I thank you, schrodingerscat, for reminding me of old ideas and books that once interested me. I pulled down a few books on Tao, which was fun, and last night I pulled down a few on Spinoza. Thank you.

During the last gasps of my days belonging to LDSinc, I was in love with St. Anselm and his ontological argument for God’s existence. That led me to Spinoza, who also uses an ontological argument.

Sadly, I could not successfully follow Spinoza. I learned that I was alright with the English philosophers, enjoying the language as well as the ideas, but I felt wobbly and unsure when it came to philosophy from the Continent. I relied more and more on glosses, which, in the end, isn’t reading philosophy. Shortly thereafter I abandoned philosophy for poetry (which, I learned, is just as difficult, but, for me, more rewarding).

What follows is from Roger Scruton’s short gloss on Spinoza, from a chapter on God:

“In the first part of the Ethics Spinoza addresses himself to the question ‘What exists?’ – and his answer is contained in Propositions 14 and 15: ‘Except God no substance can be granted or conceived’, and ‘Whatever is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be conceived without God’. Those striking pronouncements are less clear – and, when interpreted, marginally less surprising – than they seem. The terms ‘God’, ‘substance’, ‘conceive’, and ‘in’ are all technicalities of Spinoza’s philosophy, and their interpretation is a matter of dispute. In Part One of the Ethics they derive their sense largely from an elaborate version of the ontological argument for the existence of God.”

—Roger Scruton—
—Past Masters: Spinoza—

It all looks so grandly straightforward, doesn’t it? It does, until you get into the “technicalities” and the disputes around “interpretation”. Add in the facts that Spinoza was of Portuguese Jewish ancestry and culture, born and raised in Holland, just after the Renaissance, writing in modern Latin, and suddenly the issues of “technicalities” and “interpretation” take on an enormous weight. Now it becomes clear how it is that a scholar can end up spending a lifetime on a single philosopher. It’s anything but straightforward.

A good starting point is the little Scruton gloss I quoted from above. I recommend it. (I believe that the old Oxford Past Masters Series was folded into the new, ever growing A Short Introduction series).

Cheers,

Human

Nice pearls, well strewn . . .

Oink

Why should I care about Spinoza'a god or any other gods ?

C'mon, Dave! No one is asking you to care; that's strictly up to you.

And if you'll note at the top, this is directed to one specific person, although all who hunger may taste of it.

The next thing you know, Dave will be telling us that we shouldn't worship Bill Maher.

The eye doth roll.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The next thing you know, Dave will be telling us
> that we shouldn't worship Bill Maher.
===============================

We shouldn't worship Bill of Maher?? (:-0

The only reason I can see is because there is one person in this forum that desperately wants you to. Please don't disappoint and thereby make it easier on the rest of us!

Somehow I think that if we all agreed with what S-cat says, he'd find something else to berate us about.

If we all agreed it could satiate his desire for acceptance to the point of obtaining enlightenment and reaching a transcendent state through which he would be translated into a parallel universe ruled by the god of Spinoza and Einstein.....in other words, he would become a fungus or maybe a puff of wind, or perhaps a flatulent gorilla.....which would then make him god.

You’re welcome.
Thanks for the information.
I will look up the references you mentioned and get back to you.

You do not disappoint.

You do.

Said The Cat:

> Thanks for the information.
> I will look up the references you
> mentioned and get back to you.


Any day now, The Cat will be back to further discuss Spinoza's God... Just you wait and see!

(I think this is the feeling coastal residents get after an earthquake; that sense of looming ... looming ... whatever.)

