Page 1 of 23 123451121 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 229

Thread: Physics and Metaphysics, can they meet?

  1. #1

    Default Physics and Metaphysics, can they meet?

    Ok, so this thread is a continuation from Christ can help where Rogers and I began our own conversation concerning metaphysics and physics. So if anyone also interested in this subject and would like to add to the thread that would be great.

    WARNING: This post is not about religion! Leave your gods and harsh words at the door.

    So where were we, ah yes string theory. I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you I know string theory. So could define it for me and then post again what it does or doesn't have to do with metaphysics?

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Doctorbambino View Post
    Physics and Metaphysics, can they meet?
    i thought they just did???

  3. #3

    Default

    I sense some confusion between a very old (and changed) branch of philosophy that in of itself is very hard to define Metaphysics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and the quantitative science known as physics:



    Perhaps this development, this wider application of the word ‘metaphysics’, was due to the fact that the word ‘physics’ was coming to be a name for a new, quantitative science, the science that bears that name today, and was becoming increasingly inapplicable to the investigation of many traditional philosophical problems about changing things (and of some newly discovered problems about changing things).
    So I'm not exactly sure what you are asking.

  4. #4

    Default

    Ah, good point. Metaphysics as in the more spiritual sense. Such as altered states of consciousness, chakras, the like. I'm mean there's two ways to look at. If you want to go into like "Dan Winters" talking about the mathematics and phase conjugate... stuff lol. Or you could go into it like David Icke and get a big picture. Might not make sense to the logical left brained individual but suites nicely to the people who live more in the right as I seem to be comfortable in.
    Last edited by Mercurius; 02-Jan-2014 at 18:42.

  5. #5

    Default

    From what I remember reading about this, basically, first there was Newton's physics. This worked/works very well. Most of the measurements are so close to right that for all practical purposes they totally work. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure we put a man on the moon using Newton's physics. But then there came about this issue where the answers from Newton's physics were... well, close to right, but not exactly right. So then other physicists figured out that things weren't all that they appeared to be. Some thingies they thought were particles were actually waves.

    String theory is basically the idea of going deeper and deeper to try to find the true fundamental material that makes up our universe. A long time ago people totally thought it was atoms. But then even deeper, we know atoms are made up of protons and neutrons and electrons. So people wonder, well, what are they made up of? Scientists said these are made up of quarks. And then, of course the question begged, what are quarks made of? That's where string theory comes in. Scientists speculated that quarks are made from these vibrating 'strings' that are uh, very confusing when it gets right down to it. But to keep it simple, people think that the way they vibrate determines what kind of particle they are... or appear as.

    Here is the problem with string theory: I think calling it 'theory' while in the scientific context is highly misleading. It's still a hypothesis. Also, the math for it only works in 11 dimensions. We don't know if there are 11 dimensions or there aren't. It's circular. ("This is the only condition it works under; so this condition must also be true, since we need it to work for string theory.") When trying to prove it, you have to give it perfect conditions, which in this case is 11 dimensions. There isn't enough proof to call it a theory. However, it's not completely pseudo-science, either. It's basically some people's best guess right now. If string theory is somehow proven (by using it to make falsifiable predictions) then I think it would become the unifying theory. But it's not simple enough, though. People think the unifying theory would end up being simple and elegant like E=Mc^2. String theory is so the opposite of simple that once, these two people got away with an entire research paper filled with nothing but mathematical gibberish for four years, because it's so complicated that these papers hardly ever get checked.

    Lots of things about quantum physics can blow your mind. For example, the infamous double slit experiment. Also right now there's a big theory in the works that is gaining more traction where we think our universe is a projection. A hologram, for lack of a better term. This doesn't mean we're in the Matrix, or anything, but just that... yeah, things are just weird.

    So, when you want to look at the practical 'almost right' gravity laws, then Newton works just fine. If you look deeper for 'exactly right' it's so weird that our theories on it are still really being worked on. It barely makes sense to the human mind because it's just not part of the physics humans naturally understand... it's not part of our natural reality that we experience on a day to day basis. So physics is practical, and metaphysics (quantum physics?) is actually more true -- stranger than fiction.

    Hope that helps. I'm not a physics major, just read about it sometimes. If anyone is a physics major please correct me, explain further!

    Disclaimer! I guess I didn't realize what 'metaphysics' really is. I was describing the difference between quantum physics and Newtonian physics based on OP's question about what string theory meant. Apparently metaphysics is a new age thing. String theory is NOT technically only a new age thing, however it is used by new age people in order to talk about their own ideas. String theory is not proven, and just an idea being worked on, with dubious circular mathematics. But, aside from string theory, quantum physics as a scientific field is as real as it is confusing.
    Last edited by Frogsy; 03-Jan-2014 at 00:08. Reason: Disclaimer and cleaned up, added explanation..

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Doctorbambino View Post
    Ah, good point. Metaphysics as in the more spiritual sense. Such as altered states of consciousness, chakras, the like.
    All we can really do is generate ideas and unsupported postulations. Until the science has measured or supported things like chakras or "energy" they really only meet in several New Age assertions or certain types of Pagan religions.

    Quantum mechanics - RationalWiki

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_woo

  7. #7

    Default

    You said it frogsy vibrations. Everything in this universe is vibrating. and a vibration carries a frequency that is fractal in nature. So given these strings such as in String Theory vibrate, these string connect to other dimensions. Then that means just through a change in the rate of vibration such as a sleeping person changes the brains frequency to an altered state where they can create their own worlds, interact with other energies that also resonate on the frequency. I mean it's completely not proven but maybe possible. I mean how can science explain OBEs?

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Doctorbambino View Post
    So where were we, ah yes string theory. I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you I know string theory. So could define it for me and then post again what it does or doesn't have to do with metaphysics?
    String theory is very much like metaphysics, in that it doesn't make any testable predictions and isn't actually science.

  9. #9

    Default

    Before this gets going I'd like to ask how did scientists come up with the notion of string theory? (warning) loaded question.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Doctorbambino
    I mean it's completely not proven but maybe possible. I mean how can science explain OBEs?
    They've been induced in several medical settings. There is a wealth of papers on the subject.

    Though I am Pagan, if a fellow practitioner looks at me and says "Valerian root cures insomnia" because it's natural and been traditionally used. I always ask "how so?" Then I discover it's not really the case: A systematic review of valerian as a sleep aid... [Sleep Med Rev. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

    Question the basis of the claim, and see if it can be supported. Don't buy into the bells and whistles.



    Before this gets going I'd like to ask how did scientists come up with the notion of string theory? (warning) loaded question.
    Basically this:



    But Wikia for more info.

Similar Threads

  1. Pee Physics Question
    By ZetaSonic in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-May-2011, 06:10
  2. Cartoon/Diaper Physics
    By Khaymen in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 22-May-2010, 08:56
  3. Crayon Physics Deluxe! AWESOME GAME!
    By Rathe in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2010, 21:08
  4. Free copies of Crayon Physics
    By Fire2box in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2010, 01:52

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.