Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 138 of 138
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Do you believe there is a hell?

  1. #131
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    766
    Thanks
    966

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Sorry but you are purposely misrepresenting what I said.
    Really? So, when you said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    The truth is, string theory is a dead end. The recent detection of gravitational waves sealed the deal.
    ...you didn't mean to say that the recent detection of gravitation waves proves that String Theory is a dead end, i.e. disproved? Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but your statement looks to be pretty clear and definitive to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    We are talking about a physical theory involving eleven dimensions. What categorical statement of fact can one really make involving 11 dimensions, hmmmm?

    String may predict some hitherto unknown physical phenomenon through its 'elegant' math but unless we can directly observe phenomena in 11 dimensions, its position as legitimate science remains precarious, at best (which was my original point). In any case, the observation of gravitational waves traveling through space-time at a finite speed solidifies the notion that just like everything else, the fabric of reality is indeed quantized (no need to posit 11 dimensions which, btw, blatantly disregards the scientific precept of okham's razor).

    Which ultimately begs the question: how can a 'stringy' person criticize a concept of, say, heaven, on the grounds of provable science when that same person gets paid trying to sell everyone the (counter-intuitive and directly unprovable) idea of an 11-dimension reality?
    Okay, if you want to maintain that pursuing proof for a theory designed to unify observable physics that is based upon complex equations that are consistent with observable phenomena is philosophically no different than believing in a particular concept of heaven, then knock yourself out. To be honest, I'm not all that into these sorts of ontological debates. I just don't like to see current scientific thought misrepresented and I really don't like to see amateurs dismissing the work of professionals based on personal biases.

    Cheers.

  2. #132
    ~Standing My Ground~ Sassy's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    40,371
    Thanks
    15829

    From
    God Bless Texas
    If there is a Hell, we are in it.

  3. #133
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Really? So, when you said this:



    ...you didn't mean to say that the recent detection of gravitation waves proves that String Theory is a dead end, i.e. disproved? Sorry if I misinterpreted you, but your statement looks to be pretty clear and definitive to me.
    Yes, my point is clear and yes, you are misrepresenting what I said.

    Proving or disproving string is an exercise in futility (a dead end) because by positing an 11-dimension reality, you are not only trying to prove the original proposition (which is a unifying field theory) but an additional 7 extra dimensions. Tell me -- how do you suppose string intends to prove that, hmmmm?

    In the meantime, gravitational waves already confirm an existing theory of quantum gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Okay, if you want to maintain that pursuing proof for a theory designed to unify observable physics that is based upon complex equations that are consistent with observable phenomena is philosophically no different than believing in a particular concept of heaven, then knock yourself out. To be honest, I'm not all that into these sorts of ontological debates. I just don't like to see current scientific thought misrepresented and I really don't like to see amateurs dismissing the work of professionals based on personal biases.

    Cheers.
    And you think philosophers are not professionals as compared to theoretical physicists?

    Or did you think the complexity of the equations defining an n-dimension manifold makes that topological space real?

    Or did you think pointing out the opinions of some the these 'professionals' is a misrepresentation?

  4. #134
    Junior Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    1,047
    Thanks
    145

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by res View Post
    If you are a follower of Judaism then you don't have this dilemma. There is no life after death and there is no hell. ...
    Not really.

    -----
    A Miktam of David. Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge. I say to the Lord, "You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you". As for the saints in the land, they are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight. The sorrows of those who run after another god shall multiply; their drink offerings of blood I will not pour out or take their names on my lips. The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold my lot. The lines have fallen for me in pleasant places; indeed, I have a beautiful inheritance. I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me. I have set the Lord always before me; because he is at my right hand, I shall not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad, and my whole being rejoices; my flesh also dwells secure. For you will not abandon my soul to Sheol, or let your holy one see corruption. You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.
    -----

    -----

  5. #135
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    766
    Thanks
    966

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    Yes, my point is clear and yes, you are misrepresenting what I said.
    Really? Well then, perhaps you’d be so good as to tell us exactly how I’ve misrepresented what you’ve said relative to String Theory. Or is that what you’re trying to do immediately below?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    Proving or disproving string is an exercise in futility (a dead end) because by positing an 11-dimension reality, you are not only trying to prove the original proposition (which is a unifying field theory) but an additional 7 extra dimensions. Tell me -- how do you suppose string intends to prove that, hmmmm?
    So, is it your position that we can dismiss String Theory simply because it posits more than four dimensions? Are you suggesting that even if we find additional physical evidence that is consistent with String Theory equations and we don’t find similar evidence consistent with other unifying field theories that we’ll never, ever be justified in provisionally accepting String Theory because we can’t directly observe all of its postulated dimensions? That seems… unscientific. After all, no one has every directly observed subatomic particles either. We don’t therefore insist that theories incorporating their calculated characteristics are bunk by definition.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    In the meantime, gravitational waves already confirm an existing theory of quantum gravity.
    Really? Do tell. If you’ve developed a unification theory based on gravitational wave data that obviates any need for String Theory then why are you wasting your time posting here?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    And you think philosophers are not professionals as compared to theoretical physicists?
    No, but I do think that a philosopher, however erudite, is not necessarily competent to judge the work of a professional theoretical physicist. Would you argue otherwise?

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    Or did you think the complexity of the equations defining an n-dimension manifold makes that topological space real?
    Don’t be silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    Or did you think pointing out the opinions of some the these 'professionals' is a misrepresentation?
    Eh? What ‘professionals’ are we talking about here and why are we using scare quotes? I don’t understand your question.

    Cheers.

  6. #136
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    6,557
    Thanks
    281

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Really? Well then, perhaps youíd be so good as to tell us exactly how Iíve misrepresented what youíve said relative to String Theory. Or is that what youíre trying to do immediately below?
    I have.

    You claim that I am suggesting string to be disproved. There is nothing to prove or disprove so how exactly could I even claim such a thing???? As a scientific theory, it violates the precepts of okham's razor.

    The ultimate point -- if one were free to posit as many dimensions as one possibly can, you can just as easily derive a universe in the shape of an elephant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    So, is it your position that we can dismiss String Theory simply because it posits more than four dimensions?
    It certainly is good for doing the mathematics of n-dimension topological space, if that's what you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Are you suggesting that even if we find additional physical evidence that is consistent with String Theory equations and we donít find similar evidence consistent with other unifying field theories that weíll never, ever be justified in provisionally accepting String Theory because we canít directly observe all of its postulated dimensions? That seemsÖ unscientific. After all, no one has every directly observed subatomic particles either. We donít therefore insist that theories incorporating their calculated characteristics are bunk by definition.
    You mean you are ready to consider provisional acceptability of the string without some reasonable method of testability? And you think that is scientific?

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Really? Do tell. If youíve developed a unification theory based on gravitational wave data that obviates any need for String Theory then why are you wasting your time posting here?
    Because it was never my intention to offer a unifying theory. It is my intention to remind you that if theology is being made to conform with the scientific method (a ludicrous exercise, if I may say so), more so a scientific theory. A little intellectual honesty is required here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    No, but I do think that a philosopher, however erudite, is not necessarily competent to judge the work of a professional theoretical physicist. Would you argue otherwise?
    To the extent that a scientific theory bears on some philosophical principle, yes, a philosopher is within his competence to criticize it. It has always been like that, or haven't you noticed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Donít be silly.
    Isn't that what you are suggesting here -- that the mathematical complexity of string lends in itself lends it some credence? Are you now withdrawing this statement as silly?

    Quote Originally Posted by Havelock View Post
    Eh? What Ďprofessionalsí are we talking about here and why are we using scare quotes? I donít understand your question.

    Cheers.
    The opinion I posted about string was the opinion of theoretical physicists, not my own. So, how am I misrepresenting string?

  7. #137
    New Member Havelock's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    766
    Thanks
    966

    From
    U.S.A.
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    You claim that I am suggesting string to be disproved. There is nothing to prove or disprove so how exactly could I even claim such a thing???? As a scientific theory, it violates the precepts of okham's razor.

    The ultimate point -- if one were free to posit as many dimensions as one possibly can, you can just as easily derive a universe in the shape of an elephant.
    Mmm hmmm… So then, if there’s nothing to prove or disprove, why bring up the gravitational wave data at all? Why imply those data were somehow dispositive? You did that, remember?

    String theory doesn’t necessarily violate the precepts of Occam’s Razor, by the way. Fact is, we don’t yet know whether it does or doesn’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    You mean you are ready to consider provisional acceptability of the string without some reasonable method of testability? And you think that is scientific?
    Interestingly, you failed to answer my key question. Let me restate it. No one has directly observed an electron. Nevertheless we provisionally accept the existence of electrons because all of the data we’ve collected fits with the theories we’ve generated based on those data. We can test our hypotheses regarding the existence and properties of electrons, but only up to a point. The electron characteristics we’ve postulated are the most parsimonious explanations we currently have for the phenomena we’ve observed and so we accept them, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve been “proven” by direct observation. Point is, we accept indirect evidence quite often in science as a means of testing hypotheses. I presume you’re willing to accept that sort of testing in the case of something like an electron. Why is it by definition unreasonable in the case of String Theory?

    In any case, not all physicists agree with you that there are not and cannot be any reasonable methods of testing String Theory. Agree or disagree? If you agree, then I guess I’ve made my point.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    Because it was never my intention to offer a unifying theory. It is my intention to remind you that if theology is being made to conform with the scientific method (a ludicrous exercise, if I may say so), more so a scientific theory. A little intellectual honesty is required here.
    Okay. We agree that it’s ludicrous to attempt to force theology to meet the standards of the scientific method. So there’s that.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    To the extent that a scientific theory bears on some philosophical principle, yes, a philosopher is within his competence to criticize it. It has always been like that, or haven't you noticed?
    What scientific theory doesn’t bear on some philosophical principle in some way?

    Anyway, here’s one thing I have noticed: The vast majority of highly-trained and educated individuals – scientists, doctors, engineers, pilots, philosophers, historians, linguists, what-have-you – very often grossly overestimate their ability to understand and comment thoughtfully and usefully upon things outside their general areas of expertise.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    Isn't that what you are suggesting here -- that the mathematical complexity of string lends in itself lends it some credence? Are you now withdrawing this statement as silly?
    No, I’m not suggesting that the mathematical complexity of String Theory by itself lends it some credence. That’s your bugaboo, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat
    The opinion I posted about string was the opinion of theoretical physicists, not my own. So, how am I misrepresenting string?
    You said String Theory was a dead end, remember? You didn’t quote anyone; those were your words. My point in replying to your statement was to note that not all theoretical physicists agree with you by any means, and you shouldn’t speak as if they do. The fact that some physicists agree with you doesn’t obviate my point. That’s all.

    Cheers.

  8. #138
    Junior Member fenrir's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    1,380
    Thanks
    259

    From
    Yoknapatawpha County
    Quote Originally Posted by Benji View Post
    I don't. I think most people go through enough hell on earth and a loving God would not condemn them to such. There may be a hell for the most egregious offenders, like Hitler, Pol Pot, etc. But just the average human? It doesn't make any sense to punish a finite 'crime' with infinite suffering.
    Yeah, offhand Baltimore comes to mind.


Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 326
    Last Post: 28th April 2017, 02:25 PM
  2. 23 min in Hell
    By Terri321 in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 524
    Last Post: 26th August 2007, 08:43 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed