RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: The DI's latest martyr:  Guillermo Gonzalez< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 124
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 21 2007,11:53   


This isn't correct is it?  I'm no cosmologist but theories such as M-Theory and brane worlds do not imply that there is no fundamental theory of everything, right?  In fact, string theory  (as far out and perhaps untestable as it is) is a quest for a unified theory.  So I don't get how disproving any of these is really an argument for CID.

Actually, it is correct. You'll notice that I wrote of the string theory landscape, not string theory proper. The landscape explicitly teaches that the values of the constants would be, effectively, a random draw from something like 10^1000 possibilities. That's how it explains the fine tuning. Susskind, for example, argues that the search for a fundamental theory is something akin to religion (which you might characterize as an announcement of the death of physics), and he also argues that if the landscape theory is wrong, it will be very hard to answer the cosmological IDists.

Susskind, in fact, gives provides some of the clearest writing on fine-tuning. Why? Certainly not because he is an IDist. He detests ID. But rather to show the necessity for the landscape theory—a theory which does indeed rely on the premise that there will be no fundamental theory uncovered from which the constants can be derived.

Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  226 replies since May 13 2007,01:37 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]