M-Theory/String Theory

You should read the whole thread again, while you may find some elements of physics a good part of it deals in metaphysics with God coming up a few times together with "energies", circle of life and consciousness. That's perfectly fine with me but it has nothing to do with science, as long as you keep that in mind go ahead.

While my English skills may be lacking you have to incorporate a semantic component to our "intelligent" discussion. Before having this conversation we should pin down common referents, otherwise communication is void. The ambiguity you speak of is not only there because of my choice of words, it's inherent to the language we use. We don't hear what the other person is saying, we hear his words and we interpret them through our own references and associative memory. This is exacerbated by the structural differences that exists between our languages and cultures. There is much more to it but this is off-topic as this deals with General Semantics. I'm not denying my poor choice of words here, but I think I took the time to explain what I actually meant.

We seem to struggle more with language than the actual content of our discussion. What you're saying is that we have a big problem if our assumption is not absolute, and afterwards you're saying: "Any good scientist understands from the start that it still is an assumption." So it needs to be absolute, otherwise it compromises our position, but it is not absolute as this would contradict the scientific method. The speed of light IN A VACUUM appears to be a constant. You should take a moment to google your assumption, there are more elements that needs to be taken into consideration before making assumptions about the "absolute " nature of the speed of light or the notion of it being a constant.

I already admitted I had been too quick to be so judgemental about you. However while my first post was ambiguous as you said I never claimed a single-point expansion, I already elaborated on that. Regarding the speed of light, I'm still upholding my view. There are no absolutes in science, the same can be said about the speed of light.

Selah said:

You should read the whole thread again, while you may find some elements of physics most of it deals in metaphysics with God coming up a few times together with "energies", circle of life and consciousness. That's perfectly fine with me but it has nothing to do with science, as long as you keep that in mind go ahead.

Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't consider drunk posting to be part of the actual discussion. If a few of the usual suspects attempt to bring god into this discussion, it still does not make the thread about metaphysics. We should only go by the content and intent of the OP.

While my English skills may be lacking you have to incorporate the semantic component of intelligent discussion. Before having this conversation we should pin down common referents, otherwise communication is void. The ambiguity you speak of is not only there because of my choice of words, it's inherent to the language we use.

Click to expand...

Are you actually claiming that our language is not extensive enough to be precise? Sorry no. Ambiguous posts are usually the fault of the writer, not the reader.

We don't hear what the other person is saying, we hear his words and we interpret them through our own references and associative memory. There is much more to it but this is off-topic as this deals with General Semantics. I'm not refuting my poor choice of words here, but I think I took the time to explain what I actually meant.

Click to expand...

I still do not think so. I think you merely attempted to defend your incorrect comments with more of the same. You are still making claims that are just incorrect. They are not open to multiple interpretations, they are wrong.

We seem to struggle more with language than the actual content of our discussion. What you're saying is that we have a big problem if our assumption is not absolute, after that you say: "Any good scientist understands from the start that it still is an assumption." So it needs to be absolute, otherwise it compromises our position, but it is not absolute as this would contradict the scientific method.

Click to expand...

You have to explain this comment more. How does having the laws of physics apply equally everywhere contradict the scientific method? If the laws of physics works different in Canada and Australia, we have big problems. Same as if the laws are different on the moon, our sun, the Andromeda galaxy, etc. If the laws don't work the same everywhere, then we cannot be confident in any finding in science making the whole pursuit pretty worthless and I am not one that thinks that scientific inquiry is worthless.

The speed of light IN A VACUUM appears to be a constant. The speed of light varies depending of the medium through which it goes, so there is much more to this discussion than making a single assumption that the speed of light is a constant. This deals with relativity amongst many other subfields of physics and astrophysics.

Click to expand...

Seriously? Of course we are talking about speed of light in a vacuum. That is the definition of the constant c. It does not have to be specified each and every time when we are talking about lightspeed, it is a given, unless we are discussing other mediums. None of that really makes any difference as to whether or not the speed of light has an upper limit which happens to be the limit for everything else. It is not an assumption, it is an actual part of the fabric of the universe according to our best theory. Continuing to claim it is an assumption or an approximation is demonstrating your lack of knowledge on the subject. Maybe it is a language thing but I think you understand the difference between an assumption and solid foundation based on good physical models. I have a pet peeve about using the words proof and proven when it comes to science since everything is subject to revision, however there is a point when theories are strong enough to be considered proven by the highest level of confidence, and the fact that c is a constant, real value happens to be one of those things. One can no longer claim assumption when the value is derived mathematically as well as demonstrated experimentally. If the speed of light was not a constant, the whole of chemistry and mechanical properties of all substances would be different than what we observe.

I already admitted I had been too quick to be so judgemental about you. However while my first post was ambiguous as you said I never claimed a single-point expansion, I already elaborated on that. Regarding the speed of light, I'm still upholding my view. There are no absolutes in science, the same can be said about the speed of light.

Click to expand...

If "it is possible I was wrong" is an admission on your part, then fine although it still sounds a little hollow. However, I wish you would quit with this 'absolute' crap. I agree that we cannot say anything absolutely, we cannot for example demonstrate that we are not just brains in a vat or that our reality is just a simulation being run in a computer. However, in our shared reality, in the way that most people discuss this, there are many things that we can say with extremely high confidence to the point that we consider them absolute as a practical stance, and the constancy of the speed of light is one of those things.

It's almost as if you waited for me to edit my post before answering, I edited it a few minutes before your response and tried to be more precise in order to reduce confusion.

I never mentioned the OP, and it is not you who arbitrarily decides which post are included in this thread and which are not. I agree however that we should respect OP's thread and that we should stop our bickering.

I mentioned General Semantics which is a subfield of linguistics, if you want to have common references in order for us to discuss the particularities of language you should have a basic understanding of it beforehand. Ambiguous post are the result of a lack of common references between writer and reader. Science and Sanity from Alfred Korzybski is a good place to start, but there are other books discussing this matter as well.

You're misrepresenting what I said, you cannot take a partial quotation and neglect what I wrote beforehand. In our frame of references, as far as we know the Laws of Physics appears to be equal everywhere. However more precise observation and further data could undermine those fancy assumptions. Just like earlier theories devastated the ones that preceded them. You're saying the same thing in your post. If you took the time to google some of your assumptions you would know why I don't suscribe to them.

Selah said:

I never mentioned the OP, and it is not you who arbitrarily decides which post are included in this thread and which are not. I agree however that we should respect OP's thread and that we should stop our bickering.

Click to expand...

Another WTF moment from you. The OP is what the topic is about. Nothing arbitrary there. I'm not deciding which posts are included yet when someone is admittedly drunk posting OT, I tend to not consider that "what the thread is about."

I mentioned General Semantics which is a subfield of linguistics, if you want to have common references in order for us to discuss the particularities of language you should have a basic understanding of it beforehand. Ambiguous post are the result of a lack of common references between writer and reader. Science and Sanity from Alfred Korzybski is a good place to start, but there are other books discussing this matter as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not interested in discussing this topic. If you do, you are free to start a new thread on it.

You're misrepresenting what I said, you cannot take a partial quotation and neglect what I wrote beforehand. In our frame of references,

Click to expand...

If you are going to accuse me of something like this, it's best to learn to use the quote feature so I know which particular comment you think I took out of context. As it stands, I have been taking into account everything you said. I do not believe that I misrepresented anything you said. However, it is possible that you still have not made yourself clear. Maybe it is a language barrier, or maybe you are just obstinate and not actually considering what I am saying.

as far as we know the Laws of Physics appears to be equal everywhere.

Click to expand...

It is an assumption that must be made in order to consider our findings in science actually applies to reality. I understand it is an assumption. ALL scientists understand it is an assumption.

However more precise observation and further data could undermine those fancy assumptions.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the consequences if that is true. If the laws of physics vary based on location, then nothing can be known about reality. This would be akin to the black hole information paradox that led to the Susskind-Hawking battle. The implications of information being lost forever and what it would mean for quantum mechanics and causality. The implications that arise if nature is not consistent, that the laws can be different any place and any time would be that we can never gain an understanding of nature. We could never learn anything about reality. Observation therefore would not overturn these particular assumptions because they are axiomatic to begin with, not observed.
As Isaac Asimov put it, "...it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them corresponded to reality...Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible"

Just like earlier theories devastated the ones that preceded them. You're saying the same thing in your post. If you took the time to google some of your assumptions you would know why I don't suscribe to them.

