I watched a program on BBC yesterday, Horizons. For those of you not familiar with Horizons, it's a documentary series which takes a different topic, usually scientific or philosophical, every week.
Anyway, to summarise this particular episode, it was about the holy grail of physics, a theory of everything, sometimes known as a Grand Unified Theory, GUT. This theory must pass several benchmarks, such as unifying gravity with quantum laws, and being able to see past the big bang. String theory, when it was first proposed, seemed to be on the verge of doing this.
It could unify gravity and quantum mechanics, but there were certain problems. Now it seems that string theory was close except for one thing, the number of dimensions. String theory, which dominated the GUT field for the last 20 years or so, made use of 10 dimensions, because with 10 dimensions, the theory was able to unify quantum theory with gravity. The problem was that string theory produced problems, mathematical problems like infinities. A competing theory, supergravity had 11 dimensions. It was found that string theory made sense with 11 dimensions, and this gave rise to a new theory, M-theory, or membrane theory, where the universe is visualised to be a membrane consisting of these strings. Moreover, an infinite number of these universes are possible, floating around in dimensions beyond our perception. If these universes collide, their membranes interact to produce matter in a big bang. These are very recent developments, just the last few years.
I don't know much about this, but I was so strongly affected by this program last night that I'm determined to find out more. It's just so damn profound. I posted this in the Flameboard in case anyone wants an excuse for another heated creation debate. Personally, and I'm not trying to be hostile and adversarial here, I think that once the full ramifications of the theory are understood it will finally put it beyond all doubt that there is no deity. Although it may not prove what there is, and may leave more questions, it will prove the lameness of the Godhead concept.
Here are some links: BBC page about the program. The BBC's site has some links, I think the one below, Dr. Kaku's, is the best if you want a general explanation of what it's all about Dr Michio Kaku's page. (has some very interesting and informative articles on string theory and hyperspace).
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Saw Horizon too last night. Really interesting stuff, I wish they had more time to explain more of it in depth. I am very fascinated by these weird theories on parallel universes and �berdimensions.
Thanks for the links!
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
it will finally put it beyond all doubt that there is no deity
Um... not trying to start an argument here, but that's, by definition, not possible. You can't scientifically prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist, much less something like God, because that'd be proving a universal negative. All you MIGHT do is eliminate the current necessity of God to explain the existence of the universe, due to contradicting physical laws.
Now as to the theory, how DO they get around conservation of energy, anyhow?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A wizard did it.
I read Kaku's book Hyperspace a few years back. I seem to recall that it was rather confusing, but interesting. It's probably a little out-of-date now. Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is a good book for string theory/M-theory. It's more recent, too. I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to learn more about this kind of thing.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:much less something like God, because that'd be proving a universal negative.
Some people are just too connected to their little invisible friends to hold a rational discussion. Go figure.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Zuh?
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
About Greene's book. I bought it and started reading it about a month ago. Just can't get into it right now... So, I'm going to read the 3 or so Trek books I've got backed up and lend the book to my chem teacher. Maybe then I'll be able to get into it. Posted by thoughtcriminal84 (Member # 480) on :
Kaku's book is far more readable than Greene's. But Greene's goes into greater detail.
There's always a barrier between scientist and the general public on things like this. The general public can't really get the full impact until it learns all the necessary math. Since that will never happen...
I respect those guys (and others like them) for even trying to make sense of it all for us.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
I thought there was a lot of Stephen Hawking fans in this board.
Grand Unifed Theory is one of his most important research (beside blackhole of course).
Einstein was also working on it before he passed away.
Basically, to prove the grand unifed theory, one needs to understand the nature of matter down to the molecular level, which involves very complicated quantum mechanics calculation.
In another word, we haven't prove it because our mathmatics are just not there yet.
[ February 16, 2002, 22:10: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Hmm.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
You know, if you do a search for Stephen Hawkin, you get as many results as if you'd searched for Stephen Hawkings or Stephen Hawking. And mightily, there are many a site that has both mentions of Stephen Hawkin and Stephen Hawking.
[ February 16, 2002, 15:58: Message edited by: Ultra Magnus ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm curious whether anyone got it doubly wrong and called him "Stephen Hawkins"...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Actually, I'm going to step in and back up Omega for a second.
He's absolutely right when he says science can never disprove the existence of God. An omnipotent being, by definition, can always exist, no matter what observations tell us. Proof that collisions between hypermembranes caused the big bang which caused our existence is no more likely to disprove the existence of God than proof it was the big bang which caused our existence would.
Posted by Jernau Morat Gurgeh (Member # 318) on :
quote: that's, by definition, not possible. You can't scientifically prove that ANYTHING doesn't exist, much less something like God, because that'd be proving a universal negative.
quote: An omnipotent being, by definition, can always exist, no matter what observations tell us.
Okay, point taken, but that's being a bit pedantic. I guess what I meant was that the theory would make the idea of God seem absurd, much in the same way that believing in elemental gods would now be regarded. Nobody could, or did, disprove the existance of the mythological gods of fire and war etc, but these were gradually rejected as our knowledge of what's around us improved and we became more rational.
quote: Now as to the theory, how DO they get around conservation of energy, anyhow?
What's wrong with conservation of energy?
[ February 18, 2002, 05:29: Message edited by: Jernau Morat Gurgeh ]
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote: I guess what I meant was that the theory would make the idea of God seem absurd, much in the same way that believing in elemental gods would now be regarded.
