The Elegant Universe, 1999

-String theory postulates that space has six or seven dimensions in addition to the three that we are familiar with.
-I like to say things more than one way. I just think when it comes to abstract ideas, you need many roads into them.
-If you stick to one road you really compromise your ability to make breakthroughs.
-Everybody is looking at a problem one way, and you come at it from the back. That different way of getting there somehow reveals things that the other approach didin't.
-The universe in a sense guides us towards truths, because those truths are the things that govern what we see. if we're all being governed by what we see, we're all being steered in the same direction. Therefor, the difference between making a breakthrough and not can often be just a small element of perception, either true perception or mathematical perception.
-General Relativity is such a leap, such a monumental rethinking of space, time, and gravity. It's not obvious how and when it would have happened without Einstein. We are still waiting for another leap of that magnitude.
-String Theory has been built up out of a lot of smaller ideas that alot of people have contributed and been slowly stitching together into an ever more impressive theoretical ediface.
-In Mirror Symmetry there can be two spacetimes and one physics. Space can evolve in ways that we wouldn't have thought possible before. It divorces spacetime geometry from physics but it doesn't divorce them completely.

Anybody see the Nova 2 hour special on Greene and his elegant universe. It was quite cheesely done but what they were trying to portray was pretty convincing.

I bought Green's book, and nearly fell asleep about 1/3 way through. Maybe a t.v. special would fit my attention span better

He did seem to be a bit out there after watching/perceiving/interpreting him convey string theory as the ultimate grand-unifying theory of everything.

He hung out alot at this placed he coined or termed the 'quantum bar' where he interacted on multi-dimensions with his environment and where things that once were thought as certainties were now experienced at a 99.9% uncertainty level.

It seemed quite phucked actually. But you take away all the BS presented on the Nova documentary and at the fundamental level interpretation of reality, it comprehends as plausible.

Is it Green or Greene?

Greene
sorry

Personally, I think that Greene is following in the tradition of egotistic physics popularizers who are mostly interested in being seen as geniuses by laymen. I personally am not interested anymore in reading 'laymen' physics tomes, as I find them both boring and misleading.

Wow, you got a stiffy for these guys or something, Dan? Are these guys your arc-nemisis?

You find no fundamental truth in any of their work?

I do see your point since their theory has yet to be proven and without out proof it is just a theory after all.

Just a little side issue:

Has any theory ever been proven ..... definitively? What does a theory become when it has been proven (if that is possible)? A law? A fact? cf Newton's Laws. cf the fact that I can fly in a dream. Laws are meant to be broken. Facts can be ficticous. Terminology and realism are two difficult concepts in science! And that's saying nothing about consistency and staying power.

I don't care what you believe, unless it causes you to get in my way.

1 + 1 = 2

I figured

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa...78C83414B7F0000

String Revival - making a comeback?

....cosmic strings, which fell out of favor in the late 1990s, are making a comeback thanks to observations that may have actually detected them....

....Galaxies and quasars splitting into two, exact replicas of each other....

...extend across the surrounding area, as if a piece of cosmic string is stretched out in the foreground....

Can you visualize this occuring in the vastness of macrocosmic space, as it does in microcosmic space?

....In Mirror Symmetry there can be two spacetimes and one physics. Space can evolve in ways that we wouldn't have thought possible before. It divorces spacetime geometry from physics but it doesn't divorce them completely.... Greene

String theory is based on a philosophy that matter is composed of vibrating "strings" of energy. Here's a great program about it.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

The entire 3 hour program is available streaming.
(Also explains Einsteins theories and quantum mechanics.)

What do you think about this? How can we relate this to the reality we percieve?

my opinion...

at best, string theory might be homomorphic to physicality. I do not believe it is isomorphic because I reject the continuum hypothesis of space and material, a hypothesis that is central to string theory.

So you belive that there are voids in the fabric of spacetime?

Unexplainable abscences of physical reality?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/everything.html

A theory to end theories

For the first time in the history of physics we therefore have a framework with the capacity to explain every fundamental feature upon which the universe is constructed. For this reason string theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything" (T.O.E.) or the "ultimate" or "final" theory. These grandiose descriptive terms are meant to signify the deepest possible theory of physics—a theory that underlies all others, one that does not require or even allow for a deeper explanatory base....

