Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Which is never, as has been explained to you many, many times.

Sorry Tom, but science has no choice than to look for material-causes for all things. And that's exactly what it tries to do in all areas of research.
Science hasn't officially declared that 'God' is dead (or any other possible creative alternative), but by looking for a material-explanation to 'everything', that declaration is still infered... leaving "a material cause" as the only alternative,
for 'everything'.

Science is about pattern recognition and prediction of experimental results and nothing else.

That's not true. Science is about pattern-recognition and prediction of material-causes (and effects). But whenever a cause is predicted, it is assumed that this cause is material by nature (such as string-theory, for example).
String-theory is especially relevant to me, because something which can move through 11-ish dimensions is entirely conceptual, meaning that it is not 4-dimensional. And it would take belief that such concepts can actually exist as a tangible entity. No one here can conceive of an 11-dimensional tangible-reality. Therefore, it takes 'faith' to believe that our 4-dimensional
perceptions emanate from there.

The only belief that is essential is that the laws of physics do not change from place to place, time to time, and person to person.

But they do. Each generation of physicists seems to have a different mindset to the last. Science evolves. Changes.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

String-theory is especially relevant to me

Wow, I’ve never met anyone on a forum who understands the mathematics behind string theory. The closest I’ve come is attending one of Brian Greene’s lectures and meeting him afterwards.

Could you explain what you know of string theory as best you can? Thanks.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Sorry Tom, but science has no choice than to look for material-causes for all things. And that's exactly what it tries to do in all areas of research.

Since you are not involved in even a single one of those areas of research, you will just have to take my word for it that you are wrong here.

But whenever a cause is predicted, it is assumed that this cause is material by nature (such as string-theory, for example).

See above. It is not about causes, it is about patterns and prediction.

And it would take belief that such concepts can actually exist as a tangible entity.

No, it would take acceptance of experimental verification of the predictions of string theory (if the theory does indeed pass the test). That is not the same as faith.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer

String-theory is especially relevant to me

Wow, I’ve never met anyone on a forum who understands the mathematics behind string theory. The closest I’ve come is attending one of Brian Greene’s lectures and meeting him afterwards.

Could you explain what you know of string theory as best you can? Thanks.

(Q), he doesn't know it, either.

 

[Iacchus32]

If everything in the Universe has a cause and effect, meaning everything has a beginning and an end, then the Universe must be paradoxical, because Who was there to trip the "first domino?" Of course I believe in the big-bang theory myself, but that would imply God had a Mistress? ... And the whole idea was conceived in "the moment" ... Hey Zeus!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Wow, I’ve never met anyone on a forum who understands the mathematics behind string theory. The closest I’ve come is attending one of Brian Greene’s lectures and meeting him afterwards.

Could you explain what you know of string theory as best you can? Thanks.

What I know, and all that matters to my point, is that string-theory assumes the tangible-reality of an 11(ish)-dimensional realm.
I don't care if your name is Stephen Hawking. I know that you cannot convince me, by reason, that such a reality can exist beyond the mind's conception of it. Therefore, you need my faith to accept your theory.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I don't care if your name is Stephen Hawking. I know that you cannot convince me, by reason, that such a reality can exist beyond the mind's conception of it.

Anyone can be stubbornly obstinate. You do not even know string theory, and you are declaring that you will never accept it. OK, I guess you miss out on this one then, if it turns out to be an accurate description of the universe, that is.

Therefore, you need my faith to accept your theory. [/B]

Njorl already covered this angle in his first post on page 1. Everyone who is ignorant of scientific theories and experiments requires 'faith' to accept them. That is only because such people cannot reconcile scientific claims with anything with which they are directly familiar.

Now, on the other hand, if someone who knows the theory, and is knowledgeable of experimental tests of it (not that that many are in yet), and accepts it, then that person does not do so out of faith, but rather out of knowledge[/color].

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Anyone can be stubbornly obstinate. You do not even know string theory, and you are declaring that you will never accept it.

I haven't declared that I will never accept it. I have declared that there's no reasonable way to prove that anything tangible can live in such a conceptual realm. Therefore, it requires faith to believe that it can.

OK, I guess you miss out on this one then, if it turns out to be an accurate description of the universe, that is.

Even if any of these quantum-theories ever explain classical-reality, they won't have explained their own existence/reality. No scientific theory can ever be complete, in this regards. No one can tell us the cause for a 1-dimensional string, nor of its actions through 11 dimensions. Scientists are merely using such an imagined-concept as the basis to explain 4-dimensional phenomena. But there is no regards to explaining a 1-dimensional string which is allowed to move through 11 dimensions. Therefore, the theory is not a 'ToE', by default.