Nope, still not getting this. For a lot of people today, God has very little to do with trying to explain observable scientific theories. About 95% of the UK's protestant and catholic priests believe in evolution, the big bang, and so on. This theory would no more make God redundent than others. It would only make the idea of God redundent if your belief in God is that he waved his hand and people sprung up.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You cannot prove that No Gods exist, given the varied and potential definitions of "God."
The Deistic version of God is the most unassailable, as that God is totally uninvolved in the workings of the universe. The Deistic God can never fall before the argument from evil, or the free will controversy, for example, because its very nature renders the questions irrelevant.
The more 'active' a God is said to be, the more 'useful attributes' it is supposed to have, the easier it is to debunk, due to the obvious lack of said actions and the conflicts between its supposed existence and the state of the "real world."
Therefore, while the notion of a "God" may be impossible to debunk, individual, specific Gods (like you-know-whos) are much easier to disqualify.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Of course, it seems to me that if our cosmology is designed around a God who never gets involved and plays no role in the universe, we might as well go all the way.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
By defintion set by most religions, God is perfect (with the exception of Buddhism, where there is no God).
So, if God is indeed perfect, then he can do no wrong, which is also stated by most religions.
However, God's creations are flawed because humanity is flawed, more over, the universe is flawed proven by scientific facts (that's right, universe will eventually blow up on itself!).
Therefore, follwoing simple common sense logics, God either doesn't exist, or he's not as powerful as we preceive him to be, and God is just a creation of the universe like the rest the us.
By theory of revolution, God is nothing more then a more evolve species then human.
Which is exactly what Budda suggest. Budda stated that the term "God" is just common folks like you and me who are more "enlightened", and his deeds and study to perfect himself accumulate in the "circle" until finally, he raise above and into a different and higher level.
Budda also stated that we're all equal, Budda and you is equal, you and an ant on the ground is equal, and that eventually, all of us can raise above to a higher meaning of life with time.
That's why Budda doesn't call himself a "God", Budda said that he's here as a "teacher" to teach us his way to perfect yourself. Budda also said that we're the "pupils that's becoming the teachers", suggesting that with the right determination, we'll one day achieve his level.
Budda acknowledge all religions, Buddhism believes that other religions are just different methods of achieving the same final result.
Budda stated that there are "thousands upon thousands" like him in the different universes.
I'm not a relgious man, but if I want to take on a relgion to myself, I choose Buddhism anyday, it is not racial, it is peaceful, it is scientific and the most important of all, it is open to others that's different then itself, unlike ALL OTHER RELIGIONS.
[ February 18, 2002, 16:24: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
"I'm not a religious man...I choose Budaism anyday"
Of course you're not, otherwise you would have known that it is Buddhism and therefore, Buddha, that you may have just been talking about.
Unless you're referring to this. Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Ultra Magnus is a superhero.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
So what if I got the translation wrong.
"Buddhism" originate from India but was forgotten by Indian people.
It was later on brought to China, where it flourish and become a major religion in the Asian area.
The way I see it, the word "Buddhism" is just a poorly translated word done by English speaking population.
[ February 18, 2002, 18:24: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Don't pay UM any mind. He just likes poking fun at people.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"So, if God is indeed perfect, then he can do no wrong, which is also stated by most religions.
"However, God's creations are flawed because humanity is flawed, more over, the universe is flawed proven by scientific facts (that's right, universe will eventually blow up on itself!).
"Therefore, follwoing simple common sense logics, God either doesn't exist, or he's not as powerful as we preceive him to be, and God is just a creation of the universe like the rest the us."
Of course, this arguement bases itself upon the unfounded assumption that the deity in question was not trying to make an imperfect universe.
Basically any arguement of the form "[insert deity] can't exist because of [insert imperfection]" can be countered w/ "[insert deity] wanted it to be that way".
You can't even validly prove that I'm not a god. If you tell me to prove that I'm a god, I can just say "I don't want to". If you do something extreme like shooting me the head, the arguement could be made that I'm only letting you think I'm dead, because I don't want to show that I'm a god.
So, technically, it is true that there is no way to prove that no gods exist. However, if such gods have no influence on anything, it doesn't really matter.
Posted by BlueElectron (Member # 281) on :
Science exist as physical facts.
Religions are pass through generation through "words of mouth".
Scientific data can be proven through experiments at any given time by request, where religion cannot.
"Faith" is an very important concept for religion, a person who's religious is said to have "faith" because religion cannot be proven, and therefore a person is asked to "blindly trust" a God when he joined a perticular relgion.
The hypothesis here is that "God does exist", therefore debate here should be for the religious crowd proving that God does exist to the hard-science population (such as me), and not the other way around.
[ February 18, 2002, 19:55: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
And, in addition to what Tim said, there are those philosophers (Leibniz, for example) who would say that the universe that exists is in fact the best of all possible worlds, and that the fact we fail to see it as such is our own fault. Or rather, a problem in our nature.
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
In a native Californian tribe, they believed that everything was a manifestation of God and connected by a complex network of energy and matter. If a point on this network is impacted by an event, then other portions of this network are also impacted. Think of the ripple effect as being equivalent to throwing a stone into a still pond.
I agree wholeheartedly with this belief.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...debate here should be for the religious crowd proving that God does exist..."
![[Smile]](smile.gif)