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thank you, schrodingerscat, for reminding me of
> old ideas and books that once interested me. I
> pulled down a few books on Tao, which was fun, and
> last night I pulled down a few on Spinoza. Thank
> you.
>
> During the last gasps of my days belonging to
> LDSinc, I was in love with St. Anselm and his
> ontological argument for God’s existence. That
> led me to Spinoza, who also uses an ontological
> argument.
>
> Sadly, I could not successfully follow Spinoza. I
> learned that I was alright with the English
> philosophers, enjoying the language as well as the
> ideas, but I felt wobbly and unsure when it came
> to philosophy from the Continent. I relied more
> and more on glosses, which, in the end, isn’t
> reading philosophy. Shortly thereafter I abandoned
> philosophy for poetry (which, I learned, is just
> as difficult, but, for me, more rewarding).
>
> What follows is from Roger Scruton’s short gloss
> on Spinoza, from a chapter on God:
>
> “In the first part of the Ethics Spinoza
> addresses himself to the question ‘What
> exists?’ – and his answer is contained in
> Propositions 14 and 15: ‘Except God no substance
> can be granted or conceived’, and ‘Whatever
> is, is in God, and nothing can exist or be
> conceived without God’. Those striking
> pronouncements are less clear – and, when
> interpreted, marginally less surprising – than
> they seem. The terms ‘God’, ‘substance’,
> ‘conceive’, and ‘in’ are all
> technicalities of Spinoza’s philosophy, and
> their interpretation is a matter of dispute. In
> Part One of the Ethics they derive their sense
> largely from an elaborate version of the
> ontological argument for the existence of God.”
>
> —Roger Scruton—
> —Past Masters: Spinoza—
>
> It all looks so grandly straightforward, doesn’t
> it? It does, until you get into the
> “technicalities” and the disputes around
> “interpretation”. Add in the facts that
> Spinoza was of Portuguese Jewish ancestry and
> culture, born and raised in Holland, just after
> the Renaissance, writing in modern Latin, and
> suddenly the issues of “technicalities” and
> “interpretation” take on an enormous weight.
> Now it becomes clear how it is that a scholar can
> end up spending a lifetime on a single
> philosopher. It’s anything but straightforward.
>
> A good starting point is the little Scruton gloss
> I quoted from above. I recommend it. (I believe
> that the old Oxford Past Masters Series was folded
> into the new, ever growing A Short Introduction
> series).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Human

I actually don't exactly believe in Einstein/Spinoza's God, like Kaku says he does. So did Richard Dawkins in his book, "The God Delusion" so did Stephen Hawking in his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions: Is There a God"

Einstein believed "God does not play dice with the universe."

I believe in quantum physics, which says that 'god' (Nature) constantly plays dice with the universe, on a quantum level, but that the dice are barely loaded, in favor of matter over anti-matter, otherwise, we wouldn't exist.
And we affect the outcome of the roll of the dice, through our observation.

So you are not going to fulfill your promise to read the books on Spinoza and get back to us? Just reject the man and his philosophy and be done with it?

EOD will be disappointed.

I might, eventually, didn't realize there was a deadline, but right now I'm reading other books.
The God Equation by Kaku and Life Itself, It's Origin and Nature, by Francis Crick.
I only really care about Spinozza because I care about what Einstein had to say about Cosmology and philosophy and Einstein cared about Spinozza. But I don't agree in a deterministic God, like Einstein/Spinozza did.
I believe the world is non-deterministic, like Epicurus said.
I'm an Epicurean.
And I believe in the Stoic concept of Logos, divine reason that permeates and animates the cosmos.
Kind of like the God Particle.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2021 01:20AM by schrodingerscat.

Ah yes, too busy thinking great thoughts to read. The burdens of genius. . .

And he’s a joiner. Sits at dinner with only the finest people.

It really is quite common to be known by the company one keeps.

Who put you in charge of my reading choices?
You must be a joy to live with!

And yet a deterministic universe doesn't require a deterministic god to be so.

> EOD will be disappointed.

Yes, in that I wasn't the least bit . . .


There could never be any sort of a wagering scheme involving The Cat, could there?

I don't understand this. This thread started out as a simple acknowledgement of Human directed expressly to SC in a positive way. Then EOD and LW jump in and engage in off-topic bullying tactics against SC for no apparent reason other than it is SC. This happens repeatedly, and apparently admin is fine with it.

In the prior SC thread--addressing Kaku and his new book, The God Equation--there were a total of 64 posts, few of which were substantive responses. The rest were attacks and responses to attacks complaining about SC's penchant for posting repeated threads on a narrow range of issues, and ridiculing his 'lack of knowledge;' never even bothering to consider the many subtle nuances of the thread at hand, several of which I raised, but which were also not substantively responded to.