Njorl already covered this angle in his first post on page 1. Everyone who is ignorant of scientific theories and experiments requires 'faith' to accept them. That is only because such people cannot reconcile scientific claims with anything with which they are directly familiar.

This has got nothing to do with scientific-knowledge. My point is that such knowledge only ever unveils more questions about the universe. What is the source of a 1-dimensional string? How do you reconcile 1-dimensional strings with tangible reality? Why/how do these strings move through those particular dimensions? Etc..

Now, on the other hand, if someone who knows the theory, and is knowledgeable of experimental tests of it (not that that many are in yet), and accepts it, then that person does not do so out of faith, but rather out of knowledge[/color]. [/B]

'Strings' may eventually explain many/all phenomena. But until/unless they also explain themselves, then we have to accept their own existence/reality/being via faith.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I have declared that there's no reasonable way to prove that anything tangible can live in such a conceptual realm.

How do you know that?

Even if any of these quantum-theories ever explain classical-reality, they won't have explained their own existence/reality. No scientific theory can ever be complete, in this regards. No one can tell us the cause for a 1-dimensional string,

Of course, but scientific theories do not claim to explain why the universe is here, or why it is the way it is. They only claim to describe how it works.

nor of its actions through 11 dimensions.

Now, you're going off the deep end. String theory is precisely a claimant to be dynamical theory of these objects through these extra dimensions. You are simply claiming that it cannot accomplish that goal without even looking at it.

Now that requires faith!

Scientists are merely using such an imagined-concept as the basis to explain 4-dimensional phenomena. But there is no regards to explaining a 1-dimensional string which is allowed to move through 11 dimensions. Therefore, the theory is not a 'ToE', by default.

The "TOE" is strictly descriptive, and there is good reason to think that there is one.

This has got nothing to do with scientific-knowledge. My point is that such knowledge only ever unveils more questions about the universe. What is the source of a 1-dimensional string?

Admittedly, this is one that cannot be answered. Even if it is, it will only be answered in terms of more primitive objects.

How do you reconcile 1-dimensional strings with tangible reality? Why/how do these strings move through those particular dimensions? Etc..

Now these questions, string theory tackles head on. You would have to examine the theory itself to see how.

'Strings' may eventually explain many/all phenomena. But until/unless they also explain themselves, then we have to accept their own existence/reality/being via faith.

My point to you is that that will all change one day, because one of two things will happen:

1. Experiment will show that string theory is wrong, and it will be rejected.
2. Experiment will show that string theory is right, and it will be accepted.

In neither case is faith required.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

I have declared that there's no reasonable way to prove that anything tangible can live in such a conceptual realm. Therefore, it requires faith to believe that it can.

That sounds very much like the conversation the 2-dimensional beings living in Flatland were having as a 3-dimensional sphere entered their world.

In the same way, no one is interested in convincing you of anything unless you show the willingness to learn. You would start with having faith that one plus one equals two, and work your way up from there towards understanding string theory mathematics and models. At that point, if you still emphatically deny having faith that anything tangible can live in such a conceptual realm, your argument might then be taken seriously.

I don’t have faith in string theory because I don’t understand the mathematics and because it has yet to be tested. I do, however, have faith in relativity. Can you see the difference?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
How do you know that?

It's obvious that a 1 or 2-dimensional entity cannot exist outside the mind. For example, how can a 2-dimensional membrane exist beyond the mind, when it has zero width?

String theory is precisely a claimant to be dynamical theory of these objects through these extra dimensions. You are simply claiming that it cannot accomplish that goal without even looking at it.

String-theory is founded upon the existence of 1-dimensional strings. It is this issue which reason cannot accept. How can a length of string actually exist if it has zero width and zero breadth? Think about it.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
That sounds very much like the conversation the 2-dimensional beings living in Flatland were having as a 3-dimensional sphere entered their world.

You are aware that 'Flatland' is a figment of someone's imagination, I assume. You should also realize that 2-dimensional entities can only exist in your mind.

In the same way, no one is interested in convincing you of anything unless you show the willingness to learn.

Learn what? Learn that tangible entities can exist as 1 or 2-dimensional beings. I'm sorry Q, but I'm not so gullible as to 'believe' unreasonable premises such as this. You believe what you want. I'll stick to reason.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

You are aware that 'Flatland' is a figment of someone's imagination, I assume. You should also realize that 2-dimensional entities can only exist in your mind.

