String theory, Relativity, and angels
by onacruse 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Sunnygal41
Even tho I have a hard time grasping mathematical concepts, I've always been totally fascinated with science and did well in it. I am awed at the possibilities and discoveries yet to be made. I recently purchased a book called The Mayan Factor.......perhaps some of you are familiar with the Mayans and their incredibly complex understanding of math.......anyways, I believe that existence and all that includes is both incredibly complex and incredibly simple........and that much more is "possible" than we can even imagine or develop theories or concepts for.
Just my two cents,
Terri
-
logansrun
funkyderek,
It's clearly both imaginable and conceivable - but not really likely.
How would you know that it is not likely? Would you care to put a probablity on it?
If these dimensions exist, it seems they are "rolled up" so small that nothing could live in them or travel through them.
And, you've been there, have you? 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.
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.
We are creatures that love to believe that we have everything nicely figured out, or at least the most important things. The theist goes under the assumption that there is a God and a spiritual reality and the atheist is quite comfortable working from a completely materialist paradigm. 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. 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.
A hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.
Bradley
-
Sirona
Bradley
I just want to say: excellent post!
A hundred years from now people will be rather amused at what we believe is not possible.
I agree completely!
Sirona
-
Pleasuredome
100's of years from now, people might have moved on into a different dimension, and would not be able to know what we thought, as this dimension may have 'rolled up'.
-
Terry
The truth of the matter is that ENERGY (a word used commonly and frequently) is merely a concept. It is an abstract scaler inference from an interaction of quantities(of waves or matter).
See how gobblety gook that sounds?
In other words, it goes like this. Somebody give a kid a lollipop and we infer (conclude) they are a nice person who likes children. That quality of "nice" is just an abstract shorthand way of tagging a whole range of potential behaviors and qualities not yet observed.)
Most of the words used by Physicists to describe fundamentals are conceptual descriptions of inference and not ACTUAL things like a strand of macaroni or a toenail clipping or a nosehair.
Take the word FORCE as another example. It describes what causes a change in velocity on a material body. Consequently, a FORCE doesn't exist as a thing hovering over the water or hiding in the basement.
So what?
People who use those words: ENERGY and FORCE tend to misuse them. They become used as a mythical entity like a unicorn or bigfoot. Crackpots throw words around like energy and force without having a clue what they mean. Everybody uses those words and very few really have a handle on the essential concepts involved. As a result the conclusion we often reach when such words are bandied about are mythical.
We know from the research experiments of physicists and theoretical scientists and mathematicians that a new language was needed to allow science to portray what is going on at the molecular (and smaller!) subatomic level. That language was invented for that purpose and it becomes the barrier between non-scientists and scientists. Science becomes, as a result, a Priesthood and Mysterium. The church is born and we become the laity who must have the truths interpreted to us.
SO WHAT IS MY POINT?
Unless we keep close track on where the ACTUAL ends and the POTENTIAL begins we crossover to a new language and a new landscape.
We are in danger of using actual scientific concepts in a grammar metaphorical and not specifically descriptive of actual events.
This has already been evident in religious speech where everyday words like Soul, Spirit, Life, Death, Die etc are transformed into silly putty to be stretched beyond all reckoning to suit any fanciful imagination or doctrine. Should we do this to Science too??
If we are going to talk sciene we SIMPLY CANNOT do it accurately with words. It is MATH that is the language of science. There is no in-between. We are fooling ourselves that meaninful interchange is taking place.
I will use music as an analogy. We can talk all day about music---but, unless we use NOTES on staff paper to demonstrate and listen to the actual acoustic sounds themselves we are in a completely different world than the one music lies in. Music is an interpretion of acoustic phenomena made meaningful on a subjective level.
I hope my thoughts are presented here clearly. We are free to talk about science and physics all day and night; certainly. Let us just not fool ourselves about what level the discussion is taking place on.
Ignore me--I'm a madman. Who let me out of my cage?
Terry
-
Pole
If we are going to talk sciene we SIMPLY CANNOT do it accurately with words. It is MATH that is the language of science. There is no in-between. We are fooling ourselves that meaninful interchange is taking place.
Terry,
I would go even further than that. Take Euclidean geometry. Its fifth axiom was denied without mathematical inconsistency in the 19th century. I mean one guy (Riemann) managed to mathematically prove that two parallel lines may actually meet at some "point" on a spherical surface.
A
B
Can you even "imagine" that A and B meet at one point? And there's a mathematically consistent way of proving it.
So you have to careful when you say that "Math is the language of science". Math is no more an absolute language. Since the beginning of the 20th century there are very few if any axioms. Just postulates. Even in mathematics. Not to mention physics or mechanics. Newtonian mechanics and quantum mechanics require different mathematical models.
As to your linguistic remarks about the use of the metaphor to convey abstract meanings - I agree almost entirely. It's consistent with the current cognitive linguistics theories.
You can challenge a person to try to express any abstract meaning without resorting to metaphor. It's almost impossible. Well, I think I've found one or two examples, but they're irrelevant to this discussion.
Pole
-
logansrun
Terry,
I understood what you said clearly and I agree. I would go further, though. Theoretical physicists are just as in the dark as the layman as to what their mathematical theories actually are like in their ontology. How can anyone get their mind around the fact, and I mean really feel it, that light is both a wave and a particle? Or that electrons "jump" from one orbit to a higher or lower orbit without actually crossing the space in between? Who was it, Arthur Eddington I believe, who said that 'anyone who says they understand quantum physics hasn't really studied it.'?
In the end, we make our own subjective reality. Others can be of assistance, but a truly empirical mindset will go with what we personally experience. If that includes a religious dimension, so be it.
And there's so much we just don't have a damn clue about, even the best and brightest of us.
Bradley
-
frankiespeakin
Logan,
I think this is in agreement with your statements thus far: science has taught us alot about our world,,they can give us a more accurate veiw of it,,but not an absolute accurate veiw of it. All measurements that they take of anything are never absolute but aproximations that can be only as accurate as the medium or instrument they use,, which are getting more and more accurate,, but never approaching absolute. These theories give us a more clearer picture but never the real absolute picture because they always leave more questions to be answered. Will man ever come up with the theory of "everything" they may I can say for sure but I sincerly doubt it.
-
Sunnygal41
Logan/Bradley! I'm soooo proud of you! I agree totally with what you said! But, for added measure, let's add the words of someone else, who in my humble estimation said it so simply, even children could understand:
F: Impossible for a plain yellow pumpkin to become a golden carriage. Impossible for a plain country bumpkin and a prince to join in marriage. And four white mice will never be four white hourses. Such fal-de-rah and fiddle dee dee of courses. Impossible! But the world is full of zanies and fools who don't believe in sensible rules and won't believe what sensible people say.. and because these daft and dewey eyed dopes keep building up impossible hopes impossible things are happening every day!
Terri