Is “Strings” a Dud Theory?

Re: # 61 by Inquirer:

Thanks for the attempt .... but as you say things are not clear (at least to me). The way things are usually done is as follows:

If w is a state of nature and an event E is supposed to have occured then it is usually assumed that w belongs to E. Or we are able to say, for any event X either w is true in X or false. We may allow more than a binary mapping and allow for `may or may not be true` in X. But that is how far I can see things nothing more .... unless you let the set of all states of nature undefined. If so I would like to know how things are done.

By the way we are aware of two dimensional objects also: ``your shadow``.

Regards.

Re: # 59, freethinker and GT:

I am no string Theorist but will attempt to present what I know.

The funfamental idea of the thoeory is that all fundamental particles and their interaction particles ( in quantum- chromo, electro dynamics interactions are represented by particles, e.g., interactions between electromagnetic fields are accomplished by photons) are represented by interactions between linear strings of the size of 1E-53 cm. The strings have certain allowed modes of vibrations that give rise to particles like electrons etc. Simple electrostatics involves charged particle interaction but string theory involves multibody interactions which require much more complicated mathematics.
Numerous String Theories are possible based on the chosen laws for interactions of the strings. So far there is no unique or verifiable set of rules. There is no way one set of rules can be shown to be representative of the truth in Nature. Furthermore, there is no reason to prefer any set over any other.

By the way, freethinker, three space dimensions are the only ones which can be visualized by humans. In Einstein`s original special theory a very complicated mathematics was used to derive all the results that have become so popular these days. But Minkowski, Einstein`s thesis examinner, developed the four dimensional formulation and it has just caught on. The fourth dimension involves time but is converted to the displacemnt`s fourth component via weighting with the velocity of light. The higher dimensions are just a mathematical technique to represent a vector with more than four components.

I am fully aware that I have not provided the mathematical details but the they correspond to the physical situation that I have described very approximately (This is for Khuram!!).

Re: # 59

Yes, it would be nice if inquirer can help .... am actually looking forward.

GT: #58

Thanks for bringing us back to string theory.

Unfortunately, I am unable to answer your question. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician. Even many physicists find the string theory difficult to comprehend. I have difficulty visualizing the 4 dimensional space of relativity what to say of 10 or 11 dimensional space that the string theory requires. If you`re a physicist, you might know better than I do.

Let us ask Inquirer to help us out here; he has an M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D in Nuclear Engineering. But thanks for your interest nonetheless. You may read ``The Elegant Universe;`` the author has given some outlines of the kind of mathematics involved in the string theory.

Mohammad Gill

Gill:

People keep on saying that the math. of string theory is `different`. What is it that is different? For example in quantum mechanics one could work with non additive `probability` measures. But that is hardly `different`. So am quite curious about this string theory stuff.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Re: # 50, khuram:
``Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages. ``

****My, generally our, interest is only in the approach of the scientis, so the matter is closed.****

By the way khatti dakaar can be fixed by Eno`s fruit salt!!!!!

khuram:

We don`t seem to reach any agreement so I stop any further discussion.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 54

Gill Sahib,

Theory of Logic is not the part of syllabus of science, at any level. So there is nothing wrong for a scientist if he commits some minor logical mistake.

Yes I said: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``

But your point was not that.

Your point was that: ``Conclusion must be false if premises are false``.

Your words: ``Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement. ``

Yes above is my statement. But neither it is wrong, nor it contradicts with my own above statement.

In my previous reply, I mentioned the only one condition for the validity of argument.

That condition starts with True Premises.

My first statement is talking about True Premises.

My second statement is talking about False Premises.

So these two statements of mine are NOT contradictory with one another.

Your point of view starts with False Premises. So your point of view does not come up to that only one condition which starts with True Premises.

Secondly there is also need to explain that argument.

Your words:

``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``

Actually I had mentioned the example of such valid argument whose premises are false but conclusion is true.

This argument should be read in following way:

All Africans are black-skinned (wrong -- because we know some white skinned ppl also live in Africa)
MJ is an African (correct ... and really a black-skinned as well)
MJ is black-skinned (correct -- see that even though first premise was wrong... but conclusion of this argument is right.)


Now I take your second example:

All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)

MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.

