A pursuit of "elegance." Not just the "holy grail" (unifying gravity with the other forces) but also having a simple model rather than one involving so many sub-atomic particles. The problem is that it isn't predictive, so it's really just an abstract, mathematical model, rather than a usable one.
i meant it's obvious you're not religious based on an objective view of evidence. and if anything was talking out of a hind end it was your entire last post.
Hmmm. I'm not talking about discovering evidence of strings. I understand it is purely mathematical at this point. But the entire idea of string theory is to find TTOE. From what I have read, very few string theorists, as opposed to philosophers, are set on determining why strings exist. Many string theorists use the analogy of strings being like letters. You can break paragraphs into sentences, sentences into words, words into letters, but trying to break down letters is futile and meaningless. To me, I can say people created letters, like I would say God crated strings. I agree with the dislike of the "God of Gaps" idea. I don't use God as an explanation for why things happen. I'm confident that we will prove and understand many processes that we currently don't. And you're right, looking at the past, when we have applied this "God of Gaps" is looks a little silly. I don't mean the evolutionary sense, or the neuroscience. I'm talking about why it exists. Why do we have a inate desire to live and love? We have these strange urges to survive and protect offspring at all costs, and I wonder why.
Well, it's a model that fits mathematically. String theorists are pretty up front about the weaknesses of the theory. It hasn't become the prevailing model for good reason. Thank goodness for scientific rigor!
\ I'm not even sure what you're talking about. Obviously religion isn't about clear cut evidence. That is why it is religion and faith. If the existence of God is proven, it won't be called faith anymore. Just like it doesn't take faith to know that death exists. It is interesting that you are so quick to go on the attack towards those that believe and have faith.
Can't be right now. Doesn't mean that we never will be able test the theory. Making hypotheses is part of science. barfo
That's just a comment of the current state of things, as far as I know, not a pronouncement on the future. There are a lot of things, like quantum "randomness," which are true based on the models we possess now, but don't say anything about where human knowledge will go in the future. Also, examining the "why" is a different thing from "not wanting to go any further." Science isn't predominantly about the why (though that's examined when it can be), it's about predictive models. Assuming there is ever evidence for strings, science may or may not ever know why they exist...but science will keep investigating them, to discover the rules that govern them, what makes up strings, etc. If that uncovers "why," then that's great. It may just yield a new and better model. Isn't the gene survival mechanism a fairly good inquiry into the why? That love creates a compelling reason to look out for those who share your genes, thereby giving them a greater chance of surviving into future generations? Not to say you shouldn't be spiritual, but I think love and other human behaviours/motivations can be investigated quite reasonably in a scientific or rational manner.
Typically, you make a hypothesis that you plan to test. It's easy to set the agenda for other people's time, but there's no good reason why they should do your bidding, eh? If you feel it's good, testable hypothesis, please research it and submit it for peer review!
It could, huh? Exactly how would you propose going about it? Are you suggesting your tax dollars should be spent on this? barfo
ok well i wasn't attacking faith, sorry if it came across that way. i was pointing out that your initial post mischaracterized the goals of science and implied invalid comparisons between science and your religious faith.
People who do believe tell me they see the evidence everywhere. In a tree, a butterfly, a rock. That God gave us free will means we are free to investigate these things to any degree we can. A lot of these peoples' peers agree. Can it be measured with instruments of some kind? No, but neither can strings. It's up to the scientists to pitch what they want to study. I would point out that there are plenty of archaeologists who look for physical evidence of biblical significance (and find a lot of such things). Science.
So it's passed religious peer review and is accepted religion. You seemed to want to make it scientific inquiry, which means it needs to be peer-reviewed by the scientific community. And yes, there's no physical evidence for strings, which is why it isn't the prevailing theory for what makes up the universe.
My point is that, IMO, for any more basic element we find, we can always ask the question of how that element exists or was created. Maybe it is my own lack of intelligence or small-mindedness, but I believe we will always be in that situation. For me, it isn't enough. I understand what you're saying, but I want to know why the gene survival mechanism exists. I believe that something created our desire to care if our neighbors have access to medical treatment, or to care if people are starving and dying in Africa. I think they can be investigated in a manner that shows those behaviours/motivations are indeed there. But not at the level of why they are there.
