 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
> > And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> > a single damned one. There is no possible experiment, even
> > hypothetically, which would prove or disprove string theory.
> This is no longer true.
Can you mention some predictions and tests of string theory?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> One problem with that Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution discussion is
> that it perfectly fails to realize that evolution can be used as a
> design method. Virtually everything man-made is a product of
> evolutionary design.
I'm not so sure you should be intermixing those two concepts. Just
because the same word "evolution" can be (somewhat loosely) applied
to both doesn't mean that they are related or that the same phenomena
or methodologies happen in them.
Biological evolution has no driving force, no goal, no direction.
Evolution doesn't "try" to achieve anything, because evolution is not
a conscience with goals and plans. Evolution is a *by-product* of
uncontrolled random natural phenomena. Evolution is emergent behavior.
For this reason concepts like "the evolutionary ladder" and "de-evolution"
(and some sci-fi ideas that DNA has a "memory" of past forms in the
evolutionary history of the species) are nonsense because it would indicate
that evolution has a direction and a goal towards which it aims.
Biological evolution is, basically, the change in the genes of large
populations of living entities. The changes consist of things like meiosis
and mutations, and some of these changes get naturally selected (by the
simple reason that all the other changes disappear due to extinction),
meaning that beneficial changes build up over time. The beneficial changes
are inherited by subsequent generations.
The vast majority of the changes are very minute, and become significant
change only by building up over large periods of time (although there are
considerable exceptions to this, as sometimes significant evolutionary
change can happen surprisingly fast, in only a few tens of generations).
There is no intelligence involved in this. It's simply emergent behavior
that happens naturally.
Technological progress, on the other hand, is quite different. It has
a goal it aims for, a plan (in other words, the *purpose* of the new
technology or the changes to existing technology is determined *before* it
happens). Change in technology is seldom random, but driven by a specific
goal. Minute changes are not "inherited" because there is no genetic
information being passed from one generation to another. Very large changes
happen from one "generation" to the next, not because of random mutations
or "mixing of genes", but because of external design. There is no natural
selection. One "species" does not change gradually to another over a
large period of time and with numerous in-between generations, driven by
survival pressure and natural selection.
The slow gradual change in biological evolution can often be somewhat
detrimental to living species. "Parts" cannot just suddenly jump from one
place to another, or suddenly change their shape or function. There are
many, many things in living species which are "poorly designed" and could
be much better, but them being better would require such a sudden drastic
change that it just can't happen. The required mutation would be so
astronomically improbable that it just won't happen (except in very, very
rare cases). A slow, gradual change would cause all the intermediates to
be less fit for survival, and thus it won't happen gradually either
(because these intermediates simply die long before they reach the
turning point and start again becoming fitter than previous generations).
For this reason most species of living beings have parts of their body that
are suboptimal.
Technology is not hindered by this limitation.
You could draw a broad similarity between evolution and technology in
that in technology good ideas are preserved while bad ideas are discarded
(similar to natural selection preserving good mutations while getting rid
of bad ones), but that's about it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you have a job in IT instead of a job in teaching.
Teaching needs social skills.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
>>> a single damned one. There is no possible experiment, even
>>> hypothetically, which would prove or disprove string theory.
>
>> This is no longer true.
>
> Can you mention some predictions and tests of string theory?
GIYF. I can't follow the math, but
http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/
http://www.physorg.com/news88786651.html
http://www.physorg.com/news202553083.html
Googling "string theory test" brings up a bunch, but I haven't looked at
many of them. Indeed, I myself thought it was a fundamental attribute of
string theory that it could describe every possible set of physical laws, or
some such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.universetoday.com/72531/scientists-say-they-can-now-test-string-theory/
While I know virtually nothing about string theory (well, string theories,
as there are many; the unified theory would be the so-called M-theory),
I find it a bit "unlikeable" for one reason.
Newtonian mechanics are based modeling and testing direct observations
of physical phenomena. One could say that it starts from the observation
that gravity and interaction between objects behaves in a very consistent
manner, rather than being random or arbitrary. This very precise consistency
allows creating formulas to describe these behaviors. The formulas can be
immediately tested in practice. (For example, if a formula predicts that
dropping a weight from a certain altitude will take a certain amount of
time for the weight to hit the ground, you just can go and test it and
see if the prediction is correct. Moreover, you can perform the test
numerous times from different altitudes and see if the formula always
gives the correct result.)