My comments:

Yes if premises are wrong, then conclusion can be wrong.
But it is wrong to say that if premises are wrong then conclusion must be wrong.

See another example where premises are wrong and conclusion also wrong:

All bats are birds.(wrong)
Birds are all marine creatures.(wrong)
Therefore, bats are marine creatures.(wrong)

But it is not right to make it a general rule that conclusion must be wrong if premises are wrong ... for those reason which I have explained above.

And Gill Sahib,,, You have good fighting spirit!

Best wishes... Regards!

Khuram

khuram:

Let me try to explain with the help of the example that you quoted earlier on.

``All Africans are black-skinned (correct)
MJ is an African
MJ is black-skinned (correct)``

Let me change your premise with a false statement. Let me write down as follows:

All Africans are white (wrong)
MJ is an African
MJ is white (wrong)

MJ is not white but this conclusion is deduced correctly from the above set of statements. The conclusion is wrong because the premise is wrong.

Mohammad Gill

khuram:

You wrote: ``in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusions cannot be false.``

This is correct; this is what I was saying all along.

Your statement that ``so conclusions can be true and premises can be false,`` is wrong because it contradicts your own first statement.

If you carefully ponder the example of Aristotle that I quoted in my earlier post, you should be able to comprehend the inherent fallacy in your above statements. Aristotle`s premises were wron hence his conclusions could not be correct even though his logic was correct.

Take care,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 51

hahaha!!!... Gill Sahib, you rightly guessed ... I need some digestion. Actually I am feeling headach because of Bud-Hazmi ... as these days my stomach not in proper order. I shall be right after few Khatte dakars.

Off the topic: There is only and only one condition for the validity of any deductive argument. This condition is that in a valid argument, if premises are TRUE then conclusion cannot be false.

So conclusion can be true and premises can be false ... in a valid argument.

But if premises are true but conclusion is false ... then it cannot be a valid argument.

Have good time & regards!

Khuram

khuram: #47

One last attempt at explaining my point of view:

In your example, you wrote the premise statement:

All Africans are black-skinned

This statement depends for its veracity on sense-perception (sense of sight) and it is true. Hence the conclusion that MJ is black-skinned is correct.

Suppose somebody who has never seen an African (by the way, there are light-skinned Africans also) made a premise statement like this: All Africans are brown-skinned, his conclusion would be that MJ is brown-skinned. His deductive logic is correct but conclusion is factually incorrect because it is deduced from an incorrect premise. (By the way, there is no difference between sense-experience and sense-perception)

If a premise is incorrect, the conclusion can never be correct.

It seems you have read too much (which is very admirable); you need time to digest it now. I am saying this without any derogatory implication; please don`t take it wrong.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Re: # 49

Accepted definition of Pure Rationalism is such a Philosophical view that accepts the possibility that mind can reach to first principle (i.e. axiom) without help or involvement of sensory information. This form of Pure Rationalism downgrades sensory information, by assigning superiority to only Pure Rational Knowledge. All the detailed philosophy of reality is supposed to be rationally deducible out of that first principle. In this way pure rationality can find everything about reality even in complete absence of sensory information. This philosophical view has created a misconception as if there is some clash between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge.

In the times of Galileo, Johannes Cappler and Newton etc. when Old Greek ``rational`` (i.e. pure rational ... as supposed) theories were found to be wrong as per experimental tests, then sensory or empirical data/ information got superiority over the so-called pure rational knowledge. Then scientists started degrading all the forms of rational knowledge because no one bothered to see that actually rational knowledge was not any entity which could exist independently of empirical knowledge. General idea was that empirical knowledge and rational knowledge were having separate and independent sources of origin and that now onwards, only empirical knowledge became standard of truth. Newton’s laws of Motion declared to be Empirical Laws whereas fact is that let’s say First Law of Motion is a complete Logical Law. My question is that what is the empirical proof that an object shall always remain in the state of rest until and unless it is impressed upon by a net positive force? What could be the “empirical proof” for such a law? Obviously such a law can only be empirically tested in the time-scale of infinite period because the thing to be empirically confirmed here is that the object shall ALWAYS remain in the state of rest. So the complete empirical test can be performed only over an infinite period of time. Not only that this law cannot be empirically tested, it is also not the product of any empirical test but is the product of Logic. In order to develop this law, Newton himself had not conducted any experiment. This law happened to be the Logical Conclusion of those experiments which Galileo had performed on inclined plane. Galileo had found that a ball, in a double inclined plane, when moves downwards on downside plane, it accelerates. And the same ball when moves upside, on the other upside plane, the ball decelerates. Galileo reached to its logical conclusion that if ball is neither moving downside, nor upside; then it would neither accelerate nor decelerate. The logical conclusion, to which Newton reached was that if a ball is neither accelerating nor decelerating, then the ball shall be in the state of rest or uniform speed. And since Newton knew the concept of Force of Gravitation, so he drew another logical conclusion that downside acceleration and upside deceleration of ball was due to net downside force and net upside force respectively. The next logical conclusion was that in the absence of any “force”, the ball shall neither accelerate nor decelerate. And the other logical conclusion was that a ball, if neither accelerating, nor decelerating, it means that either it is at rest or it is moving with uniform speed. And the final logical conclusion was a simple generalization that any object, as long as it is not impressed by any net positive force, it shall either remain in the state of rest, or shall remain in continuous straight and uniform speed motion.

So despite this complete logical construction, this law is still considered to be an “Empirical Law”, and therefore, a part of “Empirical Knowledge”. Any “Rational Knowledge” is still disregarded, as scientists believe in the erroneous idea of some clash between empirical and rational knowledge. Although the scientists do sometime talk of ‘rationality’ as well and it is also true that their concept of ‘rationality’ is not akin to the philosophy of Pure Rationalism, but still their concept of rationality cannot be regarded as true rationality. It seems that scientists are not clear on the issue of type and nature of ‘rationality’ that should be the part of their procedures. In above reply, I had mentioned the True Rational Procedure in following way:

Sensory Information >>> Logical Conclusions >>> Empirical Verification

After realizing some missing, here I am going to restate the < b>True Rational Procedure in following way:

Sensory Information>>Logical Conclusions>>Empirical Verification>>Logical Interpretation of Empirical Test

Currently, scientists are disregarding “Rational Knowledge” and “Theory of Logic” as well. The true rational procedure, as identified above involves application of the theory of logic at two important stages.

Just the “Empirical Verification” cannot become a solid proof until and unless such “Empirical Verification” has been logically interpreted and explained. Those who are not scientists may not believe in the just simple truths of scientists. I believe that many illogical and inaccurate theories are still the part of established science.

Regards!

Re: # 46, khuram:
I am afraid we are talking across disciplines. You are making distinctions between ``pure`` and ``true`` rationalists. This terminology needs to be defined as we have to assure our definitions of the words are shared otherwise we can not hope to reach any agreement and understanding. Victor Hugo has made the famous statement that if we want to discuss any thing seriously we have to agree on common definitions of words we use.

freethinker and I are using the terms in their usually accepted senses but you may be a logician and are using words with special definitions. For freethinker and me theoretician is a person who develops mental constructs based on empirical information. Peer-reviewed expeimental information in science is considered to be truth that has to be explained by mental constructs. It is hoped that the constructs will be defensible per logic requirements and they generally are. But per se, the scientists do not skin the words or fret over the arrangements of the words. Truth for them is much more substantial and simpler.

Re: # 47

Sorry for two mistakes in above.

First typing mistake ... plz read ``Mr. Gill`` ... Mill...typing mistake

Secondly I explained that point to Inquirer in my reply #45 .... It should be seen below this reply because replies are nested and not ordered.

Thanks!

Re: # 41

I did not believe that scientists are Pure Rationalists. What I believe is that they are NOT True Rationalists. I have explained this point in my above reply to Inquirer.

Your Following Words:

``If the premises are wrong, the conclusions obtained by deductive logic will necessarily be wrong. I had published an article “Reverse Logic in the Philosophy of God” in Free Inquiry, Fall 2002, Vol.22, No.4, in which I had discussed this point. Read it if you have time.``

Sorry to say Mill Gill,,, your point is wrong. We cannot blame ``Free Inquiry`` journal for why they published a logically wrong point ... because Publishers cannot be supposed to be the expert of logic theory. See the following example of a valid deductive argument ... with false premises but true conclusion:

All Africans are black skinned
Michael Jordan is an African
So, he is black skinned

Thanks and Regards!