Physics at a crossroads....

[Dr Mordrid]

Is String Theory, and Physics, at a crossroad with Intelligen Design (ID)?

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html

Is string theory in trouble?

Leonard Susskind, who invented it, doesn’t think so. He says its description of multiple universes, each with different constants of nature and laws of physics, could reveal why the cosmological constant appears improbably fine-tuned to enable life to exist

Note: this abundance of universes is being referred to as the "Landscape"

Q: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design (ID)?

A: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

A crossroad indeed. In a book whose purpose was to debunk ID Susskind has made a case that physics and ID are on similar tracks by different names. At which point does the "Landscape" become the "Designer"?

It'll be interesting to see how they reason this one out as the value of the cosomolgical constant , which basically sets the conditions that exist in the universe, does seem more than a little "convenient" in that it appears to be the only value consistant with life.

Dr. Mordrid

[Technoid]

Probably they will find the "truth" considder it to "boring" discard it and continue to search for something "Cool"

One of the biggest reasons for the stubborness with ID.....

"You are the result of billions of years of self ordering"

Don't sound as cool as:

"A great GOD that created the whole universe also Created you!"

[cjolley]

It'll be interesting to see how they reason this one out as the value of the cosomolgical constant , which basically sets the conditions that exist in the universe, does seem more than a little "convenient" in that it appears to be the only value consistant with life.

No it won't.
The whole question is tautological.

And ID is the US version of Lysenkoism.
It will lead to the same happy situation for us that put science in the USSR behind us.

[GNEP]

OK, I'm too drunk to answer this now. Doc M - please p.m. me after the new year and I'll very happily enter into this particular debate as it's something that rather interests me right now.

[cjolley]

OK, I'm too drunk to answer this now. Doc M - please p.m. me after the new year...

A two week bender?
And you know ahead of time?
Now that's dedication.

[GNEP]

A two week bender?
And you know ahead of time?
Now that's dedication.

Hell yeah - I'm unempoyed again... (out of choice) and am seriously considering doing what I should've done 10 years ago which is a physics and philoshophy degree

[cjolley]

[Dr Mordrid]

Shakespeare said “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Same with the idea of an intentional creation. If that's how it happened how would a scientist tell the difference? In either case the proponent is acting out of faith in his/her belief system. The problem now is, as stated by Suskind, the experimental results offer little in the way of distinction or difference other than terminology.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

...
If that's how it happened how would a scientist tell the difference?
...

Who cares, as long as he/she doesn't try to insinuate it into their work product.

[Marshmallowman]

Science works by disproving what is wrong, he is stating that at a our current level of knowledge a lot of this of work is kind of "faith" in a particlar exact solution from a given set of solutions. Its just we are at a point (and probably always will be to some extent) of not being able to disprove the alternative solutions.

Equating these kind of rigorously determined possible solutions with the patch work extreemist chrstian "intelligent design" is laughable, but the fact that a lot of theories in modern cosmology relies on high level maths that do produce such indetermincy in possible equivalent solutions is an interesting and philosphical point, however this indeterminacy is not a new concept as its very similar to working quantum theory except on cosmological scale.

The sad fact is some chrsitian exteemist is going to use this as an argument "proving" "inteliginet design", whereas it just an interesting general philosphical point about the parrallels at the *edge* of what is know in science and the way religion works.

And by using a few controversial catch phrases he is going to sell a zillion of these "popular science" books and make bazillion dollars and only end muddieng the whole discussion. Probably 3/4 of colleages are ribbing and taking the piss out of it as we speak.

[Dr Mordrid]

Science works by disproving what is wrong

Argumentum ad ignorantiam:

"Of course (pick your theory) does not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Copi's Introduction to Logic: you can't prove a negative.

In other words: GOOD science proves what is correct, or at least what works even while not knowing why, not what is wrong. All else is conjecture and in no better a logical position than religion, which is exactly what Susskind meant.

The problem is that at this point ithey have a physics framework (string theory), but aspects of it have implicaitons that can support either scientific or religions conclusions.

The debate continues at much higher levels than MURC

Dr. Mordrid

[Marshmallowman]

Like I said you can't prove you can only disprove, I think you have that argument from the wrong end.

The history of science is list of theories that worked until they were supplanted by theories that disproved them.

Newtonian mechanics, disproven by relativistic mechanic's

Good science is trying to disprove things, You don't contruct an experiemnt to "prove" a theory, you construct an experiment to make the theory fail if it does'nt, then the theory is still good.

[Dr Mordrid]

Newtonian mechanics partially replaced by general relativity augmented by special relativity partially replaced by quantum mechanics partially replaced by string theory replaced by ?? One building block on another but none were completely wrong, just incomplete.

Re-read Copi. Far too many theories that are now fact waited 50 years while science fiddled around ignoring basic principles in favor of the mental masturbation called "disproving" over attempting to prove. More often than not this is just an excuse for entrenchment or other such silliness.

Examples: plate tectonics, birds came from dinosaurs or whatever....

Dr. Mordrid

[Marshmallowman]

No relatavistic mechanics completly replaces newtonian mechanics, however for 99% of the calculations we do the newtonian "approximation" is suffiecient. (and a lot easier to do)

Newtonian does not supplement relativisic, newtonian is simply an old disproven theory that is quite accurate if you keep its limitations in mind, you can do complete calculations using just relativistic theory.
(not to say Newton wasn't a great Genius who came up with a great approximation that is accurate for 99% of human existance and is still rotinely used 100years later)

Quantum mechanics is a different realm, these big string theories are about encompassing these facets we have, quantum + relativsitc + gravitation. This stuff is not patchwork, it finding all about finding a theory that is correct in its entirety, not bodgied together from bits.

I think you may have skipped your quantum and relativistic theory classes

[Dr Mordrid]

Didn't skip a thing, but understand that newtonian is little different at macroscopic levels of reality...therefore the partial replacement. Finding a comprehensive solution that works microscopically, macroscopically, gravitationally etc. is exactly the problem, and Susskind admitted it. Apparently you can't.

Dr. Mordrid