Your video, String Theory Explained - What is The True Nature of Reality, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 248 Badge!

I dunno about that. There's lots of scientific evidence for quantum mechanics. It was disagreement between experimental results and theory which lead to the development of quantum mechanics in the first place. There have definitely been repeatable experiments demonstrating quantum entanglement, for instance.

String Theory, now, that's where you've got your unprovable assumptions. Whereas quantum mechanics at least has a big "we don't know why this is" hole in the middle, the string theory guys would just posit the existence of a bunch more dimensions to make the equations work.

Not that I actually understand the mathematics of any of it, mind you.

Exactly. My provisional assent for string theory just went out the window...

Wrong in so many ways.
1. You can't add positive integers and get a negative number.
2. As you add another digit to the sum the result is always higher.

If this help string theory, then this is one more reason to believe string theory is bullshit.

Oh, I wouldn't worry. Nobody understands string theories; not even the physicists who came up with them (especially not them).

Having the same problems as many here, how is still unexplained. I've heard this "explanation" given in multiple occasions. None seem to think that we would like to know how it computes, not what quantum is...

How can you trust a computation that you have no way of monitoring? A computation that magically gives the right answer? "It just happens, trust us" seems to be the way. Until someone comes up and explains it, it's hocum.

A lot of us in these internet days have a good grasp of what the leading science is about. Not detailed information but the basic concepts are well understood. Quantum is old news, string theories, multiple dimensions.. We are not children in science anymore so don't treat us such.

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

I want to talk about something that to my regard is pure lunacy. But, to me, though I appreciate the doubters, the ones who question everything; would change their attitudes completely. None of the atheists should go on ranting until they take the ultimate bungie jump a human can have: DMT. One thing I would note is that I do not know if it was put there by aliens, evil spirits, sacred spirits, the Earth itself, God. No, I do not know and no one knows. I do not know if there is a price to be paid by having witnessed the underpinnings of technology, soul, afterlife, the universe, consciousness, the brain or whatever the hell it is. I have no idea, I just know that this experience is as real as fuck. Mind blowing. Scary. Terrible and healing all at the same time.

I was agnostic going into this, did not believe in soul, appreciate string theory, quantum mechanics but do not believe in it at some factual level, did not believe in any sort of God, or the afterlife. In mere seconds all my notions of what I thought or did not think or could never had merely thought up, all my permeating existential beliefs were thrown off like a nuclear bomb had gone off; revealing some partial truth of what we really are, witnessing an alien computer program, based on simple equations that manifests consciousness itself. Not a new conclusion and one I thought only drug addled scifi writer or schizos would ever believe.

It were as though I had found some way to put my head into the Large Hadron Collider itself whilst every proton turned into Higgs Boson; I then found out that this is not uncommon for such an experience. I know that can sound incredibly narcissistic, incredulous, unbearable, impossible. But what I got out of it was humble and that is another story.

There are experiences out there in which a person can feel as though they had been thrown into another dimension, experienced the Big Bang and met Gods of the Ultimate Power, they may or may not be and died on levels not many ever knew possible. In mere seconds the regular doors of perception are shut and a new life is born. That is where it gets tricky.

Until any of these guys can figure out why the human mind can explode on an infinite universe level of pure digital consciousness, think it can perceive these things and witness them on all levels and in new ways and come back to a normal human life in a normal brain without having in fact died? Well, I think they ought to stop talking and do more research. We have no facts and an experience like that will make it very apparent that the walls of reality can be so easily shattered to see new alien worlds, languages, dimensions, spirits, births and rebirths beyond all human comprehension. It sounds like the ultimate atheist experience, right? Not at all, it leaves room for something of the highest power that is manifested through pretty much any religion. We have to remember... you have to go to school, you have to get a job, we get wrapped up in our world. We have to act like we know what we are talking about and I am saying there is no evidence out there to support the fact that anyone can say that there is absolutely no God. There is absolutely no afterlife. Anyone that feels that they know anything about the nature of reality and who they are or what any of it means and apply lectures to it in the event that they become so arrogant and stubborn that they say what they think is absolutely correct when it is not accounted for by science, should do this. Do it after a lot of research. I say science but it is a paradox, I believe in Science first and foremost, it is our hope for tangible evolution, repeatable fact, but I am fairly sure this is something Science will never figure out. And after reading a similar experience: http://ewwty.com/2012/02/24/dimethyltryptamine-dmt-experience it seems in this experience there are some reoccurring themes. Science has so far written this off in the easiest way it can: to call it a psychedelic or a hallucinogen. So, find out. We know absolutely nothing in a very non existential way.