In other words, Newtonian mechanics are directly based on observation.
It's expressing with math what one can directly observe and measure. The
predictive power of these formulas is extremely significant and practical.
Of course it was later observed that, while still behaving in a completely
consistent manner, not all natural phenomena behaved as described by the
Newtonian formulas. For example, the speed of light in vacuum does not
behave in a Newtonian way. (Of course Newton had no way of knowing this
because he lacked the technology to test it.)
Special Relativity starts from the simple assumption that (besides space
being cartesian) the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
(inertial) observers. That's about it. This is a rather fair assumption
to make because it's the result of a measurement (rather than being a
wild guess). From this simple assumption you can deduce the Lorenz
transformations (and from them the entirety of SR).
Again, SR has strong predictive power which, although not as easy as
with Newtonian mechanics, can be relatively easily and directly measured.
You can set up tests and see if the results are as predicted by SR.
Of course SR was lacking. It assumed inertial frames of reference and
didn't take any stance on accelerating ones.
If I have understood correctly, General Relativity starts from the
assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
observers regardless of their state (ie. inertial or accelerating),
and that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing,
and that's about it. (Again, the mass equivalence is a fair assumption
to make because it's based on observation. The equivalence has been
known since the days of Newton, but it was unknown if it's just a
coincidence or whether there is a strong connection between the two.
Einstein started with the assumption that not only are they equal,
but they are actually the same thing.)
While deducing the Lorentz transformations from the assumption of
c being the same for all inertial observers (and space being cartesian)
is relatively simple, deducing the GR equations from the further assumptions
is quite a lot more complicated and laborious, but in principle it's just
pure math, without further assumptions, "leaps of faith" or guesswork,
and hence not significantly more complex at a conceptual level.
Again, GR as strong predictive power, which can be directly measured
with well-defined tests.
GR has been *so* successful with its predictive power and successful
tests, that has long ago become the de-facto baseline for any new
theories in the same way as Newtonian mechanics were before it: Any
new theory has to have the same expressive power and give the same
predictions as GR, or it just won't cut.
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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.01.2011 17:51, schrieb Invisible:
> I've seen a lot of arguments for and against whether ID should be taught
> in schools alongside evolution. For me, these all miss the main point:
> ID is not a scientific theory. It may or may not be correct, but it's
> not testable. Because it doesn't /predict/ anything.
Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict
something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.
So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory
nonetheless :-P
In its more elaborate form though, it's indeed "enhanced" to a dogma,
which fends off any contradicting evidence by means of other dogmata
(like, "anything that seems to contradict the dogma of the existence of
God, or another dogma supporting his existence (including this one), is
either (a) of the devil, or (b) a device of God to test your faith").
BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit!
Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?
Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting
term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the
banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P
> By the way, you know what else isn't science? String theory.
What you're overlooking here is that...
(1) In order to be science, something doesn't have to be a proper
testable theory. Science is also the process of /developing/ such a
theory based on a hypothesis.
(2) There is no such thing as "the" string theory. There are in fact
multiple of string theories, and they can be rightfully labelled as
such, as they /do/ make predictions; some of them are even deemed
testable within the next decades. Admittedly none of them could falsify
quantum theory or the theory of general relativity - but that's not a
prerequisite to make them valid theories. Rather, they need to make
predictions by which they /themselves/ might be falsified. And they do.
For instance, some of them make certain yet-untested predictions that
are also predicted by quantum theory. Other string theories don't make
the same predictions, or even predict the opposite (I'm not sure about
the latter though).
> So check it out. Thousands of scientists and mathematicians around the
> world have devoted their entire professional careers to studying string
> theory. It all looks very "sciency"; there are equations in string
> theory that make general relativity look like 2nd grade math class. This
> is serious, highly respected research.
>
> And it's /still/ not science. You know why? No testable predictions. Not
> a single damned one. There is no possible experiment, even
> hypothetically, which would prove or disprove string theory. (But that's
> the least of their problems; they're still trying just to make the math
> stop contradicting itself!)
