String theory, Relativity, and angels

by onacruse 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

funkyderek

logansrun,
How would you know that it is not likely? Would you care to put a probablity on it?
I certainly can't put a numerical probability on the existence of "hyper-dimensional life". However, the probability that the "extra" dimensions described in string theory could support anything complicated enough to fit any useful definition of life is vanishingly small.
It was not my intention to sound dogmatic. In an infinite universe (or multiverse) anything that can be imagined and can't be disproved must be assigned a non-zero probability. But the theories being discussed don't easily lead to the conclusions postulated.
If you are refferring to biological life your statement would make sense, since these dimensions are far smaller than organic molecules. But what if life can also be arranged in a completely different manner, one that is wholly unlike anything that we can presently imagine.
I thought the term "life" was being used in some real sense. If you're expanding it to include things "unlike anything that we can presently imagine" then, of course, all bets are off. If your definitions are suitably vague, anything you want can be true.
They are not gateways to other realities or sci-fi type "dimensions".
First you say that onacruse's philosophical speculation is "clearly both imaginable and conceivable" and then you make the categorical statement as I have copied above. You meant to say that you do not currently believe that the extra dimensions of string theory are gateways to other realities, and that modern science has yet to give us reason to believe so. It would be rather unscientific to feign knowledge in the absence of evidence one way or the other.
OK, what I should have said is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to believe this to be the case, nor is there any evidence for it, nor is it possible under the rules of any useful theory nor is it considered likely by experts in the field. Perhaps I should add this caveat to everything I say.
The fact of the matter is that there is so much we simply to not understand and it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim as reality that which is only speculation as well as dismiss as unreal what is only imaginatively hypothetical.
Agreed, but that does not mean giving the same weight to completely fanciful constructs as to theoretically plausible scenarios
Science is, and should be, a conservative enterprise, but it is interesting to note that many of the great advances in our knowledge have come from those who pushed the boundaries of what is "proper" science. Not too long ago anyone who might have described subatomic reality the way modern quantum physicists do would have been laughed at with derision and been proclaimed a believer in the occult.
It is, of course, important to remember that nobody just woke up one day and decided to invent quantum physics. There were leaps of imagination, certainly, but anything without a strong theoretical basis would have been given short shrift; and without evidence would have been rejected. The evidence supporting quantum theory is so strong, however, that despite its apparent paradoxes and the difficulties the human brain has grasping it, it is universally accepted.
A hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.
And most likely, at what we believe is possible. They will probably laugh heartily at those who tried to combine quantum physics with eastern mysticism and those who misuse words like "force" "energy" and "dimension" to lend support to their pet theories.
LittleToe

ROFLMAO in a good way.
Derek, your turn of phrase is absolutely delicious!!!
You should write for a living, or at least beer money!
Frankie:
Actually when you think of it you always need the opposite for either one to exists,, "Nothing" would not exist unless "Something" did,, and "Something" would not exist unless "Nothing" did.
That sounds familiar. It's similar to the basis of the "Father / Son" debate.
logansrun

funkyderek,
How would you know that it is not likely? Would you care to put a probablity on it?
I certainly can't put a numerical probability on the existence of "hyper-dimensional life". However, the probability... is vanishingly small.
It was not my intention to sound dogmatic. In an infinite universe (or multiverse) anything that can be imagined and can't be disproved must be assigned a non-zero probability. But the theories being discussed don't easily lead to the conclusions postulated.
Actually, what has been discussed has not even been theory but imaginative speculation. Progress in knowledge starts when we brainstorm the possibilities, even if they are "far out." To automatically dismiss unusual ideas is a sure way to stay mired in our current understanding of things. Sometimes we have to temporarily suspend our disbelief and preconceived ideas so as to recognize the possible. Groupthink pervades some scientific circles as well as religious ones.
If you are refferring to biological life your statement would make sense, since these dimensions are far smaller than organic molecules. But what if life can also be arranged in a completely different manner, one that is wholly unlike anything that we can presently imagine.
I thought the term "life" was being used in some real sense. If you're expanding it to include things "unlike anything that we can presently imagine" then, of course, all bets are off. If your definitions are suitably vague, anything you want can be true.
And if your conclusions are already formed anything you don't want to be true won't be possible.
OK, what I should have said is that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no reason to believe this to be the case, nor is there any evidence for it, nor is it possible under the rules of any useful theory nor is it considered likely by experts in the field. Perhaps I should add this caveat to everything I say.
No, just to unsubstantiated dogmatic claims.
The fact of the matter is that there is so much we simply to not understand and it would be the height of arrogance to proclaim as reality that which is only speculation as well as dismiss as unreal what is only imaginatively hypothetical.
Agreed, but that does not mean giving the same weight to completely fanciful constructs as to theoretically plausible scenarios
Who said I, or anyone else, gives the "angels in other dimensions" idea the same weight as established scientific fact? Nonetheless, to automatically discount the idea, or even a small part of the idea, as silly or dumb, which you insinuate, is not good.
Science is, and should be, a conservative enterprise, but it is interesting to note that many of the great advances in our knowledge have come from those who pushed the boundaries of what is "proper" science. Not too long ago anyone who might have described subatomic reality the way modern quantum physicists do would have been laughed at with derision and been proclaimed a believer in the occult.
It is, of course, important to remember that nobody just woke up one day and decided to invent quantum physics. There were leaps of imagination, certainly, but anything without a strong theoretical basis would have been given short shrift; and without evidence would have been rejected. The evidence supporting quantum theory is so strong, however, that despite its apparent paradoxes and the difficulties the human brain has grasping it, it is universally accepted.
And it is important to remember that some scientific ideas have been bitterly opposed, even with full knowledge of the data supporting the idea. Einstein never liked, or believed in, quantum physics; his famous phrase, "God does not play dice" comes from this fact. Lynn Margulis's endosymbiotic theory in biology was laughed at by numerous people, and only years later was accepted by the scientific establishment. There are countless other examples that could be given. For an excellent essay on some of the inherent difficulties in the scientific establishment see Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
A hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.
And most likely, at what we believe is possible. They will probably laugh heartily at those who tried to combine quantum physics with eastern mysticism and those who misuse words like "force" "energy" and "dimension" to lend support to their pet theories.
So we're at a toss up then. They'll laugh at Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins. Wonderful! Bradley
Sunnygal41

