On 1/7/2011 3:00 PM, Warp wrote:
>    However, which observation or measurement is string theory based on?
> As I said, I know next to nothing about it, but it just sounds to me
> like string theory is based on *nothing* at all. It just throws a big
> bunch of extra dimensions from nowhere, based on no measurement,
> observation or other rational justification, and builds up a huge
> bunch of random hypotheses based on these unfounded assumptions.
> It almost sounds like the foundations of string theory is not on actual
> measurements but on philosophical assertions. For example, the assertion
> of 10 dimensions might have a *logical* foundation, but it's more of a
> philosophical foundation than one based on actual measurements and
> observations. It sounds more like metaphysics (in the philosophical
> sense) than real physics.
>
>    And why is it even called "string theory"? Shouldn't the proper term
> be "string hypothesis"? String "theory" is *not* backed up by a wide
> variety of observations, measurements, repeateable tests, correct
> predictions and general acceptance in the scientific community.
>
I would argue that, in principle, "computer science" was much the same 
at one point. While much of it is based on very basic concepts, and 
math, there are adjuncts to it, like reversable instructions (the idea 
being that its less costly to "undo" some things, in terms of heat and 
power use, than to completely replicate an entire set of processes, when 
only one step in the whole process differs), and others, which are 
logically consistent, but.. even the stuff working "in" the computer you 
have in front of you, would have, at some point, been "untestable", in 
the sense that you couldn't grab the nearest tree, and look for running 
computer code in it.

Fractal math is similar. The "real world" is a lot like your description 
of how DNA works. While you can mathematically replicate any structure, 
how/if that structure forms in the real world is dependent on everything 
from resource availability to collisions with *other* formula, if you 
will. The math may be the same, but the constraints are radically 
different, and the devil in the details is that, even if you know how 
something *should have* formed, based on the rules, you can't be sure 
the end result will be a perfect replication of those same rules. In 
fact, it never is.

So.. String theory may not be able to produce predictions for "this" 
universe, but it might have a ability to, without knowing the precise 
constraints needed, or the materials available, etc., give you a, "very 
close to this universe", version, which, much like a climate model, may 
be wrong a lot, right enough for limited purposes, and adjustable over 
time, so you get a result that comes closer and closer to your goal.

The only real question then becomes, "Is it actually producing a 
prediction model, or one that merely appears to do so?" I would argue 
that you can't even be sure that *that* is the case for some things we 
do trust, including climate models, should someone show a clear reason 
to assume we left something critical out of the model.

I think, unfortunately, for something this fundamental to the structure 
of everything, and poorly understood enough that we don't even 100% know 
what we *should* be looking for, its a pure toss up as to if it produces 
something that isn't coincidental. But, I don't know anything close to 
enough about it to know if there is a reason to assume otherwise, or not.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message