Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   String Theory: Science or Philosophy
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 34 (171841)
12-28-2004 1:38 AM


String Theory is the theory of everything, finally uniting the large world and the quantum world, uniting gravity with the other force (electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force combined, though I don't remember the name of the combined force or anything as to how the three forces were combined), and explaining things on a macro and micro level. However, it is impossible to see an actual string, and thus impossible to prove String Theory. This raises the question: Is String Theory science or philosophy? If this topic is approved, I'll introduce my theory as to how String Theory conforms to the philosophy of Kant by establishing itself as a categorical imperative.

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


Message 2 of 34 (171894)
12-28-2004 12:51 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 34 (171918)
12-28-2004 2:15 PM


Kant touch this
String Theory is a categorical imperative and would thus fall under the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
1: Understanding and Reason
A: Understanding
Understanding is when we take what we have learned from experiences and the senses and turn this data into concepts and ideas. It doesn't create ideas, it just forms them from what knowledge we have. This is exactly what has happened concerning the theories leading up to string theory.
Whether it's Newton's Law of Gravity, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, or any other theory that helped form the groundwork for String Theory, we can see that all of these previous theories were derived from previous knowledge and experiences, and confirmed by experiments. The reason why all of these fall into Understanding is that such theories are conditional.
Before String Theory we had two separate sets of laws: one for the large world, and one for the quantum world. Neither set of laws could work in the other world, so neither was absolute.
B: Reason
Reason takes the concepts and ideas we have formed from understanding and points them to a big idea, which is absolute, unconditional, and independent of experience. This is called a categorical imperative. String Theory is the theory of everything. It will always work, whether it's in the quantum world or the larger world. Thus, String Theory is an absolute truth, and therefore is a categorical imperative.
2: Further Similarities
A: The Nature of a Categorical Imperative
Reason allows us to think about absolutes, but it doesn't grant us knowledge about these absolutes. Likewise, we can learn String Theory, but we'll never understand exactly why strings conform to this theory, and why they couldn't just be governed by a different set of laws. We can never see an actual string, either, since even the particles that our eyes process to produce an image are made of strings. We don't know why strings act how they do, and we can never prove their existence by traditional methods. We can only learn that they exist through Reason.
B: Other Sources of Morality
Categorical imperatives must come through Reason. Other factors, like society, personal feelings, and emotion, can't determine categorical imperatives. Indeed, String Theory is true despite what society, our feelings, and God may say.
3: String Theory and Moral Law
String Theory IS moral law. String Theory is the theory of everything, so everything is governed by String Theory. Any action is moral because ultimately every particle involved in any action behaves according to the laws of String Theory.
I'll admit that my knowledge of Kant's categorical imperative is probably better than my knowledge of String Theory, so if I left out anything important, let me know.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-26-2005 07:27 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 2:29 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 7 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 3:26 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 21 by NosyNed, posted 01-01-2005 12:21 AM commike37 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 4 of 34 (171921)
12-28-2004 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by commike37
12-28-2004 2:15 PM


Just one thing.....string theory is..as far as I know yet not complete in it's unifying gravity and quantum mechanics. The mathmatic models are not yet fully developed, at least from what I read in Brian Greenes' book The Elegant Universe . Also I thought that there were several versions of String Theory..some called Super String Theory,, String theory..etc.. So If I am not mistaken the only problem with your proposition is that String theory is not yet been accepted as " the Theory of Everything".

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 2:15 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 2:36 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 34 (171923)
12-28-2004 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 2:29 PM


Thanks for reminding me the name of that three-part series I watched in AP Physics class. It was a three part series called "The Elegant Universe" (also by Greene) originally hosted on PBS (I'm not 100% sure it's PBS), and now available on videotape. I remember something in the third part about M-theory, which resolved the problem of five different string theories. Well, regardless of whether it's M- or String- Theory, or whether or not it's complete, the ultimate goal when it's complete is the law of everything (also a categorical imperative according to my argument).
This message has been edited by commike37, 12-28-2004 14:44 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 2:29 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 2:54 PM commike37 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 6 of 34 (171924)
12-28-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by commike37
12-28-2004 2:36 PM


M-theory fundamentals are yet still UNKNOWN. Based on unknown eleven-dimensional theory. If you have data or evidence that does show M-theory fundamentals that show evidence of Mbranes or SST showing confirmation of the gravation by all means please list your source. edit to add And claim your Nobel Prize as well .
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-28-2004 14:55 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 2:36 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 5:10 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 7 of 34 (171931)
12-28-2004 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by commike37
12-28-2004 2:15 PM


commike37 writes:
we can see that all of these previous theories were derived from previous knowledge and experiences and confirmed by experiments.
Not true, Einstein’s theory of relativity was original and untested. He went totally against the status quo in this regard. Light up until Einstein was thought to propagate as a wave through ether. Einstein had the balls to say 'there is no ether".
Categorical imperatives and Kantian arguments were refuted by the British empiricist , David Hume being one. He argued that categorical imperatives are imagined, there are no absolutes.
commike37 writes:
String Theory IS Moral law.
Morality is subjective. There is no objective morality IMO.
Sting theory is simply mathematical calisthenics used to attempt to merge GR and find the graviton, by using strings of Planks length as the fundamental element with tremendous tension to vibrate into existence the fundamental particles of reality.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-26-2005 07:32 AM

