Back
Forum Replies Created
-
The concept of a soft determinism of probability really appeals to me at a fundamental level – that does not make it real or right.
Given a 50/50 situation nature will make a choice – the logical donkey ponders the problem for some underlying advantage, and eventually starves and dies, and expediency survives to continue the ride 🙂
Given infinite time all possible outcomes are possible – those that ultimately lead to our existence were the useful ones (for us) that nature has since replicated and developed, and from which we currently gain a benefit. If there were shown to be ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ beyond the Standard Model it should not be described as a good ‘Thing’ or a bad ‘Thing’ – it would be just the only ‘Thing’ and science would digest the implications and move on.
Models, however compelling, are merely models that we use to try to make sense of our environment – reality is what is important. Keep it Real! To say that I am convinced would be wrong, however, I am convinced that this is a very worthwhile theory to explore. And it does seem to be a simpler explanation for the universe that we observe (so Ockham’s Razor would smile upon it).
It is in contradiction of the currently popular theory of the cosmos, and that will attract a multitude of detractors, particularly from those who are fully engaged in exploring another path – that doesn’t make it wrong, or wrong to pursue it.
The Cyclic model seems to have some resonance with the Aeons concept as proposed by Sir Roger Penrose et al. I would really like to understand whether the model is subject to rebuttal by some possible future observation? This does represent a very appealing theory – a cyclical process that looks much like a wave processing from node to node – no beginning and no ending – no awkward question about what came before, just wait long enough and the answers will all come to you (very Zen) 🙂
It is a pity that the big science research grants seem to follow the dramatic, spectacular route, and it would be nice to see more resources being applied to plan B and plan C. Surely, in science, we are not required to believe in a theory – a good theory is just a tool that suits our purpose until a better, more precise tool (theory) is constructed.
When we find that our favourite theory cannot account for the nature of perceived reality, we simply question it rigourously until it can be refined or replaced? I tend to agree with Ruth Bingham – String Theory is just that, a theory. The mathematical conjecture of possible realities that are undoubtedly compelling but do not seem to be substantiated and are not conclusive.
Different frames of reference give us a different view of reality – some of these do help to illuminate the reality of the underlying principles that are counter-intuitive to our (inherited) human perspective that has not evolved to find survival value in these concepts. But the underlying reality remains unchanged – only the point of view is altered.
However these altered perspectives can give rise to a better understanding of the true nature of reality. Science has progressed our understanding of reality throughout history, a journey marked with milestone names such as Galileo, Darwin, Newton and Einstein. At school I was taught that the Atom was defined as the smallest, indivisible particle of matter – it was a good approximation at the time but we now know better.
Special relativity implied that Space and Time are emergent properties that can act in unison to alter their respective values to ensure that the constant nature of the speed of light is maintained – from any point of view.
This would indicate that Space and Time cannot be fundamental, they simply emerge from the constancy of the value of the speed of light.
The future will enlarge our understanding of reality, and perhaps String Theory holds the answer – only Time (though not fundamental) will tell. I found the commentary on this video rather confusing – the description seemed to wander between “R = c x t” as being defined as the radius, diameter and circumference of a circle.
In the illustration the larger circle was stated as having a circumference of 1/R and also being greater than R itself of the smaller circle – the winding path was an additional layer of confusion!
I understood string theory to be counter-intuitive and decidedly strange, but this level of weirdness is difficult to accept.