Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: July 10 2013 at 12:52
Absolutely. It's amazing to think how much we've learned, and I agree that we should never stop using science to learn more, even if it's only part of the picture.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 10 2013 at 12:38
Earendil wrote:
I don't think he's being anti-scientific. My understanding of what he's saying is that this question is outside the scope of science. You can't drive your car to the moon. But you can drive your car to a spaceship and then fly to the moon.
I don't know how far can we drive, nor in how many steps, but let's drive as much as we can and see where do we get to. If you already think that you will hit a wall so it's not worth trying, no good.
Personally I'm also wary of a 'theory of everything', among many other things it's highly doubtful that it would 'explain everything'. Mathematical physics theories as we understand them now are unlikely to be able to explain emergent phenomena such as life, consciousness, chaos, fractals, social behaviour and all other manifestations of emergent complexity, emotions, love... but we should not give up trying to understand ever more, in some way it may seem that learning about the universe where we live in is the reason why we exist.
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: July 10 2013 at 08:58
Gerinski wrote:
Earendil wrote:
Do you think that it's even possible for science to find a theory of everything? What if the results are infinitely regressive?
This is an old dilemma, on one side we strive for understanding ever more and we dream with finding a theory of everything, but if we did ever find it, would might that imply? would 'the future unfold in front of our eyes'?, would there still be randomness and unpredictability preventing us from knowing the future?, would it affect our freewill? would the motivation of knowing and understanding fade away, as if 'there's nothing more for us to do'? In a certain sense, while we search for it, we hope to never find it, for the consequences might be scary.
As for the video, honestly I don't hear anything that scientists are not aware of, he's just blablabla trying to sound transcendental, nothing of what the guy says should be any reason for being anti-scientific.
I don't think he's being anti-scientific. My understanding of what he's saying is that this question is outside the scope of science. You can't drive your car to the moon. But you can drive your car to a spaceship and then fly to the moon.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 10 2013 at 03:23
Earendil wrote:
Do you think that it's even possible for science to find a theory of everything? What if the results are infinitely regressive?
This is an old dilemma, on one side we strive for understanding ever more and we dream with finding a theory of everything, but if we did ever find it, would might that imply? would 'the future unfold in front of our eyes'?, would there still be randomness and unpredictability preventing us from knowing the future?, would it affect our freewill? would the motivation of knowing and understanding fade away, as if 'there's nothing more for us to do'? In a certain sense, while we search for it, we hope to never find it, for the consequences might be scary.
As for the video, honestly I don't hear anything that scientists are not aware of, he's just blablabla trying to sound transcendental, nothing of what the guy says should be any reason for being anti-scientific.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 09 2013 at 17:23
Well, let's remember quantum mechanics pioneer Niels Bohr's quote (more or less): 'the point is not whether the theory is crazy, but whether it is crazy enough to be true'.
I personally think that String Theory is not really on the right track but who am I to tell... At any rate it provides some useful principles and concepts and could have some bearing to the actual truth, some of its mathematical 'coincidences' are possibly too striking to be 'just coincidences'. I think we are still rather far for any true understanding of what's really going on, but keeping on trying is great and we should not give up.
A recurring problem in this sort of things is that mathematics has proved to be extremely fertile, there are lots of mathematical facts which are amazing and clearly true but which in principle do not seem to have any bearing at all with the actual physical world. String Theory is possibly a bit on the same path, it builds on some mathematical structures and relationships, but whether it has any significance to the actual physical world in rather unclear.
We expect our universe to behave in a mathematically consistent way, but that does not mean that any mathematically consistent structure is actually deployed by nature in our real universe. We may find lots of mathematically consistent structures which have no physical implementation in our actual universe. And I feel that String Theory is one of these.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 08 2013 at 12:39
twseel wrote:
Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.
I believe in a) preferably what I can understand, or otherwise at least in b) what I can perceive as 'objectively true' even if I don't understand it (take quantum mechanics).
No religion has offered me any of these perceptions so far.
Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767
Posted: July 08 2013 at 12:03
Gerinski wrote:
twseel wrote:
It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.
That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.
I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.
Might be, but then again I think one could doubt to what point this is still 'understanding' and where it turns into 'believing'. For example, many religious people think their religion already explains all there is to know about the universe. In that case, you might be 'done' by taking on a religion.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 08 2013 at 11:28
twseel wrote:
It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.
That may well be right, but it should not stop us from trying. Just trying is a very rewarding exercise, we have made decent progress so far so we must certainly keep trying.
I am actually cautiously respectful of John Wheeler's philosophy which roughly states that the 'purpose of life' is to understand (or rather, 'to make real' or 'make happen') the universe ('the participatory universe principle'), or those who propose that 'consciousness' eventually will evolve to encompass all the knowledge required to understand the universe, effectively making a loop where 'understanding' or 'awareness' and 'physical reality' are just two sides of the same coin.
Sorry, a bit profound for a Prog Rock forum probably
Joined: December 15 2012
Location: abroad
Status: Offline
Points: 22767
Posted: July 08 2013 at 08:19
Gerinski wrote:
twseel wrote:
Here's my answer:
Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).
Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.
Exactly. It's fun to think about these things and consider the possibilities, but in the end we won't really find a meaning or a goal or completely understand the universe. I actually believe it's very improbable that the actual structure of the universe is within the reach of the human understanding.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: July 08 2013 at 08:01
twseel wrote:
Here's my answer:
Well, that was quite the original hope, and if proved true (even if only meaning 'mathematically consistent complete theory') it would have provided a very powerful unifying principle and a conceptually attractive explanation for why do we see so many different 'elementary' particles and forces in the Standard Model (plus hopefully also the ones we do not really know such as dark matter).
Pity is, that after years of work the dream of such great underlying simplicity did not hold up. It became clear that 'vibrating strings' could not explain the whole edifice and other concepts needed to be gradually added, first closed loop strings, then, 2-branes, D-branes, p-branes... Of course the theory may still be right but the edifice being assembled in String Theory is again so complex that the initial motivation of conceptual simplicity has been lost. The main problem in String Theory though, is that it seems to allow a potentially infinite diversity of possible universes and offers no clue as why our universe is as it is. Saying that anything is possible so consequently our universe must be one of the infinite possibilities is not a very helpful solution to our desire for understanding.
Joined: November 17 2008
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1584
Posted: March 27 2013 at 21:57
I don't think it's a "Theory of Everything", but it's really interesting to read about and watch on things like Nova.
I actually think it's really important for people to spend time considering something like this as much as they can. At least to watch something about it and be exposed to it. It really forces you to evaluate what you're doing. Broadening your awareness like that breaks you from routine and can put things into perspective.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.250 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.