I see that you’re unfamiliar with the term, “analogy.” Analogy - drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.

Would you like me to explain the Flatland analogy?

Learn what? Learn that tangible entities can exist as 1 or 2-dimensional beings.

No, that was an analogy, which appears to have gone way over your head. And it also appears you’ve completely missed the point by a country mile. Would you like me to dumb-down my explanations for you?

The point I was making is that you must learn the basics and have confidence that those basics are well understood before moving on to the higher forms of a concept. Each phase of comprehension will provide you with more confidence in understanding. Once you’ve successfully understood the concept in its entirety, you can intelligently comment on its validity.

In other words, you have confidence or faith in your understanding of that knowledge and therefore have faith in the knowledge itself.

I'm sorry Q, but I'm not so gullible as to 'believe' unreasonable premises such as this. You believe what you want. I'll stick to reason.

The only reasoning I see in your argument is circular. No one is asking you to believe anything. You must learn for yourself – then proceed to comment intelligently.

Balking at concepts you clearly don’t understand is not reasonable.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
String-theory is founded upon the existence of 1-dimensional strings.

Are you sure about that? I'll be honest, I am not. I have never looked at string theory. I would not recognize the basic equations if they were put in front of me in neon lights.Could we go back to "faith in science"? As in, "what beliefs must one sustain to be a scientist?" I mean science in general, not necessarily string theory. Because, frankly, your 'reasoning' on string theory is not worth very much.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
I see that you’re unfamiliar with the term, “analogy.” Analogy - drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect.

And I see that you're unfamiliar with the term 'relevance'. Providing me with an imaginary-scenario (flatland) to support the tangible existence of 1 & 2-dimensional entities, is irrelevant.

Would you like me to explain the Flatland analogy?

No. What I would like you to do is actually address what I have said, and explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional entity can exist outside of the mind.

Would you like me to dumb-down my explanations for you?

No. But perhaps I should dumb-down my reasoning of why concepts cannot be tangible for you. For it seems you do not comprehend what I am talking about.

The point I was making is that you must learn the basics and have confidence that those basics are well understood before moving on to the higher forms of a concept.

With all due respect, this is absolute garbage. I don't have to learn string-theory to know that it is based upon an intangible concept. And using my lack of scientific-knowledge of this theory is completely irrelevant to the issue I have raised here.

The only reasoning I see in your argument is circular.

Look pal; this is the philosophy forum - not the physics forum. When you come in here claiming that 1 or 2-dimensional concepts can exist as tangible beings, then expect your assumption to be challenged by reason.
Furthermore, if your sole response to my posts is going to be "You need to learn more physics", then it is obvious to me that you haven't got a clue what philosophy is all about.

No one is asking you to believe anything. You must learn for yourself – then proceed to comment intelligently.

Spare me a repeat performance of crap like this.

 

[Mentat]

As I love string theory (and personally think it's the best candidate for the T.O.E.), I would like to say that anyone who says that 11-dimensional theory is based on faith, have betrayed a lack of understanding of the topic.

I would also like to ask lifegazer why he/she said this:

You are aware that 'Flatland' is a figment of someone's imagination, I assume. You should also realize that 2-dimensional entities can only exist in your mind.

and many other such statements. Have you abandoned the Mind hypothesis, lifegazer?

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
With all due respect, this is absolute garbage. I don't have to learn string-theory to know that it is based upon an intangible concept.

You are wrong.

You are the one saying, "string theory says...". You have to know string theory to make a statement like that. End of story.

Look pal; this is the philosophy forum - not the physics forum. When you come in here claiming that 1 or 2-dimensional concepts can exist as tangible beings, then expect your assumption to be challenged by reason.

Actually, he's not claiming that. You are saying that string theory is claiming that.

Furthermore, if your sole response to my posts is going to be "You need to learn more physics", then it is obvious to me that you haven't got a clue what philosophy is all about.

Spare me a repeat performance of crap like this.

You're acting like an ass. Stop it now.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
As I love string theory (and personally think it's the best candidate for the T.O.E.), I would like to say that anyone who says that 11-dimensional theory is based on faith, have betrayed a lack of understanding of the topic.