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 2:15 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 5:04 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 34 (171952)
12-28-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 3:26 PM


1.61803 writes:
Not true, Einstiens theory of relativativy was original and untested. He went totally against the status quo in this regard. Light up until Einstien was thought to propagate as a wave through ether. Einstien had the balls to say 'there is no ether".
If Einstein's theory of relativity is untested, then that puts String Theory on even shakier ground as science.
1.61803 writes:
Categorical imperatives and Kantian arguments were refuted by the British empiricist , David Hume being one. He argued that categorical imperatives are imagined, there are no absolutes
1. I'd like you to refute the categorical imperative, not Hume.
2. If String Theory is a philosophy of the categorical imperative (as I'm arguing), and categorical imperatives are disproved, then String Theory is a false philosphy.
1.61803 writes:
Morality is subjective. There is no objective morality IMO.
Sting theory is simply mathmatical calastintics used to attempt to merge GR and find the graviton, by using strings of Plankes length as the fundelmental element with tremedous tension to vibrate into existance the fundlemental particles of reality.
1. Establish why morality is subjective.
2. I've said that String Theory is more than simple calculations because of its similarities to the categorical imperative. The point is that these "mathematical calastintics" aren't just describing some random law, they're describing the theory of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 3:26 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by gnojek, posted 02-25-2005 5:24 PM commike37 has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 34 (171953)
12-28-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 2:54 PM


1.61803 writes:
M-theory fundamentals are yet still UNKNOWN. Based on unknown eleven-dimensional theory. If you have data or evidence that does show M-theory fundamentals that show evidence of Mbranes or SST showing confirmation of the gravation by all means please list your source. edit to add And claim your Nobel Prize as well .
You're missing the point that whether it's M- or string theory, whether or not Mbranes or SST exist, the final goal is still the same, and this goal when accomplished will likely be claimed to be a scientific achievement. I'm arguing that String Theory is not science, but philosophy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 2:54 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 8:51 PM commike37 has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 10 of 34 (171996)
12-28-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by commike37
12-28-2004 5:10 PM


on shakey ground...
I agree, string theory as many current theories can be described as a phylosophy.
As far as an objective morality goes verses subjective. Well that gets into metaphysics and dualism and a whole host of topics that are off topic. Suffice it to say morality is based on society IMO and not on some invisiable or supernatural thing called morality. **edit to add: The theory of General Relativity mathmatically is a SOUND theory and was presented as such by Einstien. No shakey ground except for your facts about String Theory and M theory being the current Theory of everything.
This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-28-2004 21:02 AM

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by commike37, posted 12-28-2004 5:10 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by commike37, posted 12-29-2004 5:52 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 34 (172149)
12-29-2004 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by 1.61803
12-28-2004 8:51 PM


Re: on shakey ground...
First off, looking to general relativity, I did some research and found out that it was pretty much accepted when it made an accurate prediction about light being bent by the sun. So in that aspect it has been verified by traditional methods. But my concern is that String Theory, in its final form, may be used to claim that science has proven that there is no God, only strings. However, the question is whether String Theory is science or philosophy? I believe it's philosophy, and my comparison to the categorical imperative could be considered of an extension of what Sheldon Glaslow (winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics) said:
NOVA | The Elegant Universe | Sheldon Glashow | PBS
"So the nature of the quest to form a theory of all of the forces of nature, including gravity, drives on to a domain of energies and distances that is inaccessible to the experiment. No experiment can ever check up what's going on at the distances that are being studied. No observation can relate to these tiny distances or high energies. All we can do is look at the distant consequences, 10 or 20 orders of magnitude removed from these effects.
The string theorists have a theory that appears to be consistent and is very beautiful, very complex, and I don't understand it. It gives a quantum theory of gravity that appears to be consistent but doesn't make any other predictions. That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?"
We can test and prove single, limited theories like gravity, but can we test and prove and unconditional, absolute theory such as String Theory? You can prove a certain experience, but you really can't prove an absolute. That is why String Theory is philosophy.
And if only strings exist, then morality must be dictated by strings. Even if morality is dictated by society, as you say, even society, when broken down, is composed of one thing: strings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by 1.61803, posted 12-28-2004 8:51 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2004 8:01 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 12-30-2004 1:28 PM commike37 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 34 (172164)
12-29-2004 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by commike37
12-29-2004 5:52 PM


