Posted on 07/05/2003 4:20:08 PM PDT by betty boop
Other "flaws" of the Standard Model: "this theory does not explain the symmetries on which it is based, uses a number of 19 arbitrary parameters which are not derived from any theory (which received empirical values)," does not explain gravity, and has no mechanism to account for the masses of elementary particles. It "does not allow" neutrinos to have mass; but today there is some experimental evidence of the mass of neutrinos, "perhaps 10^-2 eV. It is also known that the photon in specified conditions may have a non-zero rest mass (Vigier's theory)...."
Steven Weinberg is quoted as saying that the unified theory of all four forces "will probably not be possible without radically new ideas."
Superstring/supersymmetry theories have been proposed that seek to unify the four forces; they invoke the idea of "hyperspace" -- 10 space dimensions, and one of time. Under this scenario, elementary particles are not point-like in space, but have spatial extension -- having the dimension of Planck length 10^-33 cm. They note, "at such dimensions, 'space-time cannot be treated as a classical continuum'...and needs a quantum interpretation."
But as the authors of this paper observe, "the reality of superstrings was not experimentally proved and it is not sure that can be experimentally proved in a direct way. The theory of superstrings does not say [what] is the origin of of superstrings." They observe such a structural theory "neglects the phenomenological."
Then they note -- suggesting a possible link to the phenomenological -- "the non-locality of quantum processes in the universe is a strong argument for an underlying deep reality out of space and time.... It us evident that the structural science has arrived at the frontier of deep reality, which is outside of space and time, and has opened the doors of a realm of reality in which phenomenological processes become predominant. This level of reality is the source of all that is phenomenological, and also is the source of the deep energy used and formed by phenomenological information in to strings, membranes or elementary particles."
They add, "The phenomenological is always present in all reality of the universe either in a closed or an intro-open way.... In general, structural science may be seen as only a first approximation to the more general structural-phenomenological science."
All of which strikes me as being perfectly fascinating...for the phenomenonological is "beyond" or "behind" events taking place in space-time. The Higgs field may be the next substrate to be authenticated; but it seems to me that the "realm" of the phenomenological will not be found "in it," but still "behind it."
It will be interesting to see what the scientific community will do with these authors' insights (if anything).
Sure they are, Right Whale. That's not the issue. The issue is whether they are reducible to physical laws exclusively.
I just finished going through all of the articles in detail and rereading your comments. It is absolutely amazing how they have hit on the very subjects that have captured you, Phaedrus and I for, what, years?
Even more satisfying is that they have derived many of the same conclusions that we have! Particularly telling are the thought experiments concerning consciousness, observer (QM), Bell's inequalities and timelessness.
For anyone who would want to dismiss these scientists out of hand, I would strongly recommend comparing their musing on mathematical, higher dimensional solutions to Max Tegmark's discussion of a Level IV parallel universe! Tegmark's credentials are unassailable.
Boris, I’m very sorry to hear about your health. I am praying for healing, comfort, peace and blessing for you! I also wanted to ping you to the above Tegmark article because of your interest in time. Please at least read the last 3 or 4 pages where he speaks of Level IV!
betty boop, I strongly agree with the prediction in the first article:
B) The structural science is not sufficient, and is incomplete for explaining all existence,... life, mind and consciousness...
We predict that science will renounce principle A for principle B due primarily to the difficulties enountered in the explanation of mind and consciousness.... The problem of consciousness leads...not only to the last frontier, mostly unexplored, of science, but also to perhaps the most important frontier for mankind in the 21st century....
Metaphysical naturalism could not defend against this determination – because, at this level, the phrase representing all such mathematical structure, which shows unity of transcendent intelligence, could be replaced with the word God.
What rebuttal? All I saw was a string of unsupported assertions.
I have some doubt that either you or HK has read these pieces. Of course, I would be delighted to be proved in error on this score.
Oh, I read it, and with all the attention it deserved.
I spend most of my time doing science, I know science, and what you posted ain't science. If you want to read some science, pick up a copy of Nature or Science. The conventional chest beating from creationists about how this sort of obscurantist claptrap is going to replace nasty old materialist science is the equivalent of herbal medicine or putting razor-blades under paper pyramids.