Actually, what has been discussed has not even been theory but imaginative speculation. Progress in knowledge starts when we brainstorm the possibilities, even if they are "far out." To automatically dismiss unusual ideas is a sure way to stay mired in our current understanding of things. Sometimes we have to temporarily suspend our disbelief and preconceived ideas so as to recognize the possible. Groupthink pervades some scientific circles as well as religious ones.

Whew! (wiping brow) Glad you see that! I have a rich "fantasy" and "imaginative" world.........I try to be as open as possible to all that might be...........some people call people like me a dreamer.........or illogical...............but, I know that I have value AS a dreamer.
Terri
logansrun

Sunnygal,
As you no doubt have noticed, my thoughts on this matter have changed over time. Keep in mind, though, that although it is good to be open-minded you do run the risk of your brain falling out.
There's a great line by psychologist Gordon Allport who said to 'be aware of what you choose to overlook' or something to that effect. I think it's healthy to shift our mental outlooks from time to time, if for no other reason than to experience variety!
Bradley
Elsewhere

Actually when you think of it you always need the opposite for either one to exists,, "Nothing" would not exist unless "Something" did,, and "Something" would not exist unless "Nothing" did.

lol! You actually bring up a very good point! More and more mathematicians and physicist are starting to think that it is impossible for the condition of Nothing ( or Zero) to exist. Basically this means that the universe was forced to come into existence by the simple fact that nature cannot tolerate nothingness... it is impossible for the universe to not exist.
A great book to read on the subject is Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by Charles Seife.
SixofNine

I think we're seeing the difference between a smart man comfortably in a relationship, vs a smart man who would like to get laid at least once more in his life. :-D Ahhh, sweet biology!
LittleToe

Six:
Which is which????
Sunnygal41

As you no doubt have noticed, my thoughts on this matter have changed over time.
Yes, Brad, I have indeed noticed the change..........and it makes me very happy! Also, LMAO at your brain falling out comment........sometimes that can be a good thing! Not all the time, tho. Somewhere in the middle..........balance..........that's a good place to be............
funkyderek

I certainly can't put a numerical probability on the existence of "hyper-dimensional life". However, the probability... is vanishingly small.

That hardly seems a fair use of an ellipsis. Have you been reading the Creation book?
Actually, what has been discussed has not even been theory but imaginative speculation.
But it purported to be based on current theory.. The question "Do angels exist?" is very different from the question "Does superstring theory lend any support to the idea that angels exist?" While neither question was explicitly asked, it is clear that I was answering the latter.
Progress in knowledge starts when we brainstorm the possibilities, even if they are "far out."
And it continues when we have a method for estimating the relative merits of various possibilities - and use it.
To automatically dismiss unusual ideas is a sure way to stay mired in our current understanding of things.
Agreed. And to automatically accept them is just as foolish, perhaps more so.
Sometimes we have to temporarily suspend our disbelief and preconceived ideas so as to recognize the possible.
OK, so everything's possible. Now what do we do?
Groupthink pervades some scientific circles as well as religious ones.
It's part of human nature, and while useful in hunter-gatherer societies, can make for slow progress in fields such as science, religion and ethics.
And if your conclusions are already formed anything you don't want to be true won't be possible.
Not if the conclusions are held tentatively, as they should be. A rational person who has drawn conclusions will normally change them when presented with a good reason to do so. The "groupthink" that sometimes affects the scientific establishment is a consequence of the fact that we are not entirely rational beings.
Who said I, or anyone else, gives the "angels in other dimensions" idea the same weight as established scientific fact? Nonetheless, to automatically discount the idea, or even a small part of the idea, as silly or dumb, which you insinuate, is not good.
I insinuated nothing of the sort. It remains, however, that there is nothing in string theory that would cause a rational person to start believing in angels. It does not in any way lend support to, or strengthen the idea of the existence of angels.
So we're at a toss up then. They'll laugh at Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins. Wonderful!
Most people now laugh at Deepak Chopra. In a hundred years time, he'll likely be just another forgotten snake-oil salesman. Richard Dawkins will probably still be respected as a scientist, writer and champion of rational thought even if some of his ideas don't stand the test of time.

String theory, Relativity, and angels

Share this