Particularly disappointing (in my opinion) were the responses of CZ and Eric K, the owner and former owner of the Board, who both have a high profile and status on RfM (not to mention CZ's veto power):

CZ: "I personally love physics and quantum mechanics and would love more deep conversations about them on the board. The problem is that you read popularizations and don't really understand them, then you cherry pick quotes (or misquotes) that seem to fit your opinions and keep posting those opinions over and over."

O.K. But CZ, where are your contributions to the QM you claim to love; and where are YOUR substantive criticisms or comments to any of SC's posts? This particular post DID offer some opportunities for a deeper conversation; which you and others chose to ignore. There is nothing wrong with cherry-picking quotes by experts; they invite counter cherry-picked quotes, along with substantive rational argument and discussion. AFTER ALL, ALL QUOTES IN ANY CONTEXT ARE CHERRY-PICKED TO MAKE A POINT! That is precisely why they are quoted!

Eric K: "CZ is in charge and I fully agree. schrodingerscat contributes little to this group with his off topic redundant posts. If schrodingerscat wishes to discuss recovery issues, he is always welcome. He is not being banned - he should just try to be relevant. I belong to a humanist group that is light years ahead of him intellectually. I am amazed at the groups' knowledge of science in our Sunday discussions. There are real PhDs in the group. I have only a masters degree in engineering so I mostly listen. schrodingerscat would be humbled, if that were possible, by folks who know what they are talking about instead of regurgitating other's works. Oh well..."

I totally disagree with the conclusion that SC "contributes little to this group." Quite the contrary, I think he is one of the best in raising important and interesting issues, even if he often gets them wrong, and his interpretations go off track. Erik: If you have access to such powerful intellectual resources, where are *YOUR* substantive responses? Why are you not substantively "humbling" SC, instead of rhetorically attacking him? In fact, where are your intellectually stimulating threads born from your extensive contacts that go beyond the standard anti-Mormon rhetoric that dominates the Board (as indeed it should)?

Come on, people. If you don't like SC's threads, simply don't respond to them, and let them die a quick death on their own accord; if that is what they deserve.

People have offered substantial replies to schrodingerscat in the past to which he generally (1) attacks the ignorance of the reply, (2) performs a Gish gallop, or (3) moves back to square one in the next thread.

How do you want people to engage with him, when he himself does not allow engagement?

Moreover, rather than complaining about the lack of engagement from other posters, you are perfectly within your rights to actually take him up on these topics. It might do him good.

That said, I would not be opposed to a separate "RfM Discussion Topics for schrodingerscat" board, if he paid for the extra hosting costs.

Tyson

Tyson Dunn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People have offered substantial replies to
> schrodingerscat in the past to which he generally
> (1) attacks the ignorance of the reply, (2)
> performs a Gish gallop, or (3) moves back to
> square one in the next thread.

Just for fun, give me an example of a thread where the above happened.

Well, a small example would be your post immediately below.

> Thank you G. Salviati, I agree, those who resort
> to ad hominem attacks instead of debating the real
> issue, lose the debate.

We've pointed out a dozen times that you are misusing the term "ad hominem" and even explained the meaning to you. But you keep going on imperviously pretending that you have an innate sense of vocabulary with no effort at all to learn something new. By falsely accusing your critics of "resort to ad hominem attack," you are confirming Tyson's prediction.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2021 04:03PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, a small example would be your post
> immediately below.
>
> We've pointed out a dozen times that you are
> misusing the term "ad hominem" and even explained
> the meaning to you. But you keep going on
> imperviously pretending that you have an innate
> sense of vocabulary with no effort at all to learn
> something new. By falsely accusing your critics
> of "resort to ad hominem attack," you are
> confirming Tyson's prediction.

Ad hominem: (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Out of 60 replies to the thread on The God Equation, 58 met that definition. Nearly every response you or EOD make to one of my topics meets that definition. You are by far the worst offender and biggest bully on this forum, IMHO.

I'll try to spell it out again.

