How do you intelligent people possibly choose "faith"?

[Críostóir]

There are only two places at which the question of why order emerged apply: the origin of the universal constants, and the appearance of intelligence (possibly at the emergence of life itself, but I'm not entirely convinced either way there).

No one knows exactly why the universal constants are what they are, but the latest theory I've heard is that the exact nature of the collision between the two 11-dimensional membranes, and the nature of the 'branes themselves, determined what they would be...though their values didn't settle down right away. The laws of physics have been constant since then, but at first it was kind of a dieroll.

 

[Royal Heart]

I've read the same theory and it's not unreasonable. If the entire contents of our universe can arise out of self-organization, why can't the laws that govern it? Makes sense to me.

 

[Kulindahr]

No one knows exactly why the universal constants are what they are, but the latest theory I've heard is that the exact nature of the collision between the two 11-dimensional membranes, and the nature of the 'branes themselves, determined what they would be...though their values didn't settle down right away. The laws of physics have been constant since then, but at first it was kind of a dieroll.

Metaphysics, at this point. None of that is testable, so it's not actually theory.

Ptolemy's epicycles worked pretty well, too, BTW.

 

[Royal Heart]

That would make it a hypothesis, wouldn't it?

 

[Kulindahr]

That would make it a hypothesis, wouldn't it?

The way I learned it, even a hypothesis has to be testable. Without testability, it's merely conjecture -- and if there's no conceivable way to test it, it's metaphysics.

And even some of the original string theory people can't see how 'brane' stuff will ever be testable.

 

[Críostóir]

Metaphysics, at this point. None of that is testable, so it's not actually theory.

Then nothing in astronomy is. No way to do experiments; you just postulate the conditions that led to something and see if your hypothesis predicts what you observe--and keep looking for cases that would confirm or falsify your hypothesis.

It's NOT metaphysics. At this point, it's largely math. The current theory of gravity took hold because the math worked. The math is based on things we can observe, and through it we can deduce what must be going on, and what must have happened at the beginning. And while math has its mystical aspect, it's also the purest of all the sciences, and no other science works without it. IMO it's in the realm of mathematics that the spiritual unites with the scientific.

Science very seldom results in absolute proof or absolute knowledge. Absolute certainty is the realm of faith. I abhor certainty, myself: I regard doubt as a cardinal virtue, because it keeps me looking and exploring and listening...and keeps me from getting hubristic about the things that I know (meaning "find most likely of the available hypotheses, based on my observations and the observations of people I've come to trust").

 

[Kulindahr]

Then nothing in astronomy is. No way to do experiments; you just postulate the conditions that led to something and see if your hypothesis predicts what you observe--and keep looking for cases that would confirm or falsify your hypothesis.

It's NOT metaphysics. At this point, it's largely math. The current theory of gravity took hold because the math worked. The math is based on things we can observe, and through it we can deduce what must be going on, and what must have happened at the beginning. And while math has its mystical aspect, it's also the purest of all the sciences, and no other science works without it. IMO it's in the realm of mathematics that the spiritual unites with the scientific.

Science very seldom results in absolute proof or absolute knowledge. Absolute certainty is the realm of faith. I abhor certainty, myself: I regard doubt as a cardinal virtue, because it keeps me looking and exploring and listening...and keeps me from getting hubristic about the things that I know (meaning "find most likely of the available hypotheses, based on my observations and the observations of people I've come to trust").

Astronomy deals with things you can see and measure and apply math to describe.

"Brane" conjecture deals with nothing at all, just math and imagination.

 

[Críostóir]

Astronomy deals with things you can see and measure and apply math to describe.

"Brane" conjecture deals with nothing at all, just math and imagination.

Brane theory is the mathematical idea that accounts for what we can observe. It's pretty strange, yes, but the fact is that no other theory explains it all. Even string theory could account for everything except the Big Bang.

The universe is not simple. For some things, the underlying theory is simple; for others, it is not. Brane theory may get simpler as more physicists work on it, and it may be totally debunked, but that's science.

I don't pretend to even come close to understanding it, but then, I'm no physicist, and I have the humility to acknowledge that just because I don't understand the reasoning behind something doesn't mean the reasoning isn't there, or that it doesn't make sense.

 

[AsianDream]

Now you changed the standard.

There are numerous prominent scientists who have concluded on the basis of their fields that there must be a Creator. There's nothing irrational about that.

My point is that intelligent people (including Scientists) can believe in irrational ideas.

Where people argue logically for religion - this is generally based on the “Watchmaker” concept - That very complex structures (such as a watch) necessarily require an “Intelligent Designer”.

In fact this is now known to be a false premise – natural processes can create extraordinarily complex structures without any need for divine intervention (or any from of an intelligent designer).

A rational idea is one for which there is some reasonable level of proof. This does not need to be beyond any possibility of doubt – but should be proved beyond reasonable doubt (eg: 95% probability).

On even the more basic “balance of probability” (50/50) concept of proof and evidence – no religious ideas even comes close to this.

So belief in an idea with no evidence for it is not un-intelligent – just not rational

 

[AsianDream]

Brane theory is the mathematical idea that accounts for what we can observe. It's pretty strange, yes, but the fact is that no other theory explains it all. Even string theory could account for everything except the Big Bang.

The universe is not simple. For some things, the underlying theory is simple; for others, it is not. Brane theory may get simpler as more physicists work on it, and it may be totally debunked, but that's science.

