My Theory of God

Original post by niya_1995

Btw I think there's some unknown variable within the universe and I think if someone found the formula for the variable and input any value, that could solve the mystery of the world

umm... hasn't the computer already solved for this variable?

Spoiler

Reply 24

Original post by TorpidPhil

I don't think they've lost their marbles with string theory as there are good reasons to believe it but it's meta-physics so it is not going to be empirically verifiable. I study meta-physics so I would have to say they haven't lost their marbles but I assure you all it's not in anywhere near the same league as the "germ theory of disease" for example :wink:

String theory does have experimental predictions, it's just that because of it's subject matter the predictions differ from quantum theory only at very high energy/speeds. Although I really know very little about the subject so I'm happy to be educated on this.

Reply 25

Original post by lerjj

String theory does have experimental predictions, it's just that because of it's subject matter the predictions differ from quantum theory only at very high energy/speeds. Although I really know very little about the subject so I'm happy to be educated on this.

Experimental predictions are great and all but even if they work and they're true and they have great utility it doesn't mean that the explanation as to why these things are predictable is verifiable itself and in the case of string theory they're not as obviously the existence of a multi-verse is not verifiable itself.

Reply 26

Original post by cake face 96

I think the difficulty you are always going to have with metaphysics, is not that we cannot study it, but the human mind is so prone to error that any claim beyond experiment should be treated with suspicion. For me, something like string theory, with the fantastic claims it makes, should be treated as a disease
we are looking to cure, because anything else and we are simply subject to confirmation bias or profound misunderstandings.

Yep. I agree. Personally I think string theory is wrong and very misguided and this goes back to problems of mathematics from the early 19th century that the logical positivists addressed. I think honestly our modern science is too comfortable with its own axioms and assumes too much.

Reply 27

Original post by TorpidPhil

Experimental predictions are great and all but even if they work and they're true and they have great utility it doesn't mean that the explanation as to why these things are predictable is verifiable itself and in the case of string theory they're not as obviously the existence of a multi-verse is not verifiable itself.

That's how science selects things as likely to be true though. Something else would also need to predict those things or else string theory would be the only contender left. I wasn't aware that string theory inherently required a multiverse, just a number of dimensions (11? The variability in this number is a little worrying...)

But basically, in the absence of simpler theories, if string theory makes an experimental prediction that differs from QM (which it does) and this is verified (which is currently impossible), then string theory has to be accepted as 'correct'. In a *slightly* loose sense of the word.

Reply 28

Original post by lerjj

That's how science selects things as likely to be true though. Something else would also need to predict those things or else string theory would be the only contender left. I wasn't aware that string theory inherently required a multiverse, just a number of dimensions (11? The variability in this number is a little worrying...)

But basically, in the absence of simpler theories, if string theory makes an experimental prediction that differs from QM (which it does) and this is verified (which is currently impossible), then string theory has to be accepted as 'correct'. In a *slightly* loose sense of the word.

I appreciate that's how science selects things as true but we are talking meta-physics here. I mean, it's like the question of can science address the existence of God I guess. Yes, it can. It can look at data and extrapolate from it how likely God is to exist. Still, science can never in principle "prove" these points. Not like it has to though... I think my gripe is just that there are several others ways of explaining the phenomena without inferring all the things that people do when they assume string-theory. Even if there were not however the link from the phenomena to string theory is very tenous... I'm not comfortable accepting something so ontologically profound on the evidence we have at the moment.

Well there is no select "string theory" like there's no select "quantum mechanics" everyone agrees about the maths, the predictions and what phenomena they address but everyone interprets them into their meta-physics differently. The question of dimensions overcomes me and I don't know enough to comment about where that is going/why it is going where it is but I know it is definitely contentious. We can accept its predictions as being correct but that doesn't we mean we have to accept that the reasons for its predictions being correct are correct.

Reply 29

Original post by TorpidPhil

I appreciate that's how science selects things as true but we are talking meta-physics here. I mean, it's like the question of can science address the existence of God I guess. Yes, it can. It can look at data and extrapolate from it how likely God is to exist. Still, science can never in principle "prove" these points. Not like it has to though... I think my gripe is just that there are several others ways of explaining the phenomena without inferring all the things that people do when they assume string-theory. Even if there were not however the link from the phenomena to string theory is very tenous... I'm not comfortable accepting something so ontologically profound on the evidence we have at the moment.

Well there is no select "string theory" like there's no select "quantum mechanics" everyone agrees about the maths, the predictions and what phenomena they address but everyone interprets them into their meta-physics differently. The question of dimensions overcomes me and I don't know enough to comment about where that is going/why it is going where it is but I know it is definitely contentious. We can accept its predictions as being correct but that doesn't we mean we have to accept that the reasons for its predictions being correct are correct.

You don't have to, but you are appealing to a series of more complex explanations in not doing so IMO. If Jones shows how a hypothesis would match current evidence, and predict new phenomena which are later shown to be true, it is likely that his hypothesis is correct. In almost all cases that will be the simplest explanation. An example of a more complex explanation that clearly also works would be the God described in this thread, who simply makes everything happen and our inference of the laws of Nature becomes an inductive fallacy.

Reply 30

Original post by lerjj

You don't have to, but you are appealing to a series of more complex explanations in not doing so IMO. If Jones shows how a hypothesis would match current evidence, and predict new phenomena which are later shown to be true, it is likely that his hypothesis is correct. In almost all cases that will be the simplest explanation. An example of a more complex explanation that clearly also works would be the God described in this thread, who simply makes everything happen and our inference of the laws of Nature becomes an inductive fallacy.

I don't see why ontological or practical simplicity correlates with truth. Granted I do see how it correlates with "correct" beliefs.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 31