You have called me all sorts of misogynistic things. If I were to say, "don't listen to S-Cat's arguments about cosmology because nothing a misogynist says is ever correct," that would be an ad hominem attack. It is a logical fallacy because someone can be a bigotted person and still have something to say about cosmology.

By contrast, noting that you make lousy, repetitive arguments about cosmology would not be an ad hominem attack because such statements address your claims. Describing your statements as meretricious rather than meritorious is not an ad hominem.

As for bullying, a person who calls other people things like "wh*re" and "b*tch" and "c*nt" has more or less disqualified himself from calling others "bullies," hasn't he?

According to Irving M. Copi, Introduction to Logic (Sixth Edition, p. 99), the following is a description of the fallacy "argumentum ad hominem":

"The phrase *argumentum ad hominem* translates literally as 'argument directed to the man.' . . . We may designate this fallacy on the first interpretation as the "abusive" variety. It is committed when instead of trying to disprove the truth of what is asserted, one attacks the person who made the assertion. . . This argument is fallacious, because the personal character of a person is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what that person says or the correctness or incorrectness of that person's argument."

But then, Copi goes on to explain the close relationship between this fallacy and the "Genetic Fallacy."

"This kind of argument [argument ad hominem] is sometimes said to commit the "Genetic Fallacy," because it attacks the source or genesis of the opposing position rather than that position itself."

Thus, it is a mistake to interpret the fallacy of ad hominem as restricted to personal character attacks if it is an attack that is otherwise "directed to the man." Arguably, it is *any* attack that focuses attention away from the substance of an argument to considerations of the individual making it. If that source is in any way related to the very person making the argument, it is effectively an "ad hominem" attack, as well as committing the genetic fallacy.

In short, whether you specifically attack SC's character or not, whenever you shift your focus onto him personally (in any way; for example, calling attention to his past posts), and away from his argument, it is fallaciously "ad hominem."

It appears to me that you (and others) do this all the time with respect to SC (and others). When in this tread (and others), SC called you out on this, he was being entirely correct.

By that logic, all of your declarations that your sources are brilliant and have great past records are ad hominem arguments because they focus not on the argument but on the scholars themselves?

Got it.

"By that logic, all of your declarations that your sources are brilliant and have great past records are ad hominem arguments because they focus not on the argument but on the scholars themselves?"

LW: This discussion is about logical fallacies; not about expressing one's opinions about authors' views! Citing and quoting authors in support of one's position; or citing authors and criticizing their position, are NOT ad hominem attacks or arguments.

Moreover, whenever I have made general comments positive or negative of some author's views, it was never in the context of offering their credentials or lack of credentials as support for an argument. Moreover, I am always more than prepared to cite chapter and verse, if asked.

Finally, "that logic" is the logic of the author I cited, which book is in its 13th Edition. At one point I recommended that you read and study this book. Obviously, you have not taken this advice. In the meantime, however, you might want to refrain from commenting on the 'faulty' logic of others.

G. Salviati Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Citing and quoting authors in support of
> one's position; or citing authors and criticizing
> their position, are NOT ad hominem attacks or
> arguments.

That's a mischaracterization. You have many times rejected others' sources based on what you perceive as records of earlier mistakes; you have rejected arguments based solely on who the authors were.

If you use the definition you just proffered, then you are guilty of a long string of ad hominems. Do you really want to use that definition?


-------------------
> Moreover, whenever I have made general comments
> positive or negative of some author's views, it
> was never in the context of offering their
> credentials or lack of credentials as support for
> an argument.

Sure.


----------------
> Moreover, I am always more than
> prepared to cite chapter and verse, if asked.

Within the narrow range of sources you deign to consider credible.

When evidence or sources--things as simple as what parts of the brain process what sorts of information--contradict your prejudices, you reject them out of hand. Your very Mormon habit of saying "these are the true authorities" and closing your eyes to other information may make it possible to quote "chapter and verse" but it does not get you closer to the facts.


-------------
> Finally, "that logic" is the logic of the author I
> cited, which book is in its 13th Edition.

Ah yes, distancing yourself from the source. That was predictable given the implications of that author's definition for your own behavior.


--------------
> At one
> point I recommended that you read and study this
> book. Obviously, you have not taken this advice.

Indeed, I did not. There's a reason for that.


----------------
> In the meantime, however, you might want to
> refrain from commenting on the 'faulty' logic of
> others.

Thank you for your advice. I will give it all due consideration.

“This thread started out as a simple acknowledgement of Human directed expressly to SC in a positive way. Then EOD and LW jump in and engage in off-topic bullying tactics against SC for no apparent reason other than it is SC.”

I think this is a case of Atheists defending Atheism against “bad science”. Methinks they do protest too much.

It seems quantum physics is a rising religion for those who reject the doctrine of non-overlapping magisteria. They want to have their cake and eat it too. I say “why not?”. LW and EOD say “not so fast”.

Thank you G. Salviati, I agree, those who resort to ad hominem attacks instead of debating the real issue, lose the debate.

Well, Okay. But . . .

First, you do not win a debate by default! If you manage to offend people who then withdraw from discussion with you, it is you that ultimately loses, because you have lost the benefit of their input. (I say this out of some personal experience!)

Moreover, notwithstanding the criticisms I made in this thread about your treatment on RfM, there is certainly room for improvement on your part. (IMHO)

First, you should state a point of view and defend it. Throwing an opinion out, with a few rhetorical statements, opinions, or quotes, and then refusing to engage those who take you seriously makes you come across as dogmatic, arrogant, and unteachable; especially when you then continually repeat such statements and opinions, often with very little substantive differences. This is irritating and makes people think that your knowledge is far less than what you seem to think it is--to put it kindly, and that it is a waste of time to engage with you.

I myself have repeatedly challenged your "Einstein's (or Spinoza's) God" narrative on several fronts, as I did in your most recent post, and in such cases you have always failed to respond. Others have also tried to take you seriously, but have been dismissed. I understand that you might have been distracted by all the non-substantive attacks (however one wishes to characterize them), but you should at least try to acknowledge those who *are* taking you seriously--even if their criticisms are pointed! Pointed criticism is NOT an attack! And, if you cannot answer a criticism, you might consider revising your point of view, or at least toning down your rhetoric until you have researched the issue further.

Finally, engaging in uncivilized responsive and abusive rhetoric--even as a reaction--is never helpful, and in my opinion detracts from your own credibility and RfM generally. (I have to remind myself of this all the time, often unsuccessfully.)

Again, wonderful pearls, neatly and concisely strewn!


Likely with the same biblical outcome.

I appreciate your input and criticism. I'll take your advice.
Thank you, I kept meaning to respond to your last post in the "God Equation" thread, which was one of two serious responses to what I posted, but I kind of had my hands full with defending myself against people accusing me of being insane and illiterate for bringing up a book I heard about and ordered that day.
Yeah, that kind of puts me on the defensive.

In response to what you said, in the "God Equation" thread,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am reluctant to get further into this discussion, except to point out that both Superstring theory and M-Theory are massively complicated. Few who are not dedicated practitioners understand it fully--even among theoretical physicists. I certainly don't, and I doubt very much that anyone on RfM does, except perhaps from very meager and distorted populist accounts. As such, as a layperson, one must be extremely careful of popular books that attempt to explain String Theory. In the first place, they are almost always String theorists themselves (like Kaku) who are unduly committed to String Theory over many years, and are not similarly well versed in its alternatives. Thus, such books rarely provide an objective view of the state of the theory, much less an adequate account of the criticisms of the theory.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree that very few understand the complexities of M Theory or Super String theory, and I'm not an expert, nor is theoretical physics my profession, I'm just interested in it and read a lot about it, from people I'm interested in, Michio Kaku is one of them I agree with most, but there are others I agree with too, especially Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In specific response to your points here:

(1) Kaku did not develop M-Theory. Spring Theory was developed by numerous theorists over several decades. M-Theory was initially the brain-child of Ed Witten in trying to unite the five versions of String Theory. Kaku no doubt *is* an expert on such matters, and has made contributions to this effort.