I know very little about string/membrane theories. What I do know, is that they are founded upon 1 & 2-dimensional entities which cannot exist beyond our conception of them.
Such theories are really saying that conceptual-entities can create tangible-reality. And anyone who doesn't even question such a premise as that, must be deluded.

Have you abandoned the Mind hypothesis, lifegazer? [/B]

No. I just need a short break from it.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

No. What I would like you to do is actually address what I have said, and explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional entity can exist outside of the mind.

Huh? What are you talking about? What does “existing outside of the mind” have to do with anything?

No. But perhaps I should dumb-down my reasoning of why concepts cannot be tangible for you.

Please do – I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.

For it seems you do not comprehend what I am talking about.

I don’t think anyone does.

With all due respect, this is absolute garbage. I don't have to learn string-theory to know that it is based upon an intangible concept.

I don’t get this – you mean to say that you can comment intelligently on anything at all which you have no knowledge or understanding? That makes no sense.

And using my lack of scientific-knowledge of this theory is completely irrelevant to the issue I have raised here

What issue?

Look pal; this is the philosophy forum - not the physics forum. When you come in here claiming that 1 or 2-dimensional concepts can exist as tangible beings, then expect your assumption to be challenged by reason.

Look buddy; no one said anything about 1-2 dimensional beings – where did you get that nonsense?

it is obvious to me that you haven't got a clue what philosophy is all about.

Uh… no, I just don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

Spare me a repeat performance of crap like this.

I see now – anything that does not agree with your worldview (that is, whatever world you’re living in,) you call it crap.

The term “tunnel-vision” comes to mind.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know very little about string/membrane theories. What I do know, is that they are founded upon 1 & 2-dimensional entities which cannot exist beyond our conception of them.

Again, how do you know that?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
Again, how do you know that?

Exactly, just because we can't see it, now it doesn't exist. I think I like the old "Mind lifegazer" better.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Again, how do you know that?

I know it via reason.
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the tangible reality[/color] of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.
Hence, string & membrane theories are actually positing that concepts of the mind are creating a tangible external-reality.
Fundamentally, they're probably correct. After all, you are familiar with my argument about the Mind being the source of all perception.
And so; I am not saying that string-theories are incorrect as such. But what I am saying, is that those theories are built-upon concepts of the mind. And essentially, these theories are really supporting my own argument: that reality emanates from Mind.

My point to you & Q, is in consideration of the difference between intangible-concepts, and tangible external-reality. I am not denouncing string-theories. What I'm saying, is that they are theories which say that reality is created in the mind.
But by failing to address the reality of 1-d strings, and 2-d membranes; science has failed to realize the significance of the direction it has turned to: The Mind itself.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom:
Again, how do you know that?

LG:
I know it via reason. (Followed by some stuff that shows you completely missed the point of the question)

LG, I am not asking you how you know 1-d and 2-d objects do not exist in reality. I am asking you how you know that those objects are assumed by string theory[/color].

 

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
But by failing to address the reality of 1-d strings, and 2-d membranes; science has failed to realize the significance of the direction it has turned to: The Mind itself. [/B]

Either that, or you are obtaining wrong conclusions based on an incomplete understanding of scientific method, philosophy and results.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

reality emanates from Mind.

I get it now – you’re one of those “nothing-exists-outside-of-the-minds-eye” and “reality-is-just-a-perception-and-illusion-of-the-mind” proponents.

That argument is completely moot. It isn’t even philosophy – its simply psycho-babble.

I’ve argued with fanatical religious zealots and crackpots who clearly live in a dream world. However, they were able to admit to their reality and mine as tangent realities.

If YOUR reality emanates from YOUR mind, whom then are you arguing with - yourself?

Back to the discussion at hand – that is, the one firmly located in reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Tom: Again, how do you know that?

LG:
I know it via reason. (Followed by some stuff that shows you completely missed the point of the question)

Sorry about the confusion. Nevertheless, my post highlights the issues, and I'd like you to comment.

LG, I am not asking you how you know 1-d and 2-d objects do not exist in reality. I am asking you how you know that those objects are assumed by string theory[/color]. [/B]

http://feynman.physics.lsa.umich.edu/strings2000/mtheory.html
Extract:-
"Until recently, the best hope for a theory that would unite gravity with quantum mechanics and describe all physical phenomena was based on strings: one-dimensional objects[/color] whose modes of vibration represent the elementary particles. In the past few years, however, strings have been subsumed by M-theory."

