of somber intoning of Occam's Razor. Sure, why not?
I heard allusions to explanatory value in the clip. Franz repeated it in his post. I'd like to know what you think m-brane explains. Seems to me it has explained nothing and created infinity questions.
Still...interesting to ponder, and it might turn out to have legs..who knows?
Kaku just lost all credibility due to ice-dancing.
In science, pursuit of the simplest workable solution is always the goal. The math that goes into theoretical physics may be complex, but I can assure you the identity of a god-like creature is infinitely (in the scientific sense - not mathematic infinity) more complex.
_________________
Blessed is the match consumed in kindling flame.
Is there really not a simpler explanation than multiverse for Heisenberg uncertainty?
Well seeing as its appearing more and more that Superposition isunt just our inability to take measurements at that scale but an actual physical property of the universe. Its extremely hard to explain what is going on when that superposition collapses when the quanta interacts with anything else.
Quote:
This theory gets so much recognition because it delays philosophical problems that atheists have toward big-bang physics...not because it explains anything.
Having a causal starting point is hugely problematic philosophically and epistemically anyway (because its asymetry with the following events makes it incoherent with the underlying logic of causality). It's why there was so much opposition to the big bang theory in the first place.
Quote:
Where is the bemoaning of it's non-testability and it's non-falsifiability?
Because testability and falsifiability define science.
Quote:
Let's just go ahead and multiply entities to an infinite degree after years of somber intoning of Occam's Razor. Sure, why not?
Ockhams razor very clear.
Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. People often confuse the notion of the simplest explanation being the best for being a reason to reject large and complicated theories even if they fit the evidence.
The standard model for example is hugely unwieldy but it does not have elements superfluous to the explanation.
Quote:
I heard allusions to explanatory value in the clip. Franz repeated it in his post. I'd like to know what you think m-brane explains. Seems to me it has explained nothing and created infinity questions.
Still...interesting to ponder, and it might turn out to have legs..who knows?
Well in a nutshell, the steady state theory might be wrong about our particular 4d pocket of existence. However if the 11-th (or n-th) dimension greater 'omni-verse' consists of eternal m-branes that every now and again collide and create 4d universes. It removes the need for the incoherent idea of a uncaused cause. Allowing us to preserve causality and that at one point our universe was at a singularity.
It's also a lovely way of getting around the anthropocentric problem. We are not so special just an expression of probability in an infinite steady state omniverse of m-branes.
I admit thats a lot of speculation. But its not baseless and it is explanatory useful. Thats the attraction of Quantum Mechanics for me I even think you can use it to rescue free will and prestentism (both philosophical theories that have great intuitive pull but appeared to be falsified by empirical evidence) .
_________________
Isaiah Berlin, Liberty, p 177 wrote:
There is no nessisary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule
Interesting, I recommend researching Terence McKenna.
Give you some insight on another perspective.
Yep. People should at least be exposed to alternative ideas.
Yeah well. There are a near infinite number of alternative ideas. Theres no reason why I should give them all equal weighting. In fact things such a coherence, comprehensiveness, independent scrutiny, the primacy of empirical observation .. etc etc. Mean that some ideas have right off the bat far more initial warrant than others.
Frankly McKenna is out of the left field at the best of times. But he's certainty not a scientist, I'd argue he's not much of a philosopher either. His stuff such as novelty theory is extremely unscientific to the point of just being innane rantings.
At least he was a good enough sport to make his theory falsifiable. I for one am going to be hosting a massive 'large chunk of mysticism finally proved as bulls**t' party on jan 1st 2013.
Where as the standard model is the most successful scientific theory we've had to date. And science is to date mans most successful epistemic activity.
So epistemologically the bases are loaded firmly in one direction.
Quote:
We've known since Planck that there is no such thing as a physical reality anyway, so this whole discussion is for naught. It seems that there are no particles..no waves. Only minds.
Uh. What?
_________________
Isaiah Berlin, Liberty, p 177 wrote:
There is no nessisary connection between individual liberty and democratic rule
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Sure, why not?