....if we could examine these particles with even greater precision—a precision many orders of magnitude beyond our present technological capacity—we would find that each is not pointlike but instead consists of a tiny, one-dimensional loop. Like an infinitely thin rubber band, each particle contains a vibrating, oscillating, dancing filament that physicists have named a string.....

....String theory adds the new microscopic layer of a vibrating loop to the previously known progression from atoms through protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks....

...Although it is by no means obvious, this simple replacement of point-particle material constituents with strings resolves the incompatibility between quantum mechanics and general relativity (which, as currently formulated, cannot both be right). String theory thereby unravels the central Gordian knot of contemporary theoretical physics. This is a tremendous achievement, but it is only part of the reason string theory has generated such excitement....

Come on guys, how many of you know the mathematics behind string theory (i.e., what it's all about)? Would it be helpful to provide this info? I have several ebooks (pdf's) over the mathematics behind string theory but will probably violate copyrights if I make them publicly available. If anyone has any ideas, I'm listening.

it has mostly to do with my interest in unifying consciousness with physics; to me the fundamental unit of physical structure is extended only into existence, translating to 'dimensionless' in terms of continuum spaces. In such a case, the space itself is unnecessary if we can define all interactivity of such units in terms of their intrinsic properties.

I see. I can't argue with that: you may be right. Now about proving it....

Actually, it's very similar to my hypothetical ontology, in which I assert that time and space are not things that have existence. It's still hypothetical, though, and subject to revision.

Super String Theory a new and rather revolutionary way to view our world at a reductionist level. Basically it is the idea that in essence the world at its smallest is comprised of tiny minute strings whose vibrations ultimately determine the very nature of our universe. Here are a few basic and rather interesting points about the theory and leave out the mathematics, seeing as how they often fail the "t-shirt" test.

A violin is a beautiful instrument, it having the ability to sing beautifully when in the skilled hands of an experienced player. The harmonics of acoustics is rather delightful and it would seem applicable to the latest theory in physics which is really rather old, and by that I mean about twenty years or so give or take founding theories. String theory states that at the universes core elements lies tiny vibrating strings, to get an idea of how small, for a particle accelertor to "make one viewable" it would have to be roughly the size of our known universe.

These strings have vibrations which according to their vibrations in essence determine their final product. Open strings, closed strings, it a rather innovative theory that has the possible ability to of course answer key questions in physics. Being divided by five theories who were thought to be definitively different, but were later to be proven to culminate into one theory, M-Theory, symmetry in the making and fully defined.

String theory presents oddities in its explanations, like how its possible to have multiple curled up universes, or manifolds, or how they limit a singularity by in essence curling around the point.. Basically its a high interesting topic, not yet accepted by all and is headed by the likes of Brian Greene, of Columbia University. So dig deep, and read his book "Elegant Universe", its a interesting read...and a devastatingly simple stroke against the utter complexity that often riddles what is accepted to be answers to key problems.

The best thing I have read on the string theory is THE UNIVERSE ON A T-SHIRT--The Quest for the Theory of Everything, by Dan Falk. I got it for Christmas 2002, just after it came out.

The last chapter is, What Does It All Mean?--Science, God, and the Limits of Understanding. Stephen Hawking is quoted on page 201 as saying that he does not believe in God unless one defines God as the embodiment of the laws of physics. Right on, Hawking!

In the the 1970's, I was introduced, by a brilliant and younger colleague, my assistant minister at the time, to the concepts of A. N. Whitehead and to panentheism--God is that which is in and through all things. Later, I coined the word 'unitheism' to avoid confusing panentheism with pantheism--God is the sum of all things physical.

As a unitheist--that is, one who find's A.N. Whitehead's process philosophy and theology very attractive--I am quite willing to leave the concept of a personal deity at the door. For me, G-d (note the spelling) is not a personal and superbeing who is separate and apart from the physical, mental and spiritual universe. However, I can conceptualize G-d as being personal, in persons. Like Jesus, IMO, we--and I speak inclusively of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.--are all children of G-d.

A growing number of people are interested in this concept. See http://www.unitheism.org where a fellow unitheist--a friend, Warren Farr, I found on the Web--offers some ideas. Much of the writing is his. He includes a short essay I wrote.

The various goods that we value such as strength, health, knowledge, friendship, community, honesty, openness, and fairness are human values that arise through man. The goods and wealth we create to help our selves, communities, and nations likewise arise from our inborn strengths and virtues. As Unitheism acknowledges the human role in these goods, it seems to be little different (in essence) from humanism. Going a bit further, it seems to me that to say that there is some role for a "god" (regardless of how you spell it) only detracts from our own human responsibility for our actions. Therefore, as the Unitheist conception of god is little different from nature (which includes man), it seems to me that ascribing a property of divinity to nature adds very little conceptual value to the theory. A philosophy without theism seems to me to be adequate for both ethics and eschatology.

"A philosophy without theism seems to me to be adequate for both ethics and eschatology. " Rick

Is "athiesm" wiithout theism? Or is it against theism. I suspect the latter.

On the other hand, unitheism says: Whatever is, IS G-d. As a unitheist, I can, like A.N. Whitehead and his process theology/philosophy, build from there.

Rick, I uderstand that you are a humanist. But are you also an atheist? If so, what are your roots?

Who was it said: "Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things"? Rick, I found out by reading the following excellent essay by Nigel Sinnott. Have you seen it? and what do you think?

Atheist foundation of Australia inc

Why I am Not a Humanist

by Nigel Sinnott

For complete essay see: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/humanist.htm

Sinnott begins his excellent essay with the words:

"No, I have not forsaken three quarters of a lifetime's atheism and found myself a god or a guru. but I would like to set out my reasons for being profoundly unhappy - as I have been for 25 years - about belonging to a movement with the general label "humanist"."

The 12th. paragraph, down, he adds:

"Glory to man in the highest! for man is the master of things" wrote Swinburne, my favourite poet. The words are marvellous rhetoric, intended to shock mid-nineteenth century piety, but today, if taken seriously, they would be a recipe for an ecological nightmare. If any other species of animal had caused a quarter as much destruction of life (including annihilation of whole species), degradation of landscape, fouling of the seas and pollution of the air as humanity has, we would have declared such an animal - however smart and intelligent - to be dangerous vermin and would be spending vast resources on destroying it."

His final paragraph is:

"What has become pressingly important today is humanity's need to realise - and take action on the fact - that we do not stand apart from other living organisms. we are a part of nature: we can only "conquer" nature by destroying the natural world and ourselves with it. Homo sapiens badly needs a sense of ecological humility, combined with curiosity and intellectual integrity. we do not need blinkered conceit dignified as humanism, or evasion of the facts of life and death sanctified as religion."

Sinnott abhors cultism, of any kind, including "the cult of Humanism", as well as the "cult of God". Unitheism, because it accepts the oneness, and inter-relatedness, of all that IS, takes a similar point of view, without having to use the rather negative label 'atheist'.

What do you think, Rick? And are you reading right now, as I see indicated on my screen? 12:50, Toronto time?

That's a very good article. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Sinnott and I think along very similar lines.

I don't think I used the term "athiest" to describe myself. I have spoken of the desirability of a philosophy without theism. And I don't think the term "humanist" necessarily implies that one regards man as separate from nature. Perhaps "naturist" might be a better term.

Humanism certainly doesn't advocate the domination of nature. I think the problem is that most people are not humanists, such as the Republicans currently raping the environment.

BTW, the following thought came to me this morning: After reading Sinnott, and a poem of Algernon Charles Swinburne http://www.photoaspects.com/chesil/swinburne/#3 I have come to the conclusion that the word 'G-d', properly speaking, is not a noun.

Like the word Rev., its proper use is that of an adjective. For example, if I describe a person as a "G-d person" I mean that he/she is one who is totally devoted to being a moral, ethical, gracious and loving person, in thought word and deed. Such a person is devoted to the process of helping, in cooperation with other like persons, the highest good, physically, mentally and spiritually.

May I call you a G-d person, Rick?

Certainly, but why not just call such people good persons? That eliminates confusion. And as far as "total devotion" goes, people, being merely human, always have times when they are not as devoted to noble thought and action as they might be.

We surely agree in many fundamentals, but people need to get terminology they can agree on.

Continuing in a philosophical vein, it seems to me that it might be more beneficial generally to discover and eliminate false beliefs than to acquire new true ones. As with Occam's razor, the principle is to not adopt any belief (reality model feature) unless it can be demonstrated that such adoption is necessary or improves the model in some way.

An example of the widespread adoption of a false belief that has done incalculable harm over the centuries occurs in the case of the spread of Calvinism. Every Protestant church today is influenced in some way by Calvinism.

John Calvin was a Protestant fundamentalist who adopted the belief that the Bible was literally true. However, like most fundamentalists (and because the Bible contradicts itself frequently), he was quite selective in what parts of the Bible he chose to follow literally. For some reason, Christians seem particularly susceptible to this sort of blindness.

One part of the Bible Calvin chose as literal truth is that God sees the future. This implies, to the literal mind of Calvinists, that the "future" is some thing that has existence, and like the past is a single thing, immutable in a static vision of eternity. This belief led to the doctrine of predestination and all the other nonsense that follows from that (such as an elect person will be in heaven at some time in the future and nothing he does now can change that).

The false idea of an extension of now into two directions of a continuous time dimension also occurs in popular culture and science fiction, with various attendant paradoxes. Conceiving time as a continuous dimension leads to the supposition that we are "traveling" in time and that it might be possible to travel backwards in time.

Today philosophers and physicists are coming to realize that time is an abstraction that facilitates computation of daily activities and physical events, and is not really a "dimension" like length and width, so that the idea that there is some set "future" out there that is destined to occur, or that it is a kind of "place" that can be traveled to, is nonsense.

However, the damage is done, and repair work is gradual at best. Another very damaging false belief is that the period of time a person lives is relatively unimportant, and that the real existence is in some kind of "afterlife." This false belief enables terrorists to kill easily (they are really sending people to God) and believe they can use suicidal tactics profitably because they will be rewarded instantly with eternal bliss in a "heaven."

In sum, then, a humanist (naturist) approach is indicated because it emphasizes life here and now as well as in the future when our descendants will live in the Earth they inherit from us. But you are welcome to call me a free thinker, instead, if you want to.

“The science of pure mathematics, in its modern developments, may claim to be the most original creation of the human spirit,” A.N. Whitehead (1925).

The secret to life can be found in mathematical thought.

all telescopes do is collect photons, they do not 'look back' in time. We can, however, imagine times past while gazing at the patterns formed by the photons we have collected.

Good stuff, everyone.

Rick, if by 'naturism' you mean to include all that IS--visible and invisible, physically, mentally and spiritually, I consider unitheism and naturism to be doublets of one another.

I am also a fan of the writings of the philosopher and mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead, what I understand of him. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/

MATTHEW FOX
Also see the work of Matthew Fox http://www.matthewfox.org/sys-tmpl/door/
Fox is the founder and president of the University Creation Spirituality (UCS) located in downtown Oakland, California. UCS is unique in its commitment to bring spirit to education and our professions. UCS is deliberately located in the heart of the community as a model of hope and revitalization to the downtown area, as well as diversity and racial harmony. In addition to his work as founder of UCS, writer, and teacher in the San Francisco Bay area, Fox lectures throughout North America, Central America, Europe, and Australia. Much of the inspiration behind UCS stems from the strong responses to Fox's book, The Reinvention of Work, printed in 1996.

I guess that makes me an unwitting unitheist, then.

Please don't hanker on "time". I think you'll find that the outcome of Einstein's thoughts was "space-time". And once again, we are using "dimensions" too loosely. The "visualisation" of what is out there is all we (human minds) are doing. What is actually out there is probably something very different, with no dimensions in the way we describe them. And why should God lead to religion and worship? Or are we trying to be vain again, hoping that eventually we will receive worship as some superior being, when we find life out there?