No, they're trying to find ways to derive (more) predictions from the
respective theories.
> Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is a thinly veiled attempt to get
> the Christian Holy Bible into schools. Let me make this clear: even if
> God exists, it's /still/ not science. /Science/ is the study of what you
> can /prove/. It's that the study of /truth/, only /provable truth/.
> We're not saying that God doesn't exist, we're just saying that such
> questions have no place in /science/. Now go sit in the corner.
I'm not saying Intelligent Design is the right thing. All I'm saying is
that neither(!) side even seems to notice that evolution may be a means
of design, too, and actually a pretty efficient one.
Or maybe they just don't want to notice. The ID adherents might not want
their God to use evolutionary design because they don't want him to be
efficient (why should a God use an efficient method if he has infinite
knowledge and power at his disposal?), or because they're stuck too deep
in defensive mode against evolution already, and the other side might
prefer to outright falsify ID, rather than make a point that ID taken as
a serious science doesn't contradict evolution anyway so why the heck
should it be taught as an /alternatve/ to evolution.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 07.01.2011 19:05, schrieb Darren New:
> Invisible wrote:
>> The more I read about molecular biology, the more interesting it becomes.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOoHKCMAUMc
>
> Really incredible stuff goes on. I'm never sure whether I'm more amazed
> that it works like this, or that we can figure out that it works like this.
Amazing to see how molecular biology uncovers how the operating
mechanisms of living cells are not so much chemical as they are
nano-mechanical.
The "nanobots" are out there already.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Well, in its essential form, the most popular version /does/ predict
> something. Like, all creatures should have been there from the beginning.
> So yes, it can be regarded a theory. A falsified one, but a theory
> nonetheless :-P
I think that the proper term is "hypothesis", not "theory" (except if
we are talking in vernacular terms).
> BTW, my favorite about ID is the banana: Gee, it's /the/ ideal fruit!
> Ideal size and all... how could this not be by design?
> Well, sure, it /is/ by design, or - to use a slightly better fitting
> term - by intention: The intention of those people who cultivated the
> banana in the last 8000 years or so :-P
I think you are confused. The modern banana (that yellow one) is
only something like 200 years old. It's the product of a mutation of
a single wild banana plant which suddenly started growing that yellow
sweet version. The wild banana is much smaller, green, full of seeds
and almost inedible in raw form.
The mutation in question is actually so severe that the modern banana
plant is sterile: It cannot reproduce by itself, requiring human
intervention for cultivation (this happens mainly by transplanting
underground stems or tissue cultures).
(Ironically, the modern banana is so mutated that it can be considered
by all practical means "unnatural", as without human intervention it would
have died right from that very first mutated plant 200 years ago, which
makes it a perfect example of gene manipulation by humans, yet people who
strongly oppose gene manipulation have usually no problems in eating
bananas.)
> I'm not saying Intelligent Design is the right thing. All I'm saying is
> that neither(!) side even seems to notice that evolution may be a means
> of design, too, and actually a pretty efficient one.
Biological evolution could be considered "design" only insofar as
emergent behavior in general could (because that's basically what
biological evolution is). Evolution just happens, without the need of
an external intelligent actor.
You could only claim evolution to be "design" if you assert that the
universe was created with the precise laws of nature that exist in this
universe.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> This is a rather fair assumption
> to make because it's the result of a measurement
Actually, I believe einstein hypothesized that because Maxwell's equations
(amongst others) had it down as a constant.
> Of course SR was lacking. It assumed inertial frames of reference and
> didn't take any stance on accelerating ones.
>
> If I have understood correctly, General Relativity starts from the
> assumption that the speed of light in vacuum is the same for all
> observers regardless of their state (ie. inertial or accelerating),
> and that inertial mass and gravitational mass are the same thing,
> and that's about it.
And that space is continuous and differentiable. Which is where it
mathematically conflicts with QED.
> However, which observation or measurement is string theory based on?
Yeah, I don't know either. :-) I think it's basically an attempt to
mathematically unify quantum mechanics (including QED, QCD, and etc) with
GR. In other words, I think it's based on the same measurements as both GR
and QED. It's trying to come up with the same math for both.
The large number of extra dimensions apparently make sense if you understand
why you need each additional one, but it's certainly over my head.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