Click to expand...

No, sorry. I am not about to google something to try to support your claim. If you have a solid reasons to dismiss the most basic premises of scientific theory then you need to present them. It is not the job of others to find support for YOUR arguments.

The fact is, you don't appear to understand the concept of the constant speed of light. You don't understand how theories build upon older ones, not devastate them. You don't understand how some things are axiomatic and will not and cannot be disproved by observation.
Worse of all, you don't seem to understand the difference between asserting something and supporting it. "Go google it" is not acceptable support for fringe ideas. YOU make the claim, YOU give the reasoning behind it, else be prepared to be dismissed and ignored as the pseudo-intellectual you are.

We are clearly disagreeing. I'm saying a fair portion of this thread is about metaphysics, you deny this by saying that some posts don't qualify to be considered as part of this thread, if that is not an arbitrary decision nothing is. This has nothing to do with the original intent of the OP nor is it the topic of this thread, it's just how things turned out. I consider it a WTF moment on your behalf, as you had no other way to uphold this argument regardless of if it makes sense or not, otherwise it would have compromised your position.

It's not my intention to start a topic about General Semantics, I was just including linguistics instead of letting you make baseless affirmations due to a lack of prior knowledge about the nature of communication failure. It's important for people to have common referents in order to carry consistent meaning in a conversation.

It's funny, you understand it is an assumption, but you felt the need to refute my affirmation that this assumption was not absolute. So we're saying the same thing since scratch but we had to argue about it.

I'm understanding those consequences very well but it is not for us to decide what is convenient and what is not. Things are how they are regardless of how we want them to be. Similar paradigm shifts happened before, a lot of people were distressed back then. It's not as this will not happen again. I'm agreeing with Isaac Asimov about the degree of relevance of assumptions, that's why I said that upholding some of the assumptions mentioned earlier were accurate enough for us to develop working models, they are useful and convenient but not absolute. And here we are again.

I'm not asking you to accomplish a tremenduous task, normally I wouldn't advice people to have a blind thrust in google for solid information but if you would have taken the time to type: "Is the speed of light a constant?' You would have seen a lot of results mentioning a study conducted earlier this year who contradicts our previous assumptions. I'm well aware that this is only one study and that it is not enough for us to draw valid conclusions. But is is a clear proof that even our strongest assumptions are not set in stone.

Some theories are build upon older ones indeed, but some of them were revolutionary enough to dismiss the ones that preceded them. I also recognize you a fair proportion of speculation about what I understand or not, you will certainly reply that this is not sheer extrapolation as you're judging me on what I said in this thread. That's alright I did the same with you at the start of our excessive verbalism.

Now it is you who becomes judgmental.

I think it is in our best interest, with due respect to the OP who certainly doesn't want to see his thread derail in a pointless ramble about who is right or not, to at least agree to disagree.

light is affected by gravity.....under enough of it its speed could change????

Selah said:

We are clearly disagreeing. I'm saying a fair portion of this thread is about metaphysics, you deny this by saying that some posts don't qualify to be considered as part of this thread, if that is not an arbitrary decision nothing is.

Click to expand...

Now you are being purposely obtuse. I did not deny that this thread was about metaphysics because some posts don't qualify to be part of this thread. I deny it is about metaphysics because it is about physics. If someone drunk-posts about their favorite movie in a thread about music, it doesn't change the fact that the threa

This has nothing to do with the original intent of the OP nor is it the topic of this thread, it's just how things turned out. I consider it a WTF moment on your behalf, as you had no other way to uphold this argument regardless of if it makes sense or not, otherwise it would have compromised your position.

Click to expand...

The topic of a thead has EVERYTHING to do with the OP. Yes, some threads get derailed but this one did not. An OT post or two does not change what the thread is about.

