Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

String theory coming unstrung even among science writers?

arroba Email

Whodathunk (and not that some would know). This from Peter Woit:

The article does try and mount an argument that string theory may not be moribund, with the hope for the future coming from a new paper by Bars and Rychkov entitled Is String Interaction the Origin of Quantum Mechanics?. The idea here seems to be that if you assume you somehow have a fully consistent string field theory, not based on quantum mechanics, then the occurrence in this theory of non-commutative phenomena would “explain” quantum mechanics. To me, this seems to deserve some sort of award for the most desperate attempt yet to justify string theory, but Siegfried is a fan, explaining: …

We bet your broker wouldn’t be interested.

Science writer Tom Fried also failed to convince a sensible person about the multiverse (same account).

Look, if some guy is seeing double, that doesn’t mean there are two universes out there.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (human evolution)

I'm partial to brass myself. We don't know what energy is. We don't know what mas is. We just know there's some relationship between these two unknown aspects of "material" reality. How do strings help? Mung
This is a good lesson on the dangers of reading into the Bible currently in vogue ideas of modern secular "science". For instance, in Ch. 8 of the well known and popular book entitled, Beyond The Cosmos, a famous Christian scientist says this: "‘What follows, then, from string theory and from all these recent findings in particle physics and astrophysics is that God must be operating in a minimum of eleven dimensions of space and time, or their practical equivalent.’ He gives the impression that string theory is supports Scripture AND that string theory is basically sound science. I suspect this author will now begin to slowly disassociate himself with string theory if he hasn't already and rightly so. But, the problem is that he never should have done that to begin with! It makes one wonder about his hermeneutics. Even the philosopher/apologist William Lane Craig, has severely criticised this author's teachings on this: ‘… I find his attempt to construe God as existing in hyperdimensions of time and space and to interpret Christian doctrines in that light to be both philosophically and theologically unacceptable.’(J. Evang. Theol. Soc.42(2):293–304, 1999) tjguy
But in many parts of the US, the law requires Darwin schtick to be funded. News
"To me, this seems to deserve some sort of award for the most desperate attempt yet to justify..." pretty much sums up Darwinian evolution ;) humbled

Leave a Reply