In 1974, Kaku and Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University co-authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form. He explains it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ5dj-Ozwm0 in 4 minutes and here in 20 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y_euQiBpLU

"Abstract: Recently, a revolutionary new theory has shaken the foundations of modern physics, introducing bizarre new concepts such as higher dimensions, parallel universes, and the multiverse into science. Vigorously opposed by the Old Guard in physics, it has since become the leading candidate for a "theory of everything" which will allow us to "read the mind of God," as Einstein hoped. Einstein spent his last 30 years struggling to find a single theory which would unify all physical laws, much like his equation E = mc2 united matter and energy. He failed. But many physicists now believe that they might have it. It is called string theory or M-theory, and postulates that all the particles, atoms, molecules, etc. in the universe are nothing but musical notes on vibrating strings or membranes. If true, it means that physics represents the beautiful harmonies of nature, that chemistry represents the melodies played on these strings, and the universe is a symphony of strings. It would also mean that the "mind of God" is cosmic music resonating through 11 dimensional hyperspace. " Michio Kaku

(2) Calling M-Theory "the best" unification theory is absurd. In the first place it is not a complete theory, and is more a conjecture than a theory. In addition, it has not been confirmed by experiment. It is a mathematical theory whose main appeal is its mathematical elegance. Many prominent physicists reject in unequivocally as non-scientific!

The only reason I called M Theory the best candidate for a unified field theory, or theory of everything, is because that's what Hawking called it in his last book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions, How It All Began" pg 56, "M Theory, which is our best candidate for a complete unified theory, allows for a very large number of possible histories of the universe. Most of these histories are quite unsuitable for the development of intelligent life. .....The human race does not have a very good record of intelligent behavior."

(3) There *are* alternative unified field theories; including most famously, loop quantum gravity, and twister theory; which are also currently being studied and developed. (See L. Smolin, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity) No single one of them can be considered the theoretical "best." However, I will grant that String Theory (M-Theory) is no doubt the most popular; which is largely a cultural phenomenon within the scientific community rather than an indication of relative merit.

(4) String Theory, Superstring Theory and M-Theory have been the subject of extensive criticism by people who know it and understand it. See for example, Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (2006); Peter Woit, Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law; Joao Magueijo, Faster Than The Speed of Light:The Story of Scientific Speculation (2003).

Finally, I know enough about theoretical physics to know that M-Theory has nothing whatever to do with God, in any shape or form (e.g. Spinoza's or Einstein's) outside of one's favored and distorted definitions that are clearly adopted in order to sell books.

M-theory is a theory that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. Kaku's book is about what Stephen Hawking wrote, "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of whit it is that we and the universe exist. if we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we would know the mind of God."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2021 12:53AM by schrodingerscat.

No one thinks you are insane. We just think you get your news from Bill Maher, Stephen Colbert, and Youtube.

I think you just confirmed that view.

I think you just lost the debate, again, by resorting to another ad hominem attack, again. Try to focus on the topic at hand, not me.

Criticizing your sources is not an ad hominem.

But yes, I did deviate from the topic: which is of course your unquestionable genius.

String theory does not equal M-theory. M-theory is a subset of String theory. Creating string theory doesn't make you a developer of M-theory.

Nor can I find any corroboration for the youtube claim as impactful to the development of string theory. Kaku and Kikkawa do not get credited as important for string theory development historically. Nor is this the development of M-theory.

"M-theory is a theory that unifies all consistent versions of superstring theory. Kaku's book is about what Stephen Hawking wrote, "If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of whit it is that we and the universe exist. if we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we would know the mind of God.""

is a mischaracterization at best and probably a misunderstanding. M-theory doesn't unify. M-theory is a set of theories that rather than unifying in the sense of Grand Unified Theory of unifying the forces, the forces remain separate and described in their own theories. M-theory is classed as a "not quite GUT".

Broadly speaking, SO(10) is the leading GUT candidate currently.

Ay yes. Perhaps you should start a new thread on this. I have a couple of suggestions for the lead:

(1) Is everything a lie?; (That title may be taken already)
(2) Just follow your GUT; or perhaps
(3) The God Group.

:)

I am currently of the opinion that the P/NP and Gödel incompleteness preclude our developing a TOE/GUT.

Muon g2 will break most every theory currently operating.