It's not my intention to start a topic about General Semantics, I was just including linguistics instead of letting you make baseless affirmations due to a lack of prior knowledge about the nature of communication failure. It's important for people to have common referents in order to carry consistent meaning in a conversation.

Click to expand...

So now I have a lack of knowledge about failure to communicate? Ironic considering your admitted inability to communicate your intent.

It's funny, you understand it is an assumption, but you felt the need to refute my affirmation that this assumption was not absolute. So we're saying the same thing since scratch but we had to argue about it.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe it is the term absolute. You don't appear to be using it as we do in physics. We typically don't call assumptions absolute or not absolute. They just are because without certain assumptions, we can't actually do science. Remember, the initial comment about absolute was not about assumptions but about the speed of light, which actually says nothing about the constancy of the speed of light but of the fact that there is an absolute speed limit in nature. Whether or not the speed of light varies, the limit is still actual and absolute.

I'm understanding those consequences very well but it is not for us to decide what is convenient and what is not. Things are how they are regardless of how we want them to be. Similar paradigm shifts happened before, a lot of people were distressed back then. It's not as this will not happen again. I'm agreeing with Isaac Asimov about the degree of relevance of assumptions, that's why I said that upholding some of the assumptions mentioned earlier were accurate enough for us to develop working models, they are useful and convenient but not absolute. And here we are again.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should stop acting like as ass and saying stupid things like not to attach to much credit to these scientific theories that you labeled pseudo-science and that we have to be crazy to rely on basic assumptions -- one of which is 'reality exists.' If I have to be crazy to rely on these kinds of assumptions then I'm crazy. We can't do physics without them so relying on them is part of the scientific method itself. As much as you think you are explaining yourself, you continue to seem to assail those of us that spend our lifetimes doing scientific endeavors. You are basically telling me that I'm wasting my life.

I'm not asking you to accomplish a tremenduous task, normally I wouldn't advice people to have a blind thrust in google for solid information but if you would have taken the time to type: "Is the speed of light a constant?' You would have seen a lot of results mentioning a study conducted earlier this year who contradicts our previous assumptions. I'm well aware that this is only one study and that it is not enough for us to draw valid conclusions. But is is a clear proof that even our strongest assumptions are not set in stone.

Click to expand...

Once again, the speed of light being the same in all reference frames is not an assumption, it is derived and then observed. It is the result of doing science, not an assumption. As I pointed out above, that even if the speed of light varies, it still is the same absolute speed limit of nature, that much doesn't change. Sure, I have no problem with challenging that but you seem to be mixing up the discussion when you first talk about assumptions then speed of light. This is probably part of the confusion.

Some theories are build upon older ones indeed, but some of them were revolutionary enough to dismiss the ones that preceded them. I also recognize you a fair proportion of speculation about what I understand or not, you will certainly reply that this is not sheer extrapolation as you're judging me on what I said in this thread. That's alright I did the same with you at the start of our excessive verbalism.

Click to expand...

Not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

Now it is you who becomes judgmental.

Click to expand...

I am very judgemental, but I tend not to make snap judgements. Since you are not actually quoting anything in particular, I'm not sure what your point is.

I think it is in our best interest, with due respect to the OP who certainly doesn't want to see his thread derail in a pointless ramble about who is right or not, to at least agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

The OP hasn't posted in over a month. I think it's safe to continue to argue about whether M-theory is pseudo-science or not.

BTW, I perused the articles you mentioned. Basically, the hypothesis seems to be that light is affected by virtual particle anti-particle pairs. This doesn't seem to have as much to do with the actual limit of the speed of light but more about the nature of vacuum. IOW, if light is slowed by absorption and re-emission, then it is no different than saying light is slowed going through ANY medium. BTW, did you know light can be slowed to speeds slow enough for us to actual observe by shining it through a Bose-Einstein condensate? It's pretty cool to watch.

I guess I wanted to eavesdrop and learn a little in the process but I started to think and in my studies of Taoism I noticed a thematic similarity to what little quantum physics I know. I got a book about the parallels between the ancient eastern ways and quantum mechanics. The impossible task of science to show certain behavior logically was a running theme. But the language of the modern scientists seemed mystical, almost poetic in the way they describe quantum ideas. There were incomprehensible non-linear behavior comprising their science and the tenor was almost the place where science fails us. The unobservable nature at the core of all the human order we apply. The Tao speaks of so much in physics I was interested. I am not trying to make assertions yet see if you have any experience with what I describe.