"String Theory Losing Ground Because Main Proponent Is Patronizing Douche"

Lies begin when a non-omnipotent consciousness forms and that consciousness seeks, let's say, truth, yet finds only half truths that require mental gymnastics in order to believe. Sand exists. How? I don't know. God? It's only natural to invent things concept to fill in the gaps.

A civilization of people formed out of collective half truths has unfulfillable expectations in this world which creates the security breach which breeds more lies. Thus it becomes state authority creating lies to appease those that their ancestors lied to since the beginning of our time. Brother kills brother. How did your brother die? A member of the opposing tribe did it! Opposing tribe dies. Known "truth" then becomes fact and history remembers that a violent tribe of brother-killers was sacked.

Truth will ALWAYS be an illusion to mortal beings of limited perspective. Always. Even if you perceptively died and met God in Heaven, it still remains suspect that your experience could be a lie guided by carefully controlled stimuli. If there's a modicum of truth that we have observed with science, it's only truth within the system of our understanding of the universe, therefore not Truth.

Yes, science allows us to observe and our observations have allowed us to record "laws" of the universe, but even someone like Richard Feynman admits to making shit up and then, Presto! it makes the equation make sense. Lies. No matter how small, they can fill in the gaps just enough to create perceived truth. But that's mechanical truth. A mechanism just needs to work or not work. It doesn't matter if you did everything right using precise truth.

So you may think: If life is an illusion, then what about all of the scientific experiments which have allowed us to create civilization as we know it? Well, every game, or sandbox, follows rules, so experiments within that world can be valid in that world according to the laws that govern it, but it doesn't mean those laws are the Truth.

If the world we are in was akin to something like Minecraft, observation would indicate that the world is functional and that there are observations which can be repeated over and over again with the same or similar results, leading to the creation of technology. But what about the concept of a .JAR or .DLL? Checksum? How about a network? If we only know the observed laws of the current server we have access to observe, how do we record the Truth? Black box observation and nothing more. My kingdom for a scientist that can perform unit testing. A string theory unit tester might be a good start.

Anyway, just rambling for communal sanity, as always. Not all of us have picked a side, let alone a position of understanding in the universe to cling to like a crucifix or a meme.

That (1:05) certainly wasn't the first problem I saw in calculus! In fact, I don't actually remember it from either maths or physics.

Interesting talk. Eugene Wigner made a somewhat similar observation in 1959/1960 (obviously not about string theory though, just about the relationship between mathematics and the real world).

Man know a lot but then we know so little. There is so much to explore and learn. Hubble looked at a black empty in space and found billions of galaxies.

Who is man to be to be the ultimate answer to all things Every decade or so an great discovery comes along and rewrites conventional science thinking.

It takes more faith to believe in creationism that to believe that there is a GOD.

You can not look around at life and simply stake a claim towards to evolution as the ultimate answer.

How does Particle and String theory? Or for that matter what about a Quantum Mechanics ? Really What would the evolutionist have to say about QM? These theories point more to a higher power.

Without looking I'll assume this can apply directly to String Theory and the number of "structural dimensions" needed in order for it to work. I'll look quickly and see. However if I'm wrong, the reason I made this quick assumption is knowing about their "dimensional conundrum": how many are there? I'll go check, their may be a strange link even if not thought of already as they deal, in some ways, with a bit of the same problem, indirectly. BRB.
------

edit-
Only a limited number of connections, so more or less, NO. They are not as of right now connected. But, if they both end up on the same number of dimensions--the number is the same--that WOULD indeed be interesting. Something to put on the back burner me thinks, to remember for a far off or not so far off future...

I'll direct you to his own words. Here is Kraus talking about redefining what the word nothing means:

"And I guess most importantly that the question why is there something rather than nothing is really a scientific question, not a religious or philosophical question, because both nothing and something are scientific concepts, and our discoveries over the past 30 years have completely changed what we mean by nothing.

In particular, nothing is unstable. Nothing can create something all the time due to the laws of quantum mechanics, and it's - it's fascinatingly interesting. And what I wanted to do was use the hook of this question, which I think as I say has provoked religious people, as well as scientists, to encourage people to try and understand the amazing universe that we actually live in."

Here is Krauss describing how empty space could create the Universe:

Empty space is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence in a time scale so short that you can't even measure them. Now, that sounds of course like counting angels on the head of a pin; if you can't measure them, then it doesn't sound like it's science, but in fact you can't measure them directly.

But we can measure their effects indirectly. These particles that are popping in and out of existence actually affect the properties of atoms and nuclei and actually are responsible for most of the mass inside your body. And in fact, really one of the things that motivated this book was the most profound discovery in recent times, and you even alluded to it in the last segment, the discovery that most of the energy of the universe actually resides in empty space.

You take space, get rid of all the particles, all the radiation, and it actually carries energy, and that notion that in fact empty space - once you allow gravity into the game, what seems impossible is possible. It sounds like it would violate the conservation of energy for you to start with nothing and end up with lots of stuff, but the great thing about gravity is it's a little trickier.

Gravity allows positive energy and negative energy, and out of nothing you can create positive energy particles, and as long as a gravitational attraction produces enough negative energy, the sum of their energy can be zero. And in fact when we look out at the universe and try and measure its total energy, we come up with zero.

I like to think of it as the difference between, say, a savvy stockbroker and an embezzler. The savvy stockbroker will buy stocks on margin with more money than they have, and as long as they get that money back in there before anyone notices, and in fact if the stocks go up, they end with money where they didn't have any before, whereas the embezzler, of course, is discovered.

Well, the universe is a savvy stockbroker. It can borrow energy, and if there's no gravity, it gets rid of it back before anyone notices. But if gravity is there, it can actually create stuff where there was none before. And you can actually create enough stuff to account for everything we see in the universe.

But, you know, it's more than that because some people would say, and I've had this discussion with theologians and others, well, you know, just empty space isn't nothing. You know, there's space. How did the space get there? But the amazing thing is, once you apply in fact quantum mechanics to gravity, as you were beginning to allude again in the last segment, then it's possible, in fact it's implied, that space itself can be created where there was nothing before, that literally whole universes can pop out of nothing by the laws of quantum mechanics.

And in fact the question why is there something rather than nothing then becomes sort of trite because nothing is unstable. It will always produce something. The more interesting or surprising question might be why is there nothing. But of course if we ask that question, well, we wouldn't be here if that was true.

-----------------------------------------

What he said in this video is completely misleading; I'll show you his slight of hand. When he says you can take away everything, even the laws and still get a Universe, he has redefined "absolutely nothing" as a complete absence of this Universe, but not as we will see, a complete absence of anything. To explain the laws of quantum mechanics popping into existence, he postulates an external entity: the multiverse:

Well, you know, that's something I deal with at the end of the book because, you know, it's not a concept that I'm pretty fond of, but it - we seemed to be driven there by our theories, and it does suggest the last bit, because some people, indeed when I debate this question of nothing, they say, well, look, you can get rid of space. You can get rid of stuff in space, the first kind of nothing. You can even get rid of space, but you still have the laws. Who created the laws?

Well, it turns out that we've been driven both from ideas from cosmology - from a theory called inflation or even string theory - that suggests there may be extra dimensions - to the possibility that our universe isn't unique, and more over, that the laws of physics in our universe may just be accidental. They may have arisen spontaneously, and they don't have to be the way they are. But if they were any different, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. It's called the entropic idea, and it's not - it's - it may be right.

It's not an idea I find very attractive, but it may be right. And if it is, then it suggests that even the very laws themselves are not fundamental. They arose spontaneously in our universe, and they're very different in other universes. And in some sense, if you wish, the multiverse plays the role of what you might call a prime mover or a god. It exists outside of our universe.

So, again, the question is not answered. In his book, some chapters of his book are: "Nothing is something" and "Nothing is unstable". He has redefined nothing as empty space or a quantum vaccum, and when pressed, he offers up a multiverse, but fails to explain where the multiverse came from. Nothing is not something, it is not unstable, it is not empty space, it is not a quantum vacuum, and it is not a multiverse. Nothing is nothing. From nothing, nothing comes. It has no states, no properties, no existence. He has not explained how something came from nothing. All he has done is redefine nothing into something. Of course something can come from something. All he doing is playing a masquarade with definitions





>> ^xxovercastxx:
16:08-16:38

"...you could start with absolutely nothing; that means, unlike the Cardinal said and unlike some people argue, no particles, but not even empty space -- no space whatsoever, and maybe even no laws governing that space and we can plausibly understand how you could arrive, without any miracles, without any need for a creator, without any supernatural creation, you could produce everything we see."

Well it's important to state that there is a distinct difference between scientific theory and hypothesis so that the layman won't say ridiculous shit like "well, you know man...that's just like...a theory">> ^Yogi:

>> ^rottenseed:
I do know its mislabeled. I don't think there's enough supporting evidence to consider it anything other than a hypothesis.>> ^Yogi:
"I don't know enough about the string hypothesis to have an opinion either way."
I've read Brian Greene's book on String Theory...I still don't know enough about it to have an opinion.


Words don't not mean notfing to me.