Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

khuram

# 92 underlines the real issue. In all human-logic based dynamic doctrines (science being one part of this universe) criticism of individual viewpoints is accepted as a natural element of the whole system. And criticism is criticized when it is based on faulty information, faulty logic or faulty motives.

In other systems, why criticism of individual viewpoints should ``cause pain`` is hard to understand. Few of these lack greatly honed traditions of criticism. In reality, far more than criticism has been standard practice.

Can somebody exlpain in easy language what is `Shrodinger`s Cat` problem?( like cat is both dead and alive in box, Something to do with quantum computing I guess)

Re #90 khuram,

``Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.``

I don`t think any scientist (or their defenders on chowk) will disagree with this. Scientist welcome doubt & criticism (in fact, demand it!) . Scientific theories are always being revised in the face of critcism and additional evidence. The problem with YOUR criticsm is that it does not display a proper understanding of the concept being criticized.

Re: # 90 by khuram:

Khuram,

Nice to see you here. I am actually quite intrigued by this string theory but am too lazy to pick up a book on it. My question is very simple. Does it violate the definitions of union, intersection and complement (as in basic set theory)? I have seen work in logic where a lattice is defined on the universal set and complementarity is violated in the structure where the lattice is defined. Is something similar going on in string theory?

Kaalchakara,,

Yes ``counterproductiveness`` is a worse thing. Criticism itself cannot be regarded as counterproductive, as it makes us able to look at issues from some new angles as well. And counterproductivess also should be criticized. But `pain` is also a form of evil. As a matter of fact, religious people cannot ignore the pain which results from any criticism on them. And as a matter of fact, other scientific dogmatic persons should not feel pain as they should know that whole edific of their contemporary ``systemetic`` knowledge is having the basis of criticism.

Neither the procedures of scientific research are absolutely accurate and nor the theories of science are any absolute truths. Even scientific truths change over time. Established scientific theories should be questioned and if supporters of science remain answerless, then they should seriously review those theories, rather than feeling pain over the loss of their beloved theories.

Whoever can talk with reasonable logic, should have full right of criticism.

Regards!

khuram

Not causing ``pain`` to others` beliefs if you profoundly disagree with those beliefs is counterproductive, don`t you think, bhai sahib?

At best, and at the very least, in criticising other people`s beliefs, one mustn`t deliberately distort those beliefs with an eye to deceiving trusting audiences. On that most important, in fact, only valid moral score, science and religion haven`t proven to be equally Godly.

One of the two has fared much worse.

Re: # 86

Dear Okhla Sahib,,

Just off the topic: I have been just watching chowk for quite long time. I have started interacting just recently. I do not know your views in particular ... but the general environment of chowk is that chowkies freely criticise religion and do not care about the pain which religious people could feel. But chowkies themselves feel pain whenever their ``science`` is criticized. Chowkies are having dogmatic belongingness with their science. Gill sahib who uses his id of ``freethinker``, also cannot think against his beloved science. Actually I also consider myself ``freethinker`` ... in the sense that my ``freethinking`` can go beyond my area of proficiency. If science is ``systemetic`` ... then there should be, at least, some ``taste`` of ``freethinking`` also in it...!!!

And please consider that the issue of probability was discussed in a different context ... not in the context of n-dimensions. Actually I believe in only those things which I can understand. And since science is ``systemetic`` ... so in ``science`` some people understand some truths on behalf of all those who may or may not understand those truths. So if I become a part of ``systemetic science``, then I shall not be able to say that I believe in only those things which I can understand. Then I shall say, I believe in those things which have been published in peer reviewd journals...!!!

My area of proficiency is Philosophy. Unfortunately, a philosopher cannot become as much systemetic as a scientist can be. Since science is ``systemetic`` so a scientist really is not in need to try to understand other areas of study. In a ``systemetic`` environment, he would just accept what the ``experts`` of other areas shall tell him.

And since a philosopher cannot be systemetic in this sense, as he has to rely on his own understanding on every issue, so he may not accept points of views of experts of other area, in case those points of views remain un-understandable to that philosopher. A philosopher may have many many wrong understandings as a result. But after all, he can say: ``I believe in only those things which I can understand.``

Thanks for your valuable advices however.

Regards!

Re: # 84

Khurram,,

Thanks for your comments. If you had read that article then you should not have missed the core point that logical relationship of top number is with just how i.e. at which angle and with how much force that dice was thrown. Top number has no logical relation with the number of times the dice was thrown. Secondly you have not proved any invalidity in my understanding. According to your logic, since my understanding is invalid, so my views on probability are also invalid.

I know my individual articles may not make any sense. They are based on my own thinking. Until and unless I do not convert all my thinking into a single readable place, it may not make any sense to second person. The only way to make 100% sense of my articles is that read them and then interact with me. I have split up my ideas in different small articles. Only and only I know which idea of one article is linked to which and which idea of which other article and in which sense. You shall realize these PRACTICAL difficulties when you yourself undertake to convert all of your mind on some readable material.

Secondly I had told you that I have not analyzed this particular issue in details ... as it was not so important for me. In my previous interact, I had specifically mentioned that those scientific reasearches that use this particular type of probability are like calculated astrologies. It was a real logical fallacy on my part that on the basis of a particular type of probability, I used such words that give the sense as if I am declaring all the probability theory as wrong. I was fully aware of this point on my part even before your comments and to make correction in that point was in my list of tasks. It is really not an easy task to keep all those articles in perfect logical order. I know there can be many logical flaws in many of my articles. All my articles are having similar patterns because those are original works of a single person. I am not any dogmatic person, for whom his ideas may be the final words. I am a flexible person and can change my views also. When I change my views, then I need to update my articles as well. This process takes time. My old views were present in my article. I already had realized some flaw in them, thats why I used following words in my previous interact.

Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.

Anyway, I still insist that at least the example I analyzed, was really a faulty type of probability and that type of probability is also part of established science.

And I do not accept your this point that I declared it invalid just because I did not get exact 17 readings. I was sure about it even before performing that experiment. I call it invalid because top value has really no logical relationship with number of times the die is thrown. It has logical relation only with just how the dice is thrown. If dice is thrown in exact uniform pattern for each throw, only one number shall be on top for everytime.

And thanks for the other advice. I always remain in search of proper guidance and I do not refuse to guidance. Your guidance is also welcome!

Regards!

Dear Khuram,

I have seen your website. You are an intelligent person trying to be a master of everything.

Mathematics and the Sciences are definitely NOT your forte. Please refrain from commenting on these. You only end up making a pathetic ridiculous show. Probability is related to stochastic variables & processes. n-dimensional spaces can be visualised in virtually all coordinate systems.

Science means ``systematic knowledge``. Please make a systematic study of these subjects. Acquire some proficiency. Then comment. Otherwise stick to your areas of proficiency.
On this thread, there is no space for half baked arguments.

Re: # 84
10-4 Khurram buddy.
You said what I have been trying to say for many years now.

Khuram,

I looked at some articles on your website, including the section on probability as you suggested. There seems to be a common pattern to your writings. You display a faulty understanding of a concept and then declare the concept invalid. For example, you declare the theory of probability invalid because you actually threw a dice 102 times and didn`t get exactly 17 occurences of `3` . Well, it is your understanding that is invalid and not the theory of probability. Same applies to several other articles of yours.

It is apparent from the length of your articles that you have a lot of passion and energy for learning. It is my sincere advice that you seek guidance from qualified scholars on matters that interest you.

I am impressed, you people speak about String Theory as if you wrote it.
But please remember coming to USA on F1 VISas and then going to some American College in Ann Arbor will not make you Einstein(a Jew that you hate anyways).

Nobody has published any paper on Sting Theory that has any mathematical basis.

Best explanation of this theory came from NOVA(PBS).

but isn`t it UnIslamic to beleive in String Theory....

Khurram,,

Your following point was left to be discussed in my previous reply:

Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions?

Here I want to discuss something about the so called theory of ``probability``... This is one of the main theories of accepted or established sciences whose only purpose is not more than to just make predictions.

Please read my this article: ``Objective and Subjective Tendencies``

Read only the ``probability`` portion of this article. I have taken some `probability` questions out of Math book and have ``practically`` (i.e. empirically) tested them.

Obviously, as I already knew before performing those experiments, all the ``empirical`` results were different from ``actual calculated`` answers.

After presenting the ``empirical failure`` of ``Probability Theory`` ... then I have shown that ``Probability Theory`` is actually logically invalid. That`s why any empirical test just cannot tally with the calculated answer.

This is true that probability theory is not the product of modern science ... But probability analysis is still the part of existing ``scientific`` research work.

Whichever scientific theory employs ``probability`` analysis, at least of that type which is analyzed in this article ... is not more than just a ``calculated`` Astrology.

The same article also discusses some other forms of scientific predictions ... that may not actually happen as predicted. Secondly it`s not very detailed analysis, as the issue was not very important.

@ nasah

Zarra Nawwazi hai janab.... aap ki..

Thanks & Regards

`` I am no scientist `` (khuram)

nhoooo -- you must be kiddin!

Re: # 79

Dear Khurram,

As I am no scientist ... so making of predictions, for me, is just a trivial part of knowledge. Perhaps Astrologists and Palmists can better perform the task of making predictions. General Relativity Theory had rightly pointed out certain real phenomenon based on logical similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation. Some points were experimentally confirmed later on. But some findings were not properly interpreted. Concept of Black Hole etc. can be very easily concluded out of General Relativity. If an ordinary field of Gravitation can bent the ray of light ... then it is not difficult to conclude that very anormously strong field of Graviation could ``absorb`` light as well. To determine the ``properties`` of such an anormously strong field of gravitation was also not difficult. Obviously only a very dense object could have so much strong field of Gravitation. Ok I also make a new prediction ... An extra high accelerated system also can absorb light. So when science shall be able to make such extra high accelerated systems, then could confirm this prediction as well.

But see that these predictions are coming out of what could be logically followed out of a logically accurate point. To find the similarity between accelerated system and field of gravitation was a logically accurate ``observation`` or ``conclusion``. Then all the following predictions also have logical relation with the original logical findings. Now see that science is taking full benefits of the application of logic. But the same science is formally un-aware about the importance of logic. It still disregards rational inquiry and theory of logic. It talks about some vogue and unclear concept of ``empirical knowledge``, which is practically not the true party of actual scientific progress. Knowledge doesn`t mean to just make right predictions. Knowledge is self-cognition. What we are,,, what our processes are,,, what our systems are etc. etc. Just like false premises can result in true conclusions, so wrong theories also can result in right predictions. Examples may be many right predictions of Astrologists and Palmists.

Regards!

Dear khuram,

You can argue all you want about the properties of space, matter & time. But, can you make better predictions than General Relativity?

If you can`t, then what is the significance of your disagreements?

You claim that science is full of illogical theories. Can you point to a theory that makes false predictions? Do you have an alternative that makes better predictions?