Sometimes there is a major difference between the original topic of a thread and it's content. The actual topic of a thread is derived from the content posted in it. Regardless of the original intention. Here we are disagreeing. I never said that the entirety of this thread was solely about metaphysics, it's only a fair portion of it that deals with metaphysical reflections. I don't consider this as a problem as long as people are well aware of the distinction.

Our lack of common references, exacerbated by the structural differences between our first languages is the main cause of this communication failure. I admitted a poor choice of words in a particular sentence. That's not the same as admitting my inability to communicate my intent. Again you're misrepresenting what I said. It may be convenient for you rhetoric but it is erroneous.

From my point of view it is you who is acting like an ass. I'm not saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to scientific theories, I'm saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to "uninformed" people discussing about this kind of topic. I explained that a few times already, but you failed to notice this. I have a profound respect for science, our entire way of life is enabled by scientific discoveries. I respect the work of "scientist", some of them are brilliant and some of them are very stupid, the same can be said about people working in any profession.

I never said that M-theory is pseudo-science, I would never say anything like that, what I'm saying is that a verbalistic approach of those theories on an internet forum, with 99,9% of the posters lacking even the slightest understanding of what they are discussing, cannot be qualified as valid information. M-theory is physics, reflections of random people about bribes of information accessible to them through internet is metaphysics, I even said this was perfectly fine as long as people were aware of the distinction.

I’m struggling to stay polite, as your general attitude and the actual content of your post tends to disprove your claims about being a scientist.

Selah said:

Sometimes there is a major difference between the original topic of a thread and it's content. The actual topic of a thread is derived from the content posted in it. Regardless of the original intention. Here we are disagreeing. I never said that the entirety of this thread was solely about metaphysics, it's only a fair portion of it that deals with metaphysical reflections. I don't consider this as a problem as long as people are well aware of the distinction. Our lack of common references, exacerbated by the structural differences between our first languages is the main cause of this communication failure. I admitted a poor choice of words in a particular sentence. That's not the same as admitting my inability to communicate my intent. Again you're misrepresenting what I said. It may be convenient for you rhetoric but it is erroneous. From my point of view it is you who is acting like an ass. I'm not saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to scientific theories, I'm saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to "uninformed" people discussing about this kind of topic. I explained that a few times already, but you failed to notice this. I have a profound respect for science, our entire way of life is enabled by scientific discoveries. I respect the work of "scientist", some of them are brilliant and some of them are very stupid, the same can be said about people working in any profession. I never said that M-theory is pseudo-science, I would never say anything like that, what I'm saying is that a verbalistic approach of those theories on an internet forum, with 99,9% of the posters lacking even the slightest understanding of what they are discussing, cannot be qualified as valid information. M-theory is physics, reflections of random people about bribes of information accessible to them through internet is metaphysics, I even said this was perfectly fine as long as people were aware of the distinction. I’m struggling to stay polite, as your general attitude and the actual content of your post tends to disprove your claims about being a scientist.

Click to expand...

I think you are talking to the other gent? I made a small post.......it had no argument.....it was polite.

I was answering to Mindphuk, we are having a slight disagreement, sorry if you took this personally. I have no complains about your post whatsoever.

Selah said:

Sometimes there is a major difference between the original topic of a thread and it's content. The actual topic of a thread is derived from the content posted in it. Regardless of the original intention. Here we are disagreeing. I never said that the entirety of this thread was solely about metaphysics, it's only a fair portion of it that deals with metaphysical reflections. I don't consider this as a problem as long as people are well aware of the distinction.

Click to expand...

I disagree that you have been clear about what you meant. My point was that this thread is/was about M-theory. You claim that random, unknowledgeable people discussing it makes it metaphysics. It does not. When I look back at the posts preceding the actual post that you made this accusation, I see that most of the actual on topic posts were actually about physics and only about 2 of 11 were metaphysical in nature. I do disregard the 'god took a shit' post as off topic drunk rambling.

