Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Why? What exactly does the mystery of the world even mean? Why it was created? Why questions are something we do, as far as we know they are unique to us.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Show

    x=42
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by niya_1995)
    Do we live in a deterministic universe? Give an answer with a basic explanation.
    Make a separate thread for that
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    who da **** made god
    ppl just comin into existence outta nothing dese days
    bull mother****ing ****
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KeepYourChinUp)
    I don't believe in god but if there were a god it would be similar to what you describe. The closest thing I think god would be like is the universe itself, why does the creator of the universe HAVE to be outside the universe, why can't it be the universe?

    If god has always existed or created himself, then the same can be said for the universe meaning the universe is a god. Gods purpose could simply be to create, isn't that what the universe does?
    My thoughts are pretty much this, it's not that I do or do not believe in god, it's that what we describe as god isn't quite what it really is instead it might be something along the lines of energy and forces/interactions in fields.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you 100%. I define God as a superbeing, you're right he probably isn't how most people see him as. I probably can't give my opinion of Heaven and Hell. But if I could it would probably mirror my hell theory. I'm kind of a mixer...I believe in re-incarnation a little bit. I just think its much more believeable espically with the evidence and stories ive read. Solving this God issue won't really prove anything...tbh we will never solve this puzzle because of our lack of understanding were dealing with a superbeing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeetingman)
    I believe in God because I think Science is trying to hard to prove that there isn't a God. So this leads me onto believe there must be a God if Scientists want to prove so badly that there isn't.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Scientists aren't trying hard to prove God's nonexistence. It was realised long ago that God's existence is something that can't be empirically proven or disproven.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    "god exists everywhere and is outside of time"? sounds a lot like he's simply not real.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Explain yourself.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeetingman)
    Christians believe this too!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Hi, I don't know if anyone has already corrected you on this, but I'm pretty sure this is not what Christians believe.
    1) Christians believe God has expectations of us (10 commandments, sermon on the mount etc)
    2) Christians believe God lives both inside and outside of time as they believe he is an imminent God who can communicate with us
    3) the main foundation of Christianity is that God took human form as Jesus Christ and therefore has/had a physical form
    4) Christians do not believe go is just keeping the universe together, they believe in an active God

    Also, on your actual theory, you make God sound like an unthinking, almost non living being, more like a force than a God?? I would be interested to know what your definition of a God is? And does your theory include anything about an afterlife?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zeetingman)
    To begin with my ideas are based on thoughts and a little bit on Christianity. The problem I have with Christianity is that it sort of forces you to believe that this so called creator has laws and that there is eternal punishment for those who aren't christians which seems really unfair. These are just theories I come up with once in a while. This is probably the wrong idea of God but it's just my point of view.
    So if these are just ideas based on your thoughts and you acknowledge they are most likely wrong, does it bother you that your theory is flawed? How much effort would you go through to improve it? Why do you choose not to go with the status quo which is more likely to be correct? Is the main reason you don't want to acknowledge existing theories of God because you don't want to be told what to do? If that is the case, the correctness of the theory means nothing to you, you just don't want to believe in a theory which restricts your current way of life...
 
 
 
Poll
Which pet is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.