We will know what consciousness is when we've done sufficiently clever experiments to figure it out, coupled with sufficiently sophisticated models to simulate the behavior. The fascination of creationists with consciousness I attibute largely to heir usual tactic of argumentum ad ignorantem; as long as we don't have many facts, you can construct all sorts of fanciful schemes and not run into any actual fallacies. They tried this with the bacterial flagellum; unfortunately, the necessary supply of ignorance about the flagellum is already running short. I must say consciousness and the human brain is a wiser choice; you may be able to get by with twenty or even fifty years of this sort of thing. Enjoy. Meanwhile, I'll live by what I preach to my students; I don't theorize in advance of the data.
I haven't seen anything but unsupported assertions either.
Perhaps ultimate answers cannot be gotten from Reason. But the moment we say that, the entire course of Western science, and maybe Western civilization itself, is DEAD.
Why do you say that? Western science has never been about finding "ultimate answers" to anything. Western science has been about finding specific answers to specific questions, in a fashion that is understandable and reproduceable.
You are simply projecting your own theistic/philosophic assumptions about what kinds of questions should be asked, and then condemning Western science because it fails to ask them.
You might as well condemn your car because it doesn't let you drive to heaven, or condemn your telephone because it doesn't let you talk to God. That's not what those things were designed for, but like Western science you must condemn them for being what they are, instead of what you want them to be.
I thought you were an confident evolutionist. Maybe even some kind of macroevolutionist? Huh. ;-)
Is that so, betty? In truth it bore very great resemblance. Hence one of my favorite tag lines.
Look, VBWC, as long as science is interested in investigating what is true about our universe, it will (inevitably) be dragged, kicking and screaming if need be, into where the problems LEAD.
I don't have to sit here and referee this enterprise; it's not being conducted for my personal benefit, and it must follow its own logic in any case. I am perfectly content with this process, just so long as it's "honest." (Which, IMHO, is where Lewontin et al. fall down.... FWIW)
That being the case, I can just sit here and take it all in -- as an interested observer, and be grateful for, and thrilled by the real "breakthroughs" that occur from time to time.
Fact is, to my mind: It is the essential nature of Truth to draw the mind (and spirit) of man. It doesn't need any help from me in terms of steering the relevant questions.
But assuredly I feel personally grateful for creative acts of human genius, wherever they are to be found. And appreciated for the liberating effects they bring in their train. If you think that the course of Western science has been prosecuted entirely in the interest of, in thrall to utility, you don't understand your own historical culture.
On such a view, you thereby relegate some of the greatest minds of mankind to the status of mere servants of materialism and utilitarianism. I don't think that's quite what Newton, or Einstein (just to name two of the truly great) quite had in mind, in terms of their own personal motivation for doing science.
If I'm "wrong" about this, then please explain: How, and Why?
Then please supply the details of your insight!!! Thank you so much, in advance, cornelis.
Expert???? Pssssssssshaw, A-G! Call it beginner's luck if you have to call it anything. But thank you so much for the kind words all the same.
I will definitely read the Tegmark (once I get it printed out; I have problems "processing" material like this via on-line reading...so we're talking tomorrow, earliest). Thank you so much for the link! Cosmoslogy is "reasonably close" to my "normal" bailiwick, philosophy....
In fact, it is so close to that discipline, that I wonder how/why "materialist science" tolerates it at all....
Speaking of which: I can't help but feel that the final interment of the mouldering corpse of scientific materialism signals a tremendous breakthrough of human thought and spirit.... God bless those "galloping coroners"....
A new office for Graham Kerr? Sure, I'll vote for him. Just as long as he doesn't start sauteeing the wrong cut. (I'm back to ADDling through Attila.)
BTW, from what I've seen these people are working on hypotheses, and actively pursuing whatever ways of validating come up, from whatever discipline and dynamics therein. Furthermore, it is only sane to seek to put what we may learn via science in its proper perspective, among the ways we have of understanding the Universe (however definitively, however fuzzy, even however warm and fuzzy). Sane yes, and critically important in our times and future.
Also, I don't know about these folks with the refreshingly pronounced names, but I doubt that Gregory Bateson was much of a creationist (not that this gives him any bona fides).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.