Hints of 'time before Big Bang'

[warpus]

What makes it different if it has no basis in observation?

It does - it predicts properties of electrons, protons, etc.

 

[warpus]

Excuse me, but string theory is 100% falsifiable.

 

[uppi]

Excuse me, but string theory is 100% falsifiable.

No, it's not.

At the moment, string theory can predict pretty much everything. That makes it useless for science.

 

[warpus]

No, it's not.

At the moment, string theory can predict pretty much everything. That makes it useless for science.

from wikipedia

Therefore string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion

 

[uppi]

from wikipedia

you missed the rest of the quote:

All string theory models are quantum mechanical, Lorentz invariant, unitary, and contain Einstein's General Relativity as a low energy limit.[31] So to falsify string theory, it suffices to falsify quantum mechanics, Lorentz invariance, or general relativity. Therefore string theory is falsifiable and meets the definition of scientific theory according to the Popperian criterion. However to constitute a convincing potential verification of string theory, a prediction should be specific to it, not shared by any quantum field theory model or by General Relativity.

The author of that passage had to be pretty desperate to use this argument try to give string theory some falsifiability. The scientific value of a theory lies in the new predictions it makes and the falsifiabilty of those. If only the underlying theories are falsifiable and nothing of the theory itself it is worthless and doesn't deserve the title "falsifiable".

This argument on wikipedia is equivalent to the argument that the an omnipotent creator is a valid scientific theory, because it contains the existance of the earth, which is falsifiable and therefore a creator is falsifiable.

 

[warpus]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

 

[uppi]

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

More than you.

 

[warpus]

More than you.

My mom could beat up your dad?

But seriously, equating string theory with belief in God is just silly.

 

[uppi]

But seriously, equating string theory with belief in God is just silly.

I am equating belief in string theory with belief in God and that's not silly:
The evidence for both is about equal and both are equally predictive (they predict everything and nothing). Thus as a scientific theory, both have the same value.

Of course there is a lot of math behind string theory, and for mathematical purposes there is a quite some value pursuing it. But it's scientific value is esentially zero at the moment.

What testable prediction does string theory make, that isn't already made by the current theories?
(and before you repeat your claim about electrons and protons, let me say: no it doeesn't predict that)

 

[Birdjaguar]

But seriously, equating string theory with belief in God is just silly.

String theory is a very elaborate cosmology that is not rooted in observation. I'm sure the mathematics are impressive and skillfully done, but is it a more impressive a cosmology than the Upanishads?

String theory was certainly created using the best science of the day, but using science and math to construct a model does not make the model valid or more valid than a non scientific model based on only observation and thought.

 

[Souron]

String theory is a proposed scientific theory that successfully rectifies the know conflicts in two otherwise established theories. It is therefore better than current established theories in explaining nature. Like any theory it makes predictions and describes nature as different in both makeup and behavior. It also has wide acclaim as being an elegant, that has allowed it to remain popular despite lack of proof. Unfortunately all predictions made by string theory require higher energies or other exotic conditions to disprove.

By contrast belief in God is in direct conflict with the principles of science: in science there are no miracles. It is based on a book that contains multiple provable inaccuracies, and has no other widely acknowledged evidence. It is argued on philosophical merits alone, as if those were held above verifiable fact. It therefore specifically avoids making any definite claims about the behavior of nature.

The two are by no means comparable. If a physicist were to in studying string theory convince himself that the theory must true, it's not that big a deal. It's not totally scientific, but it may be necessary to justify spending time working the theory.

 

[Souron]

What testable prediction does string theory make, that isn't already made by the current theories?
(and before you repeat your claim about electrons and protons, let me say: no it doeesn't predict that)

Supersymmetric particles. We just need to build a particle accelerator big enough to find them. Maybe the LHC is big enough.

By contrast, what hypothetical experiment would prove the existence of God?

 

[uppi]

Supersymmetric particles. We just need to build a particle accelerator big enough to find them. Maybe the LHC is big enough.

Supersymmetry is not a fundamental part of string theory. While most string theories do include SuSy and would indeed be disproven if we wouldn't find it, this would not disprove string theory itself. There are string theories without SuSy. And then there is no real consensus within string theory about the properties of the supersymmetric particles. In string theory experimental data can only show which string theory could be true, not whether it's true itself. That is the problem if you have 10^500 possible solutions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

String theory is a proposed scientific theory that successfully rectifies the know conflicts in two otherwise established theories. It is therefore better than current established theories in explaining nature. Like any theory it makes predictions and describes nature as different in both makeup and behavior. It also has wide acclaim as being an elegant, that has allowed it to remain popular despite lack of proof. Unfortunately all predictions made by string theory require higher energies or other exotic conditions to disprove.

By contrast belief in God is in direct conflict with the principles of science: in science there are no miracles. It is based on a book that contains multiple provable inaccuracies, and has no other widely acknowledged evidence. It is argued on philosophical merits alone, as if those were held above verifiable fact. It therefore specifically avoids making any definite claims about the behavior of nature.

The two are by no means comparable. If a physicist were to in studying string theory convince himself that the theory must true, it's not that big a deal. It's not totally scientific, but it may be necessary to justify spending time working the theory.

Hmmm...Your idea that belief in god is solely the domain of the fundamentalist or other Christians is somewhat arresting. Belief in god is not based on a book. Books, whether they are the bible or one of the other many books thought important by theists, are the way theists have over the years noted things about their belief in god. They are the reference works of religious people, much like journals are the source of scientific papers today. Belief in god does not rest within books, but in the experiences people have. Religious books are explanations of those events and attempts to organize the world in alignment with those experiences.

You seem to be saying that if I make a mathematical prediction about the universe that cannot be proven, it is different (and better) that if I make a experiential or philosophical prediction about the universe that cannot be proven. What if I wrote a long, complicated and generally inaccessible explanation of how reincarnation works and then at the end said: "but we don't have the tools to actually prove it at the moment." Would you accept it as true? If not, why would you accept String theory as anything different? Its mathematics just keeps it internally consistent and aligned with other current scientific processes; it does not prove it or make it more likely to be true any more than adding to the Upanishads using Sanskrit makes the additions true for Hindus.

I've included this material to remind you that sting theory is not a single theory or one that even enjoys an agreed upon set of fundamental assumptions.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/index.html

Today the functions of theory and observation are divided into two distinct communities in physics. Both experiments and theories are much more complex than back in Newton's time. Theorists are exploring areas of Nature in mathematics that technology so far does not allow us to observe in experiments. Many of the theoretical physicists who are alive today may not live to see how the real Nature compares with her mathematical description in their work. Today's theorists have to learn to live with ambiguity and uncertainty in their mission to describe Nature using math.

http://www.superstringtheory.com/basics/basic5.html

There are several ways theorists can build string theories. Start with the elementary ingredient: a wiggling tiny string. Next decide: should it be an open string or a closed string? Then ask: will I settle for only bosons ( particles that transmit forces) or will I ask for fermions, too (particles that make up matter)? (Remember that in string theory, a particle is like a note played on the string.)
If the answer to the last question is "Bosons only, please!" then one gets bosonic string theory. If the answer is "No, I demand that matter exist!" then we wind up needing supersymmetry, which means an equal matching between bosons (particles that transmit forces) and fermions (particles that make up matter). A supersymmetric string theory is called a superstring theory. There are five kinds of superstring theories, shown in the table below.

The final question for making a string theory should be: can I do quantum mechanics sensibly? For bosonic strings, this question is only answered in the affirmative if the spacetime dimensions number 26. For superstrings we can whittle it down to 10. How we get down to the four spacetime dimensions we observe in our world is another story.

If we ask how to get from ten spacetime dimensions to four spacetime dimensions, then the number of string theories grows, because there are so many possible ways to make six dimensions much much smaller than the other four in string theory. This process of compactification of unwanted spacetime dimensions yields interesting physics on its own.
But the number of string theories has also been shrinking in recent years, because string theorists are discovering that what they thought were completely different theories were in fact different ways of looking at the same theory!
This period in string history has been given the name the second string revolution.
And now the biggest rush in string research is to collapse the table above into one theory, which some people want to call M theory, for it is the Mother of all theories.
Stay tuned to this web site, we may someday soon be changing the name to The Official M Theory Web Site!

 

[Souron]

Hmmm...Your idea that belief in god is solely the domain of the fundamentalist or other Christians is somewhat arresting. Belief in god is not based on a book. Books, whether they are the bible or one of the other many books thought important by theists, are the way theists have over the years noted things about their belief in god. They are the reference works of religious people, much like journals are the source of scientific papers today. Belief in god does not rest within books, but in the experiences people have. Religious books are explanations of those events and attempts to organize the world in alignment with those experiences.

Even for those theists who don't believe in holy books, the rest of my argument stands.
There are those that would say that their belief in God stems from holy books an their contents. It also comes from other people believing in God. Neither of these are scientific reasons.

You seem to be saying that if I make a mathematical prediction about the universe that cannot be proven, it is different (and better) that if I make a experiential or philosophical prediction about the universe that cannot be proven. What if I wrote a long, complicated and generally inaccessible explanation of how reincarnation works and then at the end said: "but we don't have the tools to actually prove it at the moment." Would you accept it as true? If not, why would you accept String theory as anything different? Its mathematics just keeps it internally consistent and aligned with other current scientific processes; it does not prove it or make it more likely to be true any more than adding to the Upanishads using Sanskrit makes the additions true for Hindus.

String theory is not just a complicated set of equations. It explains away an inconsistency that exist in current theory. Relativity and Quantum mechanics as currently modeled are simply incompatible, due to how they explain the nature of space time, and the relationship between observer and the observed. String theory rectifies these differences.

That alone does not make it true. But it does make more likely to be true then the current models, which we know to be at least partially false.

 

[Souron]

Supersymmetry is not a fundamental part of string theory. While most string theories do include SuSy and would indeed be disproven if we wouldn't find it, this would not disprove string theory itself. There are string theories without SuSy. And then there is no real consensus within string theory about the properties of the supersymmetric particles. In string theory experimental data can only show which string theory could be true, not whether it's true itself. That is the problem if you have 10^500 possible solutions.

First of all, the number of individual models that fall under the name string theory do not diminish the possible verification or falsification of any one of those models.

Second, I gave the number one example that may be tested the soonest, but there are others. All versions of string theory make predictions about the behavior of relativistic quantum mechanical particles interacting gravitationally. That's the point of string theory: to explain quantum gravity, thereby achieving a complete model of the universe that we currently lack.

 

[Souron]

I am not forgetting anything, as I am not arguing that string theory is true. I am simply saying that string theory has a few more legs to stand on than God, as far as science is concerned.

 

[Perfection]

Certainly it is not like what we experience, but as I said it would seem to be a lesser form of awareness and I would contend that as one moves up the chain of complexity from atoms and molecules to simple life and then to more complex life, the degree of self-awareness" increases.

As far as human made devices go, I would say they fall into a different category because we have created the device to do specific things. Whatever awareness you program into a piece of software, it is more similar to an alarm clock knowing to go off at 6:00 than it is to an elephant touching a dot on its forehead.

Why? Shouldn't things be judged concious by functional ability not origin? I mean your previous statement of "How is recognizing sef from non self not some form of consciousness or awareness?" pretty much ties you to a functionalist account.

File f = new File("me.exe");
FileInputStream fis = new FileInputStream(f);
BufferedInputStream bis = new BufferedInputStream(fis);
DataInputStream dis = new DataInputStream(bis);

if (dis.readLine().substring(14) == ''MZ   ÿÿ") {
System.out.println("It's me!"); {
} else {
System.out.println("Who tf");
}

Lame, it doesn't work for all cases.