String Theory, Extra Dimensions, other, your views?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SapientiaEtAmor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SapientiaEtAmor said:
Hello!

What are your views on String theory and extra dimensions? I just find them to be more proof of how beautiful and how complex God is. I know they technically only exist on paper because they have not been proven, but say they are proven… What are your views?
Click to expand...
Theories aren’t proof of anything. But these are more like science fiction - which mean nothing. Physics has reached the state where all the theoriaticians should all go out and get real jobs farming or plumbing - anything to get their heads out of the clouds.

Linus2nd
 
Like the Sirens of Greek mythology, beautiful women that lured sailors with captivating music to their destruction on the rocky coast, the search for the theory of everything (TOE) has lured theoretical physics into a mathematical morass of soul sapping complexity of string theory. God is simple my friends! He does not need complexity to generated complexity, God uses simplicity.

IMHO science in general and physics in particular can extract itself from the morass of string theory with four assumptions:
  1. The space that defines the dimension of the universe is discrete not continuous
  2. The dynamics of reality is based on information not energy
  3. Reality can only be completely explained algorithmically not mathematically.
  4. God creates and sustains at a deeper level of reality than that which we experience and science describes.
Since, mathematics explains only a part of science and science explains only a part of reality, science should give up the mathematical search for the TOE and go down the path that much of the practice of science is already following, namely, algorithms. However successful science is in describing what we observe as objective reality, it will never explain subjective, rational, and transcendental reality without accepting the presence of a spiritual component of reality.

Yppop
 
Well I just wanted to say thank you to all who have responded!
 
As others have noted, it’s debatable whether or not String Theory is even testable, so its name is a misnomer; it is not a theory. In fact, if it truly isn’t testable, it isn’t even a hypothesis, but rather a mathematical model. That isn’t meant to be a criticism of models, it’s just to make sure we’re all on the same page as far as terminology is concerned.

How do I feel about extra dimensions? This truly will reflect only my feelings since I know very little about String Theory. If there is indeed a theory of everything, I would find it aesthetically pleasing if it were simple. Extra dimensions would complicate matters in some respects, but it does have the advantage of unifying the fundamental forces. So whether or not it simplifies things depends on your perspective.

What I dislike most about String Theory is, according to what I’ve read, there are a large number (albeit a finite number) of possible versions of the theory that explain the data equally well. This makes me feel as if any version we choose will be selected arbitrarily, and I’m not a fan of the arbitrary.
 
String theory may not be testable, but it’s a young theory yet. If all the string theorists become plumbers, who’s going to work on grand unification theory and the big TOE? Somebody has to do it! We can’t just wait till Schrodinger’s cat dies of old age!
 
yppop said:
Like the Sirens of Greek mythology, beautiful women that lured sailors with captivating music to their destruction on the rocky coast, the search for the theory of everything (TOE) has lured theoretical physics into a mathematical morass of soul sapping complexity of string theory. God is simple my friends! He does not need complexity to generated complexity, God uses simplicity.
Click to expand...
That I agree.
yppop said:
IMHO science in general and physics in particular can extract itself from the morass of string theory with four assumptions:
  1. The space that defines the dimension of the universe is discrete not continuous
Click to expand...
I think we have to understand what space is. The space is necessity that exist within universal consciousness to allow forms to be perceived. I do think that the form within space is a fractal.
yppop said:
  1. The dynamics of reality is based on information not energy
Click to expand...
It does depend on consciousness which is the state of knowledge rather than information.
yppop said:
  1. Reality can only be completely explained algorithmically not mathematically.
Click to expand...
I don’t think if reality could be explained algorithmically unless free will is an illusion.
yppop said:
  1. God creates and sustains at a deeper level of reality than that which we experience and science describes.
Click to expand...
So called universal consciousness which is different from individuals consciousness.
yppop said:
Since, mathematics explains only a part of science and science explains only a part of reality, science should give up the mathematical search for the TOE and go down the path that much of the practice of science is already following, namely, algorithms. However successful science is in describing what we observe as objective reality, it will never explain subjective, rational, and transcendental reality without accepting the presence of a spiritual component of reality.

Yppop
Click to expand...
I agree with that part by which that spirituality means the existence of consciousness.
 
Bahman said:
That I agree.

I think we have to understand what space is. The space is necessity that exist within universal consciousness to allow forms to be perceived. I do think that the form within space is a fractal.

It does depend on consciousness which is the state of knowledge rather than information.

I don’t think if reality could be explained algorithmically unless free will is an illusion.

So called universal consciousness which is different from individuals consciousness.

I agree with that part by which that spirituality means the existence of consciousness.
Click to expand...
Bahman
I prefer to have this discussion on your conscious thread; I shouldn’t have sent you to this thread to read my 4 assumptions. I should have copied them to my post #15 on your Consciousness thread. Could we go back to that thread?. Please answer the first two questions in my post #15: “Do you really know what your post implies? Or is it a stand-alone thought that came to mind during a period of deep reflection?”

If the answer to the first is yes, please elaborate. If no, the answer to the second must be yes and if you like I will tell you how I think my 4 assumptions relate to your OP (#1).

The ball is in your court.
Yppop
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top