Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 plasmid

plasmid

    Senior Lolcat

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 December 2010 - 06:14 PM

I thought it turned out rather fun the last time I tried to play Devil's advocate (or rather God's advocate) and challenge my own views about whether religion is even theoretically potentially useful. This probably won't end up being nearly so epic, but in a similar spirit let's try turning the tables again.

I've seen an awful lot of rubbish on the boards about multiple parallel universes (or "multiverses"), string theory, and other such drivel since I've been on here. I suppose some people are bound to buy that sort of bunk, just like there are bound to be people who believe in ghosts and fairies and any hope for the Steelers to win it all this year. But the mere fact that people go around holding such delusions isn't the disturbing part. What's really bothersome is that some people think this almost classifies as science. Absurdity! Multiverses are inherently unprovable. Could I go outside right now and run an experiment that could either definitively prove or disprove the existence of even a single parallel universe? Could you even theoretically come up with an experiment that could ever prove or disprove the existence of multiverses? No, I say!

So, since the multiverse "hypothesis" is an inherently unobservable and unprovable speculation that as far as I know or care to look up does not even need to be invoked to explain any natural phenomena, then off to Occam's guillotine with it! Henceforth, anyone who posts anything about these mythical multiverses must acknowledge the fact that there is no scientific value in what they're saying, and must use quotes around it to help emphasize the fact that it shouldn't be taken seriously, and must use air quotes whenever talking about it in real life, and must give equal time to every other postulate like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for other untestable hypotheses like string theory and the existence of consciousness. If you can think of any experiment to objectively verify consciousness aside from some hokey "personal revelation" that you are yourself conscious then fire away.

Scientists, defend thyself against thyself!
RAmen
  • 0

#2 UNfire

UNfire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts

Posted 26 December 2010 - 06:56 PM

but the flying spaghetti monster is awsome :D:D

but serieusly man, if heared about these multiverses, and contrary to what people think, they are not the EXACT opposite of what we are.
they are universes where other choices where made or other rules (of physics?) apply.
it could be so simple as that JFK wasn't murdered, or as complicated as that the earth is exactly the same as ours in everything, except that its 200m smaller, that would have huge complications.

its complicated and indeed impossible to just prove. just like god.

god sucks, so does the devil
  • 0

#3 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 December 2010 - 01:23 AM

It is unprovabkle (off to philosophy), but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Just means it isn't testable. Yet.

Either way, it's a hell of a lot of fun to think about, no?
  • 0

#4 plasmid

plasmid

    Senior Lolcat

  • VIP
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1462 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 December 2010 - 07:35 AM

Well, I thought that this was a thought provoking assertion because it challenges the whole argument that science must be silent on religion because it can neither be scientifically proven or disproven. The example of consciousness I thought was a particularly good one. Consciousness at least seems to be so ill defined in any scientific way that I can't see how you could even propose an experiment that would objectively verify or quantitate or do any other sceintific-y stuff with it. But I still think it would be ridiculous to say that it's therefore an untestable hypothesis and that science must be silent about it.

For that matter, even for "testable" hypotheses, just how testable are they in practice, and how much evidence do you need to pile up to call something "proven"? Take everyone's favorite example of evolution, specifically the part about mankind's descent from a common ancestor with great apes. Apparently it's possible to accumulate a ton of archaeological and biochemical evidence supporting the idea, but it would be impossible to go back in time and directly observe the lineage unfold, so is it an unprovable hypothesis? Perhaps a better example would be one where there is still debate among actual scientists, but the ones that I can think of offhand are relatively obscure biochemical questions, and I'm not sure if the molecular mechanism by which cell surface receptors transmit signals across a cell membrane would be a very riveting example for a forum with mostly non-biologists. Suffice it to say that science can accumulate evidence to support or refute a hypothesis, but there is a very blurry line about when anything is ever proven. We just learn to live with that uncertainty.

When it comes to religion, why can't this also be treated like a hypothesis that you can accumulate evidence either for or against? I can think of a few possible answers to that question, but it seemed worth bringing this up as a challenge to the current status quo of calling religion unprovable and therefore out of the realm of science.
  • 0

#5 Namxas

Namxas

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 31 January 2011 - 01:30 PM

In the words of Einstein "no amount of testing can prove me correct, however one single test can prove me wrong"

Science is a never ending study of how things work and as newer tools become available to us we will be able to learn more about the universe around us. One day we may even find some way to test the "Multiverse" idea.
  • 0

#6 MissKitten

MissKitten

    Merthur <3

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2185 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At my computer, or maybe writing fanfiction, and losing my sanity and innocence

Posted 01 February 2011 - 04:35 PM

*whispers* dude, dont let izzy hear you busting on the flying spaghetti monster. *looks around suspiciously*
  • 0

Chocolate is proof that God wanted us to be happy.