And new computational tools are likely necessary generally.

But we live in times of speedy development.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am currently of the opinion that the P/NP and
> Gödel incompleteness preclude our developing a
> TOE/GUT.

Well, as I understand it, both are problems associated with the limits of computation. This seems to suggest that you think that a viable GUT/TOE (as currently exist) are sufficiently computationally complex to run into these types of problems; and/or that they could not be confirmed by either an sufficient (and efficient) computer model or experiment(s).

> Muon g2 will break most every theory currently
> operating.

I assume you are suggesting that the current Fermilab g-2 testing will eventually undermine the Standard Model such that it will no longer accommodate (will break) such theories. Is that right?

> And new computational tools are likely necessary
> generally.

Well, that seems unlikely given your comments above. In principle, what computational tools are you suggesting?

> But we live in times of speedy development.

Well, Gödel's theorem has been around a long time; as has AI. It seems that as time goes by these problems become more entrenched, not less.

Finally, I have always thought that GUTs are theoretical constructs, that are removed from computational issues. After all, confirmation of such theories is difficult (if not impossible) in principle by their nature (e.g. confirming multiple dimensions and universes in nature); computational issues (e.g. solving their complex equations) notwithstanding.

P.S. Is my understanding of your above points correct? I am not a mathematician or a computer scientist, and I have not thought about these connections (TOE/computation issues) before. Moreover, I readily admit I am over my head here; but thought I would seek clarification.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> String theory does not equal M-theory. M-theory is
> a subset of String theory. Creating string theory
> doesn't make you a developer of M-theory.
>
> Nor can I find any corroboration for the youtube
> claim as impactful to the development of string
> theory. Kaku and Kikkawa do not get credited as
> important for string theory development
> historically. Nor is this the development of
> M-theory.

Better go correct the Physics Review that published his paper, on Michio Kaku then because that’s where I got that reference.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

But forget about him,

> "M-theory is a theory that unifies all consistent
> versions of superstring theory. Kaku's book is
> about what Stephen Hawking wrote, "If we do
> discover a complete theory, it should in time be
> understandable in broad principle by everyone, not
> just a few scientists, and just ordinary people,
> be able to take part in the discussion of the
> question of whit it is that we and the universe
> exist. if we find the answer to that, it would be
> the ultimate triumph of human reason, for then we
> would know the mind of God.""
>
> is a mischaracterization at best and probably a
> misunderstanding. M-theory doesn't unify.
> M-theory is a set of theories that rather than
> unifying in the sense of Grand Unified Theory of
> unifying the forces, the forces remain separate
> and described in their own theories. M-theory is
> classed as a "not quite GUT".

Yeah, that Hawking guy, what did he know?
That was a quote from his last book on the subject,
There are theories that have been developed since then, but none at the time of his death that added up the way M Theory did, according to Hawking.
It’s the only theory that accounts for dark matter/energy that I know of, and it makes up 95% of the universe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2021 10:14PM by schrodingerscat.

> Better go correct the Physics Review that
> published his paper, on Michio Kaku then because
> that’s where I got that reference.

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku

Typical S-catology.

If you want to know who the important figures in String Theory were, you should go to the article on--wait for it--String Theory. There it lists the people who contributed. Kaku and Kakku share one reference among the 35 names that are listed before I lost interest. But no, of the apparently 70+ people described K&K are not prominent and they assuredly are not considered founders or even significant actors in the development of String Theory.

You are just engaging in your usual, ill-informed hero worship. If Kaku were not a Youtube influencer, you would never have heard of him.

Who the hell is Spinoza anyway?

"Spinoza is dead."

--Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890

I think he invented a style of Italian gelato.

God Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who the hell is Spinoza anyway?
Einstein’s favorite philosopher.
I agree with most of what he had to say, and it sounds like he is describing nature when he described God.
That aligns with my Stoic/Epicurean philosophy and what I know about science and math.
It adds up. The only part that doesn’t add up to me is the patriarchal part of it. If god is nature, why “He”? Why not “She” or ‘it’?
Just because we can’t bear to face reality that we die, we actually just get recycled into worm shit? When it is Earth’s most valuable product?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu