Some of us remember when superCool string theory — just around the corner — was going to give us the multiverse that would prove all naturalist concepts right — and then some!
But if you go by this at Ars Technica:
After 50 years of work on a theory of everything, we’re left with approximate theories that seem so tantalizingly close to explaining all of physics… and yet always out of reach. Work continues on finding the underlying dualities that link the different versions of string theory, trying to suss out the mysterious M-theory that might underlie them all. Improvements to perturbation theory and approximation schemes provide some hope for making a breakthrough to link the dimensional structure of the extra dimensions to predictable physics. Routes around the damage caused by the LHC’s lack of evidence for supersymmetry continue to be laid.
In response to our inability to choose which Calabi-Yau manifold corresponds to our Universe—and more importantly, why our Universe has that manifold rather than any of the other ones—some string theorists appeal to what you might call the landscape. They argue that all possible configurations of compact dimensions are realized, each one with its own unique universe and set of physical laws, and we happen to live in this one because life would be impossible in most or all of the others. That’s not the strongest argument to come out of physics, but I’ll save a dissection of the idea for another day.
We don’t have a string theory, so we can’t test it. But it might be possible to perform experiments on string theory-adjacent ideas, and there’s been some progress on that front. Perhaps the event of inflation, which occurred immediately after the Big Bang, can teach us about string theory (or the formation of Universe-spanning cosmic strings). And perhaps there’s more to the dualities than we initially thought.
Paul Sutter, “Requiem for a string: Charting the rise and fall of a theory of everything” at Ars Technica (January 27, 2023)
But just because string theory can’t be tested, is that a reason it should be abandoned, when it gives so much comfort to naturalists? Look at what else they accept in defiance of evidence…
You may also wish to read: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence
The first paragraph of the article states,
To put it mildly, “explaining the nature of every particle, every force, every fundamental constant, and the existence of the Universe itself”, and by extension, potentially explaining the existence humanity itself, is a rather ambitious goal for any single mathematical ‘theory of everything’ to ever hope to achieve.
But be that as it may, and as the article itself goes on to note, empirical evidence has now “slaughtered so many members of the supersymmetric family that the whole idea is on very shaky ground, with physicists beginning to have conferences with titles like “Beyond Supersymmetry” and “Oh My God, I Think I Wasted My Career.”
Yet, theoretical physicists, and/or mathematicians, should not have been as surprised as they were by the fact mathematics, by itself, would fail to provide a single overarching mathematical framework in which to describe all the phenomena of the universe.
90 years ago, Kurt Gödel, via his incompleteness theorems, and as even the late Hawking himself honestly admitted, “halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing (mathematical) theory of everything in his (incompleteness) theorem.,,,”
And as Stanley Jaki noted, “all mathematical models, all theories of elementary particles, including the theory of quarks and gluons…fall inherently short of being that theory which shows in virtue of its a priori truth that the world can only be what it is and nothing else.”
And as David Goldman noted, “we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place.”
Moreover, Godel’s incompleteness has now been extended into quantum physics.
In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
In short, it is now proven, via Godel’s extension into quantum physics, that there never will be a purely mathematical theory of everything that accounts for the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity from the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Mechanics.
And although string theory has now experimentally been ‘slaughtered’, and/or put on ‘life support’, and although Godel’s extension in quantum physics proves that never will be a purely mathematical theory of everything that bridges the macroscopic descriptions of General Relativity from the microscopic descriptions of Quantum Mechanics, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’.
The main problem in trying to mathematically unify quantum mechanics with general relativity is the fact that there is an apparent ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between the two theories.
Professor Jeremy Bernstein states the situation as such, “there remains an irremediable difficulty. Every order reveals new types of infinities, and no finite number of renormalizations renders all the terms in the series finite.
The theory is not renormalizable.”
And as theoretical physicist Sera Cremonini stated, “You would need to add infinitely many counterterms in a never-ending process. Renormalization would fail.,,,”
And as Michio Kaku stated in the following video, when you try to combine General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, “you get an infinite sequence of infinities, (which is) infinitely worse than the divergences of Einstein’s original theory (i.e. General Relativity).”
So again, and mathematically speaking, the main problem unifying Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity is that there is apparently an irremediable ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between the two theories that can’t be bridged mathematically.
Yet, as I stated before, all hope is not lost in finding the correct ‘theory of everything’.
Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, although he was not directly addressing the ‘infinite mathematical divide’ that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers this insight into what the ‘unification’ of infinite God with finite man might look like mathematically:, Specifically he states, “The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
Of note: I hold it to be fairly obvious that ‘growing large without measure’ can only ever be a potential infinity. Whereas a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero would be an actual infinity and/or a “completed totality”
And I also note that this ‘completed totality’ of an actual infinite fits extremely well into St. Augustine’s view that the Mind of God exceeds the ‘potential infinity’ of numbers.
Moreover, when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founder of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, himself originally envisioned,
,,, and when we rightly allow the Agent Causality of God back into physics, as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company,
,, then that (very) reasonable concession to rightly allow God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides a very plausible, and empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Specifically, when scrutinizing some of the many fascinating details of the Shroud of Turin, we ‘surprisingly’ find that both General Relativity, i.e. gravity, and Quantum Mechanics were both dealt with in Christ’s resurrection from the dead.
In regards to gravity, and as can be seen in the following ‘backside’ image, and holographic image video, from the Shroud of Turin, there is no flattening on the backside of the body as would be expected if the image on the Shroud had formed if a dead body had merely been laying flat on a slab of rock.
And in the following video, the late Isabel Piczek, who made a 3-D sculpture from the Shroud of Turin states that, “The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means there is absolutely no gravity.”
As well, Kevin Moran, an optical engineer who has studied the Shroud of Turin, describes the Shroud Image in this way, “The unique front-and-back only image can be best described as gravitationally collimated. The radiation that made the image acted perfectly parallel to gravity. There is no side image. The radiation is parallel to gravity,,,”
Moreover, besides gravity being dealt with on the Shroud of Turin, the Shroud of Turin also gives us evidence that Quantum Mechanics itself was also dealt with.
In the following paper, it was found that it was not possible to describe the image formation on the Shroud in classical terms but they found it necessary to describe the formation of the image on the Shroud in discrete quantum terms.
Moreover, the following rather astonishing study on the Shroud, found that it would take 34 Trillion Watts of what is termed VUV (directional) radiation to form the image on the shroud.
Moreover, that it is even physically possible for the human body to emit such ‘quantum light’ is revealed by the following,
Thus in conclusion, when we rightly allow the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, (as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders,,,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), then rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead bridges the infinite mathematical divide that exists between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and provides us with a very plausible, and empirically backed, reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”
Bornagain77:
I realise, for you, the Shroud of Turin is powerful ‘proof’ of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are many of your scientific justifications that are disputable but, instead of doing that, I’d like to bring up a few points which I don’t think you addressed. If I’m wrong about that then please just indicate where you addressed them. If you haven’t addressed them then I’d be very interested in your views.
The particular weave pattern of the shroud (herringbone) is not known to have existed at the time of the Crucifixion. Also, the burial shrouds that have been discovered from that time show a plain weave pattern. However that weave pattern was very common in the area and time when the Shroud first came to public attention. And it’s unlikely that a forger would have known about the historicity of the weave pattern.
The Catholic Church seems to be a bit ambivalent regarding its authenticity. Some Popes have declared it to be a genuine holy relic. But, quite early on (in 1389) the bishop of Troyes wrote in a letter to Antipope Clement VII that the shroud was “artificially painted in an ingenious way” and that “it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced”. Which sounds like they were in contact with someone who claimed to have made the image on the Shroud. Also:
Finally, there is a matter of anatomy. There have been several criticisms of the anatomical proportions in the image. Here’s something you can check yourself. Assuming the shroud was wrapped around a dead, limp body then it would not be possible for the hands to cover the genitals. You can check this yourself: lie on the floor and cover your genitals with your hands, then go completely limp. Your elbows will sag onto the floor and your hands will move away from your groin. Now, since the shroud is wrapped end-to-end I don’t see how those who covered the body could have kept the hands in position up to the time that the ‘resurrection’ occurred. The sides of the wrapping were, effectively, open and the arms would have sagged down and pulled the hands away. I can see it if the shroud were wrapped around the other way but not end-to-end. If you wrapped a dead, limp body, end-to-end and then moved it, even just to put it in place, I gotta think the arms would relax and the hands would move.
I did read your hypothesis that gravity was suspended but (if that is even possible) that would have only occurred just before the resurrection. Otherwise the mourners would not have been able to wrap and place the body with no problems. Even if gravity were partially suspended at some time there is no guarantee that the hands would conveniently move to cover the genitals.
Perhaps there are good and sensible explanations for these queries; if so I’d would very much like to hear them.
JVL at 4,
Your starting premise is wrong since you can’t or won’t picture God correctly. Your idea of what is “sensible” is clearly limited by your limited view of God.
“The Catholic Church seems to be a bit ambivalent regarding its authenticity.”
You also allude but lack the necessary precision.
I suggest you, and others, read the following:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/travels/1998/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone.html
Relatd: Your starting premise is wrong since you can’t or won’t picture God correctly. Your idea of what is “sensible” is clearly limited by your limited view of God.
What? I was just asking if Bornagain77 has any explanations for some facts which cast doubt on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. You seem to think that my first assumption should be that God can overcome all minor (and major) issues. But’s that’s kind of begging the question isn’t it? I mean that Bornagain77 is using the Shroud to establish the truth of the Biblical narrative instead of just assuming it’s true.
I suggest you, and others, read the following:
As I stated: the Catholic church has sometimes seemingly supported the authenticity of the Shroud and sometimes not so much. How does the statement of John Paul II change that statement? He seems, in fact, to speak metaphorically which is fine. But Bornagain77 asserts that it is virtually proof of the resurrection which is something else don’t you think? Is it not fair to discuss the evidence for and against the Shroud actually being that used to wrap the body of Jesus? You may choose not to participate but does that make the pursuit invalid? Bornagain77 seems to thinks it’s a fair topic.
Those who are interested in the Shroud of Turin should go to the Shroud website kept by a Jew.
https://shroud.com/
There is a search function on site and you can send them an email.
JVL at 6,
You seem to have only skimmed the statements made by Pope John Paul II. He refers to researchers studying the Shroud. He points out a necessary requirement: no preconceived ideas. Researchers, real researchers, do not find what they want to find but what is actually there. You make plenty of “what makes sense to me” statements. What God can do is what God – not man – can do. Ba77 has put up a series of well-referenced posts. Your idea of Christ laying in the tomb is just a man talking about another man in a ho-hum kind of way. Can God suspend gravity? Of course. Some of His disciples watched Him ascend into the sky. Then angels appeared to them. But, I doubt you think angels are actual beings either.
That said, I’m sure Ba77 can fend for himself.
Realtd: What God can do is what God – not man – can do.
So . . . any “how did this happen” query should just be written off as something that God could/can overcome? That’s not really scientific is it? Why should Bornagain77 have bothered to have compiled a large collection of scientific arguments if he could have just said: hey, God could have done it that way?
Your idea of Christ laying in the tomb is just a man talking about another man in a ho-hum kind of way.
Well, I thought the whole point of the life of Christ and the resurrection was that he was actually a man, flesh and blood; that he actually died and was ‘buried’. Which means that, at some point, there was an actual dead human wrapped in a shroud and placed in a tomb. Correct?
But, I doubt you think angels are actual beings either.
Not the topic is it?
JVL at 9,
A man with tunnel vision can only see what’s in the tunnel. Christ was true man and true God but I doubt you can make the connection. It appears, based on solid references, that Christ, at the moment of reanimation, if you will, acted as God upon returning to His body. Leaving behind a three-dimensional image is entirely within God’s power. Manipulating reality, as we know it, is entirely within God’s power. Your desire to attach a “crash cart” and modern EMTs to Christ’s resurrection is noted. Just like He raised a man who was dead and starting to decompose back to life.
Sorry, I regard science as valuable. It cannot answer all questions in a “scientific” way. Miracles still occur today but The Media would rather not pay attention.
I regard Ba77’s references to be rigorous and scientific. You seem to be saying that the Catholic Church should be issuing a Press Release. I’ll bring up another example. There is a Congregation for the Causes of Saints. They lead investigations into the lives of those under consideration for official sainthood. After documents and witness statements are collected (when available), a debate occurs where arguments for and against the evidence are presented.
From the USCCB site:
“Saints are persons in heaven (officially canonized or not), who lived heroically virtuous lives, offered their life for others, or were martyred for the faith, and who are worthy of imitation.”
Christ was more than “actually a man.” His sacrifice was for all men and He was sent by the Father for this purpose. No other man could be this kind of sacrifice.
Relatd: Christ was true man and true God but I doubt you can make the connection. It appears, based on solid references, that Christ, at the moment of reanimation, if you will, acted as God upon returning to His body
But, before that moment, the arms would have been limp and relaxed and the hands would not have covered the groin. So, AT THE MOMENT, they would have been in a different position. And the blood patterns would have been different.
Manipulating reality, as we know it, is entirely within God’s power
Then there is no point in examining any of these issues scientifically since God can just violate the rules of science at will.
Why do Christians spend time and effort trying to find scientific explanations which uphold their view if, in the final analysis, God doesn’t actually need to bother to follow the laws of science?
IF God can ‘kill’ his son so he is really, really dead but then choose to suspend the laws of physics so that his dead, limp arms are in an untenable position . . . what is the point? He’s dead but he still needs to cover his genitals? Really?
JVL at 11,
Another one. “I want God to do this.” “I want God to do that.” It may surprise you – NO, scratch that – it WILL surprise you that God knew this exchange would take place. So wake up and accept the evidence AND that God is not a man in the same sense anyone else is.
YOU have this totally distorted idea of what God – as God – can do as opposed to what your totally deficient human reason desires. Your ideas about Christianity do not involve research – at all. You read something on the net or your (fake name) buddy Bob told you.
Christianity is about the truth. Facts. Faith and Reason. We live by what is true. Example: If you walk off a cliff, then what? Nothing? If it’s high enough, you die.
God did not “kill” His Son. Again, God did not cause Christ’s death. Christ died willingly for all men. He endured all that suffering and died for all men.
Fides Et Ratio (Faith AND Reason):
Read it:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
So, faith includes truth. The kind of truth you prefer. The kind of facts that are true.
By the way, the Vatican has a Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences
Relatd: YOU have this totally distorted idea of what God – as God – can do as opposed to what your totally deficient human reason desires
I get that God can do anything. What I don’t understand is why God would do certain things. So, I ask questions. That’s okay isn’t it?
Christianity is about the truth. Facts. Faith and Reason. We live by what is true. Example: If you walk off a cliff, then what? Nothing? If it’s high enough, you die.
Yes, exactly. The laws of physics should apply. But you’re suggesting they don’t apply for God. So . . . why create a system of laws and such just to violate them?
God did not “kill” His Son. Again, God did not cause Christ’s death. Christ died willingly for all men. He endured all that suffering and died for all men.
Let’s be honest: the Sadducees and the Pharisees decided that Christ should be put to death and Pilate conceded. That’s what it says in the New Testament.
So, faith includes truth. The kind of truth you prefer. The kind of facts that are true.
Then they should be very glad of me exercercising my god-granted right to reason asking questions. Correct?
You seem to think that only some questions are worthy of being asked. Shouldn’t we be able to query everything?
JVL, I find it more than a bit disingenuous for you to ignore the fact that Darwinian evolution has been falsified six ways from Sunday, and yet you want to now sit here now and try to falsify the authenticity of the Shroud by appealing to evidence.
JVL’s blatant hypocrisy in honestly examining evidence against his Darwinian worldview aside, JVL claims,
Unsurprisingly, that claim from atheists is found to be false.
The 3 to 1 herringbone weave was known in Egypt and Palestine. And the direction of the twists indicate it was of Palestinian origin. Moreover, in 2002 textile expert Mechthilde Flury-Lemberg discovered a rare type stitch on the back side of the Shroud which was known from only one other place, the Masada Fortress in Israel,
Then JVL, suddenly, becomes Catholic and quotes the Pope on the Shroud as authoritative, noting that the Pope stopped short of declaring the Shroud to be authentic. So what JVL? What a Pope may or may not say about the authenticity of Shroud really is completely irrelevant to what the empirical evidence itself says about the Shroud,, is it not? I would think a non-Catholic/non-Christian would be the first to agree whole-heartedly with that fact.
Then JVL tries to claim that the anatomy on the Shroud was all wrong, i.e. hands unable to cover genitals,, etc…,. ,, That particular ‘anatomy’ objection from atheists to the Shroud happens to have been addressed before here on UD,,, by a blogger named Wallstreeter43.
In short, much like JVL’s gross mishandling of evidence whenever it comes to questioning Darwinian evolution, JVL will take any evidence against the Shroud, no matter how weak it is, and ignore all other evidence for the authenticity of the Shroud, no matter how strong it is, simply because JVL is, apparently, far more interested in protecting his atheism than he is in ever honestly searching for the truth.
Further notes establishing the authenticity of the Shroud
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/harvard-astronomer-the-wonders-of-the-universe-point-to-a-creator/#comment-774825
JVL at 14,
I have another surprise for you.
“Yes, exactly. The laws of physics should apply. But you’re suggesting they don’t apply for God. So . . . why create a system of laws and such just to violate them?”
Jesus appears to people and starts healing the blind, restoring their sight, and healing other people as well. Before you know it, he is surrounded by people who not only want to be healed but who think he is the Messiah. He raises Lazarus from the dead. He commands the wind and waves to cease while on a boat. He multiplies a small number of loaves and fishes and feeds a large group of people.
Too often, including here, people want some evidence that Jesus was God. Or they want God to appear to them. What would you do? What would you ask for if God appeared to you? I’ve read about atheists who claim that there’s a lack of sufficient evidence that God is real for them to believe He is. Not enough evidence. God should just appear – again.
If you saw God – what would you do? Would you ask for something that only God could do? Heal a dying family member? Give you something that appears in front of you and you know it was never there until your wish was granted.
Ask anything but realize that some truths require spiritual discernment, not just the use of your mind.
Bornagain77:
I asked some questions and you provided information that I was unaware of. I shall keep your explanations in mind.
Thank you for taking the time to provide such complete responses.
JVL: “I asked some questions and you provided information that I was unaware of. I shall keep your explanations in mind.”
Well, reading that ‘unexpected’ response from you first thing this morning certainly brightened my morning up. 🙂
Bornagain77: Well, reading that ‘unexpected’ response from you first thing this morning certainly brightened my morning up
Well, to be honest I was a bit taken aback. It’s not like I have tried to track down all the work on the Shroud but you said some things I had not heard or come across.
Also, I was a bit embarrassed: the idea that a body NOT lying flat could very well exhibit the pattern on the Shroud had just, frankly, not occurred to me. That was a real “DUH” moment. Nor had I found that suggestion before.
As I have said before, I have changed my mind about some things based on responses I have had on this forum and I clearly need to spend more time looking into Shroud research.
In fact, since my own resources are clearly incomplete, is there a particular website or book that does a pretty good job summarising all the work done? I don’t mind admitting when I’ve been ignorant but I’d rather get stuff right in the first place.
Well JVL, knock me over with a feather.
As to books, the book that I cut my teeth on the Shroud was way back 17 years ago and it was this one,
Of course since that time, a lot of other books have been written on the Shroud, and a lot of additional research on the Shroud has happened.
Since the time I read that book, I’ve picked up most of the additional research on the Shroud from watching video lectures, video documentaries, and from googling relevant papers. (As well as from what some commenters right here on UD have taught me about the Shroud)
Additionally, I find the main Shroud website to be a very useful resource for tracking down relevant peer reviewed literature on the Shroud.
If forced to suggest a good book to you, since Giulio Fanti has earned my respect of a top notch Shroud researcher, I would suggest this 2020 book,,,, (but I have not personally read it yet).
Other than that, I really don’t know which recent ‘book on the Shroud has brought all of the additional recent research together in one place. Sorry, I cannot be of more help to you in finding the best book out there.
,,,, Does anyone here on UD happen to have any suggestions for JVL for a fairly recent, really good, book on the Shroud of Turin? A book that brings all the fairly recent research on the Shroud together?
Bornagain77: Well JVL, knock me over with a feather.
🙂 I know it would take more than that!!
Thank you for your sincere suggestions. I have, briefly, looked at the website but did not check the papers page. Giulio Fanti’s book seems like a good bet if you find him credible and it has the advantage of being recent. But I shall check on both.
Obviously there is no ‘bible’ of Shroud research but it’s nice to have some things to start with.
Anyway, IF I choose to have a discussion on the Shroud in the future I shall try harder to make sure I have looked at all the data (something I’m always telling others to do!) beforehand. If I put my foot in it again I trust you to tell me!