So you want a fight with intent to kill? Then come fight me! It's here in my bow, that intent to kill you love so much! ~ Uryu Ishida

... ~ Nova-kun

Society needs to learn how to adapt, or humanity is screwed. ~ MiKi, aka MissKitten, aka myself


#7 Segul

Segul

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 07:51 AM

I challenge people, think of one thing that is proven beyond doubtB))
  • 0

#8 gvg

gvg

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:13 PM

Uh.... Plants use photosynthesis? Isn't that proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Edited by gvg, 08 February 2011 - 12:14 PM.

  • 0

#9 archlordbr

archlordbr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 242 posts

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:33 PM

Uh.... Plants use photosynthesis? Isn't that proven beyond a reasonable doubt?


Well, we know that plants don't survive without sunlight. We know that sunlight can act as catalyst for a chemical reaction that produces sugar, which plants need to survive (or something like that), and we know that this reaction does happen within the plants, and every detail about the process. However, one may argue that a superior being wants us to believe in photosynthesis, so he puts all that evidence before our eyes. Or maybe something less fancy. You can say that's ridiculous, but you can't prove that it isn't true, so you live with it.
  • 0

#10 hussein

hussein

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 16 March 2011 - 01:06 AM

I thought it turned out rather fun the last time I tried to play Devil's advocate (or rather God's advocate) and challenge my own views about whether religion is even theoretically potentially useful. This probably won't end up being nearly so epic, but in a similar spirit let's try turning the tables again.

I've seen an awful lot of rubbish on the boards about multiple parallel universes (or "multiverses"), string theory, and other such drivel since I've been on here. I suppose some people are bound to buy that sort of bunk, just like there are bound to be people who believe in ghosts and fairies and any hope for the Steelers to win it all this year. But the mere fact that people go around holding such delusions isn't the disturbing part. What's really bothersome is that some people think this almost classifies as science. Absurdity! Multiverses are inherently unprovable. Could I go outside right now and run an experiment that could either definitively prove or disprove the existence of even a single parallel universe? Could you even theoretically come up with an experiment that could ever prove or disprove the existence of multiverses? No, I say!

So, since the multiverse "hypothesis" is an inherently unobservable and unprovable speculation that as far as I know or care to look up does not even need to be invoked to explain any natural phenomena, then off to Occam's guillotine with it! Henceforth, anyone who posts anything about these mythical multiverses must acknowledge the fact that there is no scientific value in what they're saying, and must use quotes around it to help emphasize the fact that it shouldn't be taken seriously, and must use air quotes whenever talking about it in real life, and must give equal time to every other postulate like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for other untestable hypotheses like string theory and the existence of consciousness. If you can think of any experiment to objectively verify consciousness aside from some hokey "personal revelation" that you are yourself conscious then fire away.

Scientists, defend thyself against thyself!
RAmen


hello there,

there are numerous theories that are less 'absurd' than string theory but cannot possibly be tested in real life.. take, for example, the simple flipping of a fair coin. we all know that the probability of getting a head or a tails in any flip is 0.5 (50%). but what that really means is that if u flipped the coin a large enough number of times, the ratio of heads to tails would be 1:1, and large enough number of times means VERY large, or approaching infinity tosses, which is impossible to carry out. plus a fair coin is impossible to make in the first place, so the whole idea is based on some assumptions. we assume that if we flip a coin infinitely many times, we would get equal numbers of head and tails, and this very basic theory in probability allowed statisticians to jump into more serious and impacting theories that are very useful in economics, and, believe it or not, was the main reason behind the success of the japanese economy in the 20th century. they didnt have to get someone to flip a coin a gazillion times to prove it right.

string theory is just a theory, but the main problem with it is not that scientists can test it, but that its useless (for now), even if it was proven right, there is no way that it can be used to help us in anything (at least in the foreseeable future). but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt be studied. who knows what it might bring forth, maybe a better understanding of gravity? new ways of travelling at speeds that would dwarf the speed of light? time travel to the past? future? no guarantees. but its worth the shot.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users