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/basics.htm
extract:-
"We are used to thinking of fundamental particles (like electrons) as point-like 0-dimensional objects. A generalization of this is fundamental strings which are 1-dimensional objects."
(Please note that the bold-type is provided by the author himself.).

M-theory is founded upon a 2-dimensional membrane.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer: reality emanates from Mind.

I get it now – you’re one of those “nothing-exists-outside-of-the-minds-eye” and “reality-is-just-a-perception-and-illusion-of-the-mind” proponents.

That argument is completely moot. It isn’t even philosophy – its simply psycho-babble.

Why's it not philosophy? Philosophy is about making conclusions via reason. What you mean, is that it's not a philosophy which you are willing to entertain or address. In fact, you can't even be bothered to address my posts about concepts. Are you here to debate, or to preach?

If YOUR reality emanates from YOUR mind, whom then are you arguing with - yourself?

I haven't said that reality emanates from 'my' mind. I've said that all reality emanates within a single Mind. That would include 'my' reality, too.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I know it via reason.
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the [purple]tangible reality[/purple] of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.

Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not real. Think, lifegazer! All of the great scientific theories have challenged our "normal" way of percieving the universe. You do not have to understand String Theory, for it to be real.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not real.

What??
Mentat, I doubt very much whether you even understood my post.
What sort of a response is this?

Think, lifegazer! All of the great scientific theories have challenged our "normal" way of percieving the universe. You do not have to understand String Theory, for it to be real. [/B]

Well like I said: it could be a credible theory. But ultimately, it's a theory which proves that intangible concepts of the mind are active in the construction of our 4-dimensional awareness. That's all it is.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

I haven't said that reality emanates from 'my' mind. I've said that all reality emanates within a single Mind.

With that statement, you have gone beyond psychobabble. I didn’t think that was possible. Congratulations!

In fact, you can't even be bothered to address my posts about concepts. Are you here to debate, or to preach?

I’m here to discuss topics based in reality, which is clearly out of your realm. It’s not possible to debate anything with someone who believes reality emanates from a single mind.

Whatever concept you’re trying to portray is not philosophy – it is nothing more than delusion.

Philosophy is about making conclusions via reason.

Reason - A justification for something existing or happening; the state of having good sense and sound judgment.

Can you see how your so-called “reality emanates within a single Mind” concept has nothing to do with reason?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What??
Mentat, I doubt very much whether you even understood my post.
What sort of a response is this?

I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way. You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
M-theory is founded upon a 2-dimensional membrane.

In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundamental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.

You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundamental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

... Scroll down to just over halfway. The back-drop to this 1-dimensional activity is presented as a 2-dimensional surface - in this case, a sphere.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.

Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer: Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.

It's not an appeal to ignorance. I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.
Given that people such as yourself refuse to address my own reason, I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.

Name them. Explain why they are fallacies. Say something meaningful.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.

Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

 

[Lifegazer]

Forget 'membranes' if you want. Let's talk about 1-dimensional strings... which are fundamental to M-theory.
How can something exist as a material entity if it has zero width and zero breadth?

 

[Eh]

I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"

Mathematically (logic) it seems that we have nothing to refute the idea, no matter how repulsive the concept of 1 dimensional objects seems. Unfortunately, string theory is not the only quantum gravity candidate that attempts to build a theory based on 1 dimensional "things".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"

A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.

 

[quantumdude]

I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.

Some points:

On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’? We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us. The first major revision in our concept of tangibility came when we learned that atoms are mostly empty space. Who’s to say that this will not be another radical revision (indeed, it promises to be)?

On 1D Strings
Recall that the particles of QFT are 0-dimensional. However, when one looks closer, one sees that they are dressed in a cloud of virtual particles. Does anyone here know whether strings are similarly dressed? Does anyone know if there is some other phenomenon at work?

On LG’s Argument
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the tangible reality of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.

LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.

That is an appeal to ignorance. I know I have told you this about a half dozen times, but I am going to tell you again. The appeal to ignorance argument is as follows:

X has never been proven/disproven. Therefore, X (does not exist)/exists.

You just did it up there, but you were a lot more longwinded about it.

Typical LG Argumentaion
I once tried to explain to LG why he does not convince anyone of anything. I explained that the basic program of his debate style is as follows:

1. Make an invalid argument (typically using the fallacies of appeal to ignorance, appeal to incredulity, or equivocation).
2. Insist that he is right until someone proves him wrong (and even this does not matter, because he does not accept any disproofs of his ideas).


Is that happening here I wonder?

Mentat: “I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

LG: Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".

Incorrect. You presented questions and assertions, nothing more. No valid argument was ever presented.[/color]

Mentat: You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

LG: Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness. And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

This is shifting the onus of proof. You failed to make your case, and you will cling to it as long as no one proves the opposite. That is not logic, that is subtrefuge.[/color]

Mentat: The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

LG: You call this a reasoned response?

Why not? It’s every bit as reasoned as your argument, and it has the added bonus of being consistent with the known principle that the universe tells us how it behaves, not the other way around.[/color]

Mentat: Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

LG: Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

This is another attempt to shift the onus of proof. LG, you are the one who needs to show why it is impossible for such a thing to exist. Answer the question.[/color]

LG, people are responding to your “argument” (and I use that term very loosely in your case), and there are no evasive maneuvers going on here, except the ones you are pulling![/color] You have been squirming for two pages now, and getting quite indignant about it. You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.

Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?

On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’?

It would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.

We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us.

If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.

LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.

Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.

That is an appeal to ignorance.

I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves. Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.

You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong. [/B]

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.

No one has addressed your reasons because they are based on assumptions that you alone seem to comprehend.

If anyone here understands the mathematics behind string theory, and I doubt anyone here does, they would still not be able to explain them to you simply because you don’t understand the mathematics nor probably ever will.

How is it possible for anyone to accept your so-called “reasoning” when you are unable to comprehend an answer to a question that you also do not comprehend?

I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.

The pointing out of a fallacious argument is not evasive - it is necessary. No one is going to argue a pet theory based on fallacies and nonsense. You can rant all you want and declare yourself the “Big Kahuna” simply because you think no one can produce a valid argument that refutes reality exists within a single mind.

Why should anyone waste his or her time arguing someone else’s delusions?

You’re clearly way out of your league.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.

Strawman argument – Appeal to Ignorance -more fallacies.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?

Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.

It (edit-the requirement for tangibility) would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.

Well, there you have it. You've assumed your conclusion in your definition of "tangible".

If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.

You are just asserting again, because your conclusion comes from your definition of "tangible".

Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.

LG, I presented the whole argument. You have presented no reasons or examples.

I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves.

LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument? Your entire style of debating is exactly as I said it is. You construct an invalid argument (or in this case, no argument at all!) and then maintain a skeptical position on the opposite of your conclusion. That is not logic! That is appeal to ignorance.

Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.

You are so biased, it is unbelievable. LG, I analyzed your argument, and found that it is complete BS. I explained in detail why. The only evading here is being done by you. When you say that you have 'reasoned' your conclusion when you have not presented a valid argument, you just make yourself look dumb.

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?

Appeal to ignorance, once again.

You are hopeless.

You're free to cling to your little religion if you want, but stop clubbing people over the head when they don't want to go to your church. When you start being logical, then you will gain some credibility.

 

[Kerrie]

please continue your string theory discussion here...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.

Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

Did you read my post at all? I said "fourth spacial dimension! How can something exist without extent in the fourth spacial dimension? The answer is, it just does. And thus, that is the answer to "how can something exist, without extent into the 3 dimension?".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.

Then my point is made: string-theories are founded upon 1-dimensional entities. This is what science is saying - not me.

My argument studys this premise. It asks what it actually means to be a 1-dimensional being (i.e., a string... or, for practical purposes: a line).
What it means - by reason - is that a singular point is extended/stretched in accordance with that dimension - in this case, 'length'. The resultant entity is represented as a line (a string).
... Now; the important question follows: How can a line (or a string) actually have an extended existence - upon a length - whilst having zero-width and zero-breadth?
The correct answer is not "We cannot know.", or "There's no way of knowing."; for we have reason to resolve this issue.
And reason states that a real string cannot have substance, unless it has breadth and width amongst its length.
Remember; we're considering a tangible string, where both ends are connected by a line of itself. But if that line has zero breadth and zero width - and zero any other dimension, as 1-dimensional would imply - then that 'string' cannot have substance. A length with zero thickness of any dimension, can only exist in the mind.

LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument?

Is the argument above, not clear? Do I not give reasons for my conclusions? You might disagree with those reasons, but you cannot call them assertions.

 

[Lifegazer]

With my last post in mind, I should add that if string-theory is correct, that physics is advocating explaining material-reality via concepts borne of the Mind. I.e.; physics is seeking to explain the origins of our perceived universe via things which emanate from the mind. Essentially, this means that physics is positing the theory that our perceived reality emanates from Mind.