Our lack of common references, exacerbated by the structural differences between our first languages is the main cause of this communication failure. I admitted a poor choice of words in a particular sentence. That's not the same as admitting my inability to communicate my intent. Again you're misrepresenting what I said. It may be convenient for you rhetoric but it is erroneous.

Click to expand...

You actually did not admit that from what I recall. Maybe I missed it and I don't recall you changing your choice of words to make it more clear. It appeared that you were doubling down on the same claim in a different way.

From my point of view it is you who is acting like an ass. I'm not saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to scientific theories, I'm saying we shouldn't attach too much credit to "uninformed" people discussing about this kind of topic.

Click to expand...

well no shit. But keep in mind that I consider the OP and the actual posts that were on topic to be discussing science. You said, "It's fine to talk about this kind of topics, as long as you don't attach too much credit to it." This to me implies that the TOPIC isn't worthy of credit, not the discussions.
You also said, "I said that we shouldn't attach too much credit to pseudo-scientific interpretations of scientific discoveries as discussed in this thread."
I agreed with the first part, but when you added ...as discussed in this thread, it implies to me that you disregard the whole topic, OP included. From what I could see, at the time you said that, there really wasn't much discussion, only 11 posts, and yes, I ignore the OT ones about Midori and tongue-in-cheek ones like 'god took a shit' so although I think I understand now what you were saying, it seems that you were dismissing the entirety of the topic. When I tried to explain that, you continued to defend your comment and then taking this to a new place by criticizing the very basic assumption that nature isn't fickle and that natural laws are the same everywhere, something that could really never be demonstrated since it's axiomatic, but if wrong will topple the very foundation of reality. This is not a minor claim on your part.

I explained that a few times already, but you failed to notice this. I have a profound respect for science, our entire way of life is enabled by scientific discoveries. I respect the work of "scientist", some of them are brilliant and some of them are very stupid, the same can be said about people working in any profession.

Click to expand...

Yet you seem to take issue with the foundation of the scientific method, the all important assumptions required for science to actually be useful and tell us about reality. Although I already agreed you could be right (I cannot demonstrate we are not just brains in a vat), I take issue with the characterization that to accept this is crazy to accept these.

I never said that M-theory is pseudo-science, I would never say anything like that, what I'm saying is that a verbalistic approach of those theories on an internet forum, with 99,9% of the posters lacking even the slightest understanding of what they are discussing, cannot be qualified as valid information. M-theory is physics, reflections of random people about bribes of information accessible to them through internet is metaphysics, I even said this was perfectly fine as long as people were aware of the distinction.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying now, but please understand how and why it seemed that you were claiming non-physicists discussing the issue automatically makes it metaphysics.

I’m struggling to stay polite, as your general attitude and the actual content of your post tends to disprove your claims about being a scientist.

Click to expand...

Why? You don't think scientists cop an attitude when they perceive that someone is attacking science? What exactly in the content of my posts disproves anything? Keep in mind, anyone that does science in anyway is a scientist. Working in a career as a scientist is not required. However, although I do not give out too much personal information about myself on the internet, especially on one where I can be implicated in illegal activities, I will admit that have a doctorate in one of the branches of biological sciences.

BTW, if you have ever been to a conference or symposium on science, you will find that scientists are far from polite, especially when defending a position.

It seems as if we are able to agree after all. The main problem we had was a gross misunderstanding.

Don't take my claim too seriously. You called me a pseudo-intellectual before and I hesitated between this answer and: "It's not because you got a white shirt for acting in a tooth-paste commercial that you can call yourself a scientist."
The latter seemed rather offensive so I went with the first one.

It's nice to know another member on here with a higher education.

Awesome back-and-forth, gentlemen! Very enjoyable. MP, the way you deduced what was actually being said and meant was brilliant. We are fortunate to have you share your mind and knowledge with us on this forum...

P.S. Speaking of being able to observe the movement of light, here is one of my favorite videos, it shows light moving IN SLOW MOTION via femto-photography. Glad I lived long enough to see this -

[video=youtube;Y_9vd4HWlVA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_9vd4HWlVA[/video]