I don't pretend to even come close to understanding it, but then, I'm no physicist, and I have the humility to acknowledge that just because I don't understand the reasoning behind something doesn't mean the reasoning isn't there, or that it doesn't make sense.

Thus is probably very “off-topic” – But just because the math of an 11 dimensional space of vibrating strings matches many aspects of reality doesn’t mean that’s what reality really is.

Just as the Calorific theory of heat as an invisible fluid matched (and accurately predicted) most of the ways in which heat behaved – didn’t mean that this was what heat actually is.

 

[Críostóir]

Thus is probably very “off-topic” – But just because the math of an 11 dimensional space of vibrating strings matches many aspects of reality doesn’t mean that’s what reality really is.

Just as the Calorific theory of heat as an invisible fluid matched (and accurately predicted) most of the ways in which heat behaved – didn’t mean that this was what heat actually is.

Vibrating membranes, not strings. The five different 10-dimensional string theories were unified into one 11-dimensional membrane theory.

And of course! Theories are sometimes debunked, and most are supplanted by new ones. That's science. The atomic theory that I learned in high school is no longer current. Absolute truth is not scientific; all scientists claim is "this is how we think it works based on the evidence we have so far." Then they work to confirm or debunk the theory.

Scientific progress doesn't happen any other way.

 

[Yuki Sohma]

How do you intelligent people possibly choose "faith"? ...How can you be so sure? And if you're not so sure, why should I follow you?

WoW! What a great question.........here's my response as to how I "Found Religion" (steps to God if you will)!!.........

1) Trusted my DaD & MoM (love ya)

2) Developed a personal desire to know

3) Trusted God would provide the answer just as I "Trusted my DaD & MoM"

4) Called on God

5) Trusted my own instincts..............

 

[AsianDream]

Vibrating membranes, not strings. The five different 10-dimensional string theories were unified into one 11-dimensional membrane theory.

And of course! Theories are sometimes debunked, and most are supplanted by new ones. That's science. The atomic theory that I learned in high school is no longer current. Absolute truth is not scientific; all scientists claim is "this is how we think it works based on the evidence we have so far." Then they work to confirm or debunk the theory.

Scientific progress doesn't happen any other way.

I think it is still the strings that vibrate within "M-theory"? but to be honest I don't undrestand enough of the math to know if this means that the "Branes" also vibrate.

Most "scientific age" theories are not "debunked" - but are rather found to be incomplete and that they are just signposts to a higher level of understanding.

So Einstien didn't "debunk" Newton - but expanded on his ideas to give a more complete idea of reaility.

The fact that Einstien's insight led directly to the atomic bomb (and probably the most important letter ever written to a politician!) - does not mean that his geometeric desription of reality is how this really is

 

[Críostóir]

I think it is still the strings that vibrate within "M-theory"? but to be honest I don't undrestand enough of the math to know if this means that the "Branes" also vibrate.

Most "scientific age" theories are not "debunked" - but are rather found to be incomplete and that they are just signposts to a higher level of understanding.

So Einstien didn't "debunk" Newton - but expanded on his ideas to give a more complete idea of reaility.

The fact that Einstien's insight led directly to the atomic bomb (and probably the most important letter ever written to a politician!) - does not mean that his geometeric desription of reality is how this really is

You're right, this is getting off-topic. If you want to start a thread about basic physics, I'll look in and see if I want to participate (I'm not a physicist, after all), but I'm not going to continue this conversation here.

 

[AsianDream]

You're right, this is getting off-topic. If you want to start a thread about basic physics, I'll look in and see if I want to participate (I'm not a physicist, after all), but I'm not going to continue this conversation here.

Sadly I don't know enough "basic physics" to start a thread on this - and even if I did - I can't see a JUB category this would readily fit within. But I guess - however much you and I are interested in these ideas - this is not the right forum to talk about them

 

[Críostóir]

Sorry, I meant fundamental physics. Not basic. I meant physics that addresses questions like "why is there matter?" and "how did our universe begin?" and "why is gravity so weak?" and "what is time?"

Fascinating topics, but I have only the most rudimentary understanding of them.

 

[AsianDream]

WoW! What a great question.........here's my response as to how I "Found Religion" (steps to God if you will)!!.........

1) Trusted my DaD & MoM
2) Developed a personal desire to know
3) Trusted God would provide the answer just as I "Trusted my DaD & MoM"
4) Called on God
5) Trusted my own instincts.

I think of these steps to God - 2,4 and 5 are vague aspirational statements - while step 3 is wholly dependant on step 1.

So your particular form of religious belief boils down to the basic step 1 statement:
"I Trusted my DaD & MoM"

This is a very accurate statement of how religious ideas are in reality acquired - so the fact that most people in the Middle East are Muslim is only dependant on Children "Trusting their DaDs & MoMs" - rather than these ideas having any inherant rational basis in truth.

Again this shows that intelligent people can very easily choose "faith" - while rational people can't

The indefinite nature of a "personal desire to know, calling on God and trusting your own instincts" is hopefully self evident (2,4,5) - while "Trusting God would provide the answer" just as you "Trusted your DaD & MoM" (3) shows the circular nature of this argument

 

[Kulindahr]

This is a very accurate statement of how religious ideas are in reality acquired

Unfounded generalization.

Again this shows that intelligent people can very easily choose "faith" - while rational people can't

Unfounded assertion.

 

[poolerboy]

Unfounded assertion.

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

 

[Kulindahr]

Pot.

Kettle.

Black.

Fallacious response.

By your own standards, too.