Muddled thinking
That is to say, there ain't no experiment that could be done nor is there any observation that could be made that would say, "You guys are wrong." The theory is safe, permanently safe. I ask you, is that a theory of physics or a philosophy?"
This is all very muddled.
I don't know what meaning of "philosophy" you guys are using but I'd like you to articulate that and spell out how string theory is a philosophy.
String theory is, at present, somewhwere between a speculation and an untested hypothosis. If it remains untestable it will never be the last word on anything much less a theory on the same level as gravity or the ToE.
No observation can relate to these tiny distances or high energies. All we can do is look at the distant consequences, 10 or 20 orders of magnitude removed from these effects.
Yea, so? If the consequences can only be explained and/or predicted by a particular model (M-theory or string theory) then that is supporting evidence for it. Also what is possible to test directly today may or may not remain that way. We already do things that correspond to testing the core of a supernova and even approach the big bang (quark plasma). We'll wait and see what is and is not testable. As I said if it truely is untestable then it won't be a very satisfactory model.
It may well be that we are starting to bump up against intrinsic limits on what we can ultimately know. However, our track record so far suggests not placing too large a bet that the limits have been reached yet.
If we are limited then the answer will remain as it is now --- we don't know. An answer that has, historically, been the carrot that those of us who are truely curious can not resist. And an answer that has lead to new knowledge over and over.
I find it amusing that there are so many here who want to bet on some other approach to learning things that has been discredited over and over. Then they choose to pick on the very farthest leading edges of the sciences as an example of the limits of science. These very limits are far beyond what could have conceivably been imagined in the little, constrained universes they occupy. Then they make pronouncements about then like "unconditional,absolute" without knowing anything about the science in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by commike37, posted 12-29-2004 5:52 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by commike37, posted 12-29-2004 10:23 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 34 (172184)
12-29-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
12-29-2004 8:01 PM


Re: Muddled thinking
I don't know what meaning of "philosophy" you guys are using but I'd like you to articulate that and spell out how string theory is a philosophy.
If you want to know what I mean by philosophy, then why don't you read message 3, which explains the similarity between String Theory and Kant's categorical imperative.
Yea, so? If the consequences can only be explained and/or predicted by a particular model (M-theory or string theory) then that is supporting evidence for it. Also what is possible to test directly today may or may not remain that way. We already do things that correspond to testing the core of a supernova and even approach the big bang (quark plasma). We'll wait and see what is and is not testable. As I said if it truely is untestable then it won't be a very satisfactory model.
You can test a single thing like gravity, but can you test everything? If you could find a gravitron as String Theory describes it, you could prove the part of String Theory in relation to gravity true, but the rest of String Theory remains to be proven. The fact is, an a priori theory can not be proven a priori.
edit: Let me rephrase, an a priori theory can never be scientifically proven a priori. Philosophically it could.
This message has been edited by commike37, 12-29-2004 22:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 12-29-2004 8:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 14 of 34 (172293)
12-30-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by commike37
12-29-2004 5:52 PM


Re: on shakey ground...
commike37 writes:
But my concern is that String Theory, in its final form, may be used to claim that science has proven that there is no God, only strings.
Science IMO will never make such a claim that there is no God, Science only deals with methods that can be tested,verified and repeated independantly regardless of who conducts the experiment. It is theist that make extravagant claims that are continually found erroneous by scientific inquiry. The existance of God or non existance of God as far as science is concerned is superfulous.IMO.
commike37 writes:
However, the question is whether String Theory is science or philosophy? I believe it's philosophy,
By definition String theory is science. It is not something just postulated, the mathmatics of the theory is although complicated the equations are worked out by a whole host of physicist that come up with the same answers. I understand how one can "describe" some of the concepts of advance theories of cosmology as phlosophy, but that is a metaphor, not a fact. IMO.
As far as String theory having anything to do with morality or any other scientific theory for that matter is just silly IMO.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by commike37, posted 12-29-2004 5:52 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by commike37, posted 12-30-2004 3:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
commike37
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 34 (172317)
12-30-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by 1.61803
12-30-2004 1:28 PM


Re: on shakey ground...
1.61803 writes:
Science IMO will never make such a claim that there is no God,
If evolution is true, then Genesis 1 is false. Science is not directly aimed at disproving religion, but people often use it as a means to disprove religion. My concern is that people will do the same with String Theory.
1.61803 writes:
By definition String theory is science.
You talked about how methods must be tested, verified, and repeated independently no matter who tests them, but that leads to the key question: Can String Theory even be tested in the first place?
1.61803 writes:
As far as String theory having anything to do with morality or any other scientific theory for that matter is just silly IMO.
I'm saying that such morality would have to hold true if the world was only composed of strings, and nothing more. The true question is whether or not you want to accept the premise that there are only strings, and nothing else (perhaps God or whatever you think that something else is)? If the answer is no, then you don't have to adhere to such morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by 1.61803, posted 12-30-2004 1:28 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by 1.61803, posted 12-30-2004 4:18 PM commike37 has replied
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 12-30-2004 4:55 PM commike37 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024