RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: String Theory and ID, Beyond Strings< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
bigfish24



Posts: 1
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,15:21   

Got a question that I would like to see how evolutionist/anti-creationist respond...
**I will fully state that I believe in creation and I am a pre-medical student**

What ponders me is if evolution, primarily macroevolution is correct then tracing time back we get to the Big Bang. Now the Big Bang inherently seems to point to creation--what caused it? Where did space, time, and energy arise from?

However, new theories have been formulated attempting to solve this question. I recall one stating that our universe is in a cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found. Lately the String Theory is the front-runner--it proposes that everything is made up of strings of energy within a 10 dimensional or even more world. The Big Bang would have been a result of a 3 dimensional world forming on top or within the other dimensions. This has far reaching implications however the big question is still never answered....

With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?

As I ponder these questions science seems to fall short, frankly the only answers seem to come with faith....

Please respond and God Bless,
Adam

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 06 2006,17:30   

Biology and Evolution theory involves the development of life and relationships among species. The development of planets, stars, or the whole universe belong to whole other subjects like astronomy, cosmology, and/or astrophysics.

As for string theory, last I heard it was really a hypothesis (i.e., not yet directly supported by evidence) rather than a theory that is supported by enough evidence to give it widespread acceptance. (Then of course there's the question of which string theory, unless they succeed in consolodating them into one.)

Besides which, there will always be something that can be only observed and described by science, rather than being explained in terms of something more basic. That's because explaining something sort of requires that we know of something more basic than the thing being explained. Right now the most basic thing (described in widely accepted theory) seems to be quantum theory (plus relativity theory), but if string theory (or one of them) is successful it would become the described (but not really explained) basis for the rest.

Henry

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,21:58   

Quote
What ponders me is if evolution, primarily macroevolution is correct then tracing time back we get to the Big Bang. Now the Big Bang inherently seems to point to creation--what caused it? Where did space, time, and energy arise from?


Macroevolution or microevolution are semantical terms set to confuse, the keyword is EVOLUTION. Macro is merely size. Also Big Bang has nothing to do directly with Evolution. Big Bang belongs to Cosmology so you are confusing two disciplines of science. Also if you are seeking a "starting point" then that is neither Evolution or Cosmology, it is ABIOGENESIS.

Quote
However, new theories have been formulated attempting to solve this question. I recall one stating that our universe is in a cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found.


I have no idea what your question is really:

Evolution - the change of allele frequencies in a population over time.

Cosmology - studies of the origins of the Universe.

Abiogenesis - organisms originating from non living matter.

You started with an assertion about Evolution, flew into Cosmology then into Abiogenesis, so I'll try and jigsaw it together as I go.

Quote
cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found.


Cosmology: A oscilating or cyclic universe is not a reversal of expansion at all (I'd like to know where you heard that from) but its actually an entropic universe. So depending on the density and gravity it is much like a black hole and it compresses (not reverses) and we see this in systems like boiling water into condensation back into water.

Quote
Lately the String Theory is the front-runner--it proposes that everything is made up of strings of energy within a 10 dimensional or even more world. The Big Bang would have been a result of a 3 dimensional world forming on top or within the other dimensions. This has far reaching implications however the big question is still never answered....


Superstring has caused a furor on its hypothetical concepts alone. But first, a superstring is an elementary particle and in its original form from the 60's was the hadron (so you're dealing with fermions and bosons or quarks and gluons) and within the fermionic version arose supersymmetry (for high energy physics) - what does this all mean? The Theory of Everything - with the added addition of quantum gravity. Because we are dealing now on a quantum level, you're dealing with fields. Fields such as Caliba-Yau or Kaluza-Klein in relation to dimensional spaces (above our current 4D Universe) based upon mirror symmetry (R, 1/R, T-duality) or simplstically, the compactification of a radius. Now with that explained, does it pose to deter from Big Bang? Probably not.

Quote
With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?


Big Bang Model also uses the boson particle assertion (or the x boson) so in that regard, there is generally no conflict with the models. As for the theories - if one were to actually study them indepth and in particular, the mathematics, they are not pitched against each other in a contradictory fight but they stem from each other in more a mathematical simplicity (often seen as much complexity - but they're not).

Quote
As I ponder these questions science seems to fall short, frankly the only answers seem to come with faith....


This is how I personally view religious claims to be - they fall short, rest on Wish/Desire for something to be true utilising faith. Science is not afforded such liberties and that is why you have all these theories - trying to answer, not make a "faithful guess".

  
Ladlergo



Posts: 32
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2006,08:41   

Just remember that even if you don't believe in evolution, it doesn't prevent bacteria from acquiring mutations that make them immune to antibiotics.

As for your questions, as stated above, you're confusing evolution with cosmology.  Evolution only describes what happens once life develops.  It says nothing about the origin of life, the origin of the Earth, or the origin of the universe.

   
acriticaleye



Posts: 19
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 28 2006,18:40   

origins are important though, if theres no I.D.er then where did the laws of phisics, time and space come from?

  
Fractatious



Posts: 103
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,05:41   

Quote (acriticaleye @ May 29 2006,16:40)
origins are important though, if theres no I.D.er then where did the laws of phisics, time and space come from?

Well this is a tricky question so I'll do my best to answer it. Where did the Laws of Physics (erm, phisics), Space and Time come from?

Lets narrow down the options: Vampires, werewolves, unicorns, dragons, phoenix, purple elephants with wings, dinosaurs, fairies, neopets, trolls, billy goat gruff, the tellie tubbies, Bert and Ernie, Beavis and Butthead, Bart Simpson, Bugs Bunny, oh Chuck Norris.

I'm sure I'm missing something *tilts head*

Righty-oh - mankind (two arms, two legs, some even have a brain) create laws in which to define the Universe. This aids in our understanding of it. I go with Chuck Norris, personally.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,05:50   

And if there is an "I.D.er", where did it come from?

There's always gonna be something such that we don't know where it came from, so the "where did X come from" question doesn't actually have the implication that some seem to think it has.

Henry

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 06 2006,06:31   

Quote (Fractatious @ June 06 2006,10:41)
Where did the Laws of Physics (erm, phisics), Space and Time come from?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
russell_y



Posts: 2
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2006,21:24   

This is great. I love seeing the fantasies of theology get so solidly rebuttaled.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4112
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2006,11:17   

String Theory = the connection between physics and the FSM. ;)

But don't forget the garlic bread!

  
Heusdens



Posts: 3
Joined: Feb. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2007,20:08   

Quote (bigfish24 @ May 06 2006,15:21)
Got a question that I would like to see how evolutionist/anti-creationist respond...
**I will fully state that I believe in creation and I am a pre-medical student**

What ponders me is if evolution, primarily macroevolution is correct then tracing time back we get to the Big Bang. Now the Big Bang inherently seems to point to creation--what caused it? Where did space, time, and energy arise from?

However, new theories have been formulated attempting to solve this question. I recall one stating that our universe is in a cyclical repetition of Big Bangs, however the energy required to reverse the universe expansion is no where to be found. Lately the String Theory is the front-runner--it proposes that everything is made up of strings of energy within a 10 dimensional or even more world. The Big Bang would have been a result of a 3 dimensional world forming on top or within the other dimensions. This has far reaching implications however the big question is still never answered....

With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?

As I ponder these questions science seems to fall short, frankly the only answers seem to come with faith....

Please respond and God Bless,
Adam

Seems you are pondering the inponderable.

Please note your question is not a scientific question (although science can partly answer it) but more a philosophical question.

It can be stated in different forms, but the question drops down to "where does everything come from"?

Does the world (all things that exist in total) somehow have a cause (outside of itself?) and/or begin?

Philosophically speaking, the answer is of course, you can't introduce a cause or begin to the universe, since such would be baseless. You can not introduce a cause (say cause X) that supposedly caused everything to come into existence, because you need to include your postulated cause X also (since that would be part of "everything").

If the world (universe) would have supposed to have begun it would need to have begin in or from nothing.
Yet at the same time such a begin is already made impossible, since nothing is only nothing, and not a begin of any something.

Which means: the world / universe does not have an (outside) cause and does not have a begin.

Scientifically speaking, and on the field of cosmology, the issue then perhaps arrises: what about the Big Bang?

Well, there is this persistent popular misunderstanding that the Big Bang explains that the universe began some 14 billion years ago in a singularity.
This is however wrong for two reasons:
1.) The Big bang theory does not state anything about the origin of the universe, but only that it since some 14 bilion years ago expanded and cooled down.
2.) The very theory that comes up with this singularity - general relativity - is known to break down at the singularity.
This means that general relativity is incomplete. And that is because quantum mechanical effects need to be taken into account.

The most accurate theory we have of the universe currently is a theory in which the Big Bang was the result of a process called cosmological inflation (very rapid expansion of spacetime due to some field potential rolling down to it's minimum), which is conjectured to have happened in a an eternal/infinite background spacetime.

------------------------------------

And for some more background, your question is basically the question as to what adequately explains the world, and is the issue of the (philosophical) ground.

Materialism will explain this at the basis of matter in motion which itself is indestructable and uncreatable and infinite. This concept of matter in eternal motion brings forth the concepts of space and time.

Matter does not have nor need a ground or reason for it's existence outside if itself (after all, matter is the ground for all being and all phenomena which we observe). All things are based on matter and material interactions and transformations of matter in one form to another form (like for example: E=Mc2 which is energy turned into mass and vice versa).
This holds also true for consciousness, which is according to materialism a material phenomena. Thought/consciousness is a product of the brain as a material organ of a human being.

Materialism is not a scientific theory, but a philosophy (one that is opposed to idealism, which takes as it ground the existence of consciousness/mind, and in which the material world is a secondary feature).

What matter is, and how it behaves is not explained by materialism but by scientific theories and disciplines like physics, chemics, biology, etc. Materialism does not abide to any specific such scientific theories, but acknowledges their approximate correctness.

In physical terms, matter can be thought of as energy, fields, particles, quantum mechanical effects, etc.

Please note that the current state of theory development in the scientific fields are in good accordance with materialism, in that the indestructability and uncreatability of matter and also the infinity of matter can be hold correct.

In the context of general relativity for instance the intimate connection between mass and spacetime (in Newtonian physics an absolute spacetime was postulated apart and independent of matter) in which mass "causes" spacetime (geometry) and spacetime "causes" the motion of matter (gravity).

Note also that due to quantum mechanics & Heizenberg uncertainty principle, matter is everywhere and in motion always. An absolute empty space without matter is not a viable concept in physics. Motionless matter is an impossibility.

Another philosophical point of view worth mentioning in this respect is dialectics. It stands apart from materialism (matter is primary) and idealism (mind is primary), since it does not deal with the philosophical question of what the primary ground is for the world, but how to reason about the world.

Perhaps worth reading on this issue is the works of Hegel in the Science of Logic, the Doctrine of Being, which deals with the Incomprehensibility of the Beginning.

  
Freelurker



Posts: 80
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2007,21:58   

Quote
With any of these theories the where, what, why is never answered. Where did the strings of energy come from? Why do they exist? What caused the existence?

Whenever we go to the frontiers of scientific knowledge, we find a lot of things we don't understand. This has always been true and always will be. (You can quote me on that.)

You may find, as I do, that it sometimes takes courage to say "I don't know."

Everybody has a right to speculate what lies beyond the current frontier. But if anyone wants their speculations to be considered scientific knowledge, they have to show that their new idea fits objectively known data and enables testable predictions.

Science does not claim to have all of the answers. Faith is useful to many people. Just don't call it science.

Cheers.

--------------
Invoking intelligent design in science is like invoking gremlins in engineering. [after Mark Isaak.]
All models are wrong, some models are useful. - George E. P. Box

  
  11 replies since May 06 2006,15:21 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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