[Qualarrizab]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4...eature=related

Physicists finally accept an ignominious defeat in their 500yr quest to understand God's creation.

Yet again the tower came crashing down....

Maybe some Muslim scientist can explain if this is still a problem in physics?

[StitsVobsaith]

Salam Alaykum,

I have to say that I did not watch the video so I do not really know what the issue is about- and i doubt I would know even if I watched it a number of times, since every science has its experts who should be the ones to speak about it. But generally speaking, (and i hope someone will correct me if I am wrong) the main flaw in natural science is that its philosophy of natural causality cannot be proved, but is just an assumption made in order to make sense of the experiments and observations that are made about nature.

But then what happens is that this view of natural causality is well and good for day-to-day pragmatic applications, but should never be used to establish a rigorous philosophical worldview or to elevate it to the status of dogma. In fact Islam says that it is totally wrong, since every change we see is a direct creation from Allah, unrelated to the conditions before or after it. I know the Islamic position has come under attack for stiffling the experimentation with natural sciences - since we say, for example, that the reason fire burns is because Allah made it burn, or the reason why the body works in a certain way is because Allah made it work when the conditions are such without the workings of teh body being attached to is apparent conditions- but at the end of the day, the Islamic position is the only one that can possibly make sense and can safeguard one's Iman, even if it ledas to a comparatively slow progress of "modernity".

[largonioulurI]

ws

Secondary causes are not real according to our eman...but we still are told by deen to adopt the means (darul asbab), otherwise we would be very confused. The main problem with science is that in the west it emerged as a way of rebelling against religion and gave expression to the inner motives of man...based on greed and plundering nature...man saw himself as independent from God and so free to look at nature to control it and to take from it. Religions and Islam in particular teach us that we are accountable and responsible and we must control our greedy natures...be caretakers of nature and worship Allah.


The video explains mathematically the attempts to marry quantum mechanics with relativity theory result in nonsense equations and therefore making both theories unable to explain the physical universe.

[Caliwany]

String Theory which is not scientifically verifiable claims all the theories can be reconciled and there are another 6 dimensions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWGb-...feature=relmfu

[K0aM7urg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4...eature=related

Physicists finally accept an ignominious defeat in their 500yr quest to understand God's creation.

Yet again the tower came crashing down....

Maybe some Muslim scientist can explain if this is still a problem in physics?

Actually things are exceptionally right on physics frontier.
And that in itself is a problem because physics people do no have any idea to ask for multi billion dollars for next experimental effort after Large Hadron Collider.
To attract public attention the frontier physicists have started using journalistic dramatization.
More later, IA.

[Vjwkvkoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4...eature=related

Physicists finally accept an ignominious defeat in their 500yr quest to understand God's creation.

Yet again the tower came crashing down....

Maybe some Muslim scientist can explain if this is still a problem in physics?

Since long i intend to write on "Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem" as i think that it explains the limitations of science. For any scientific theory ,especially if its from theoretical physics , it must pass the mathematical scrutiny. Mathematical consistency can only be expected from a system if its consistent and a non consistent can not be explained fully but in parts. We see the same thing in physicist. Quantum physics at one hand and general relativity on the other hand explain the material reality around us in parts but whenever one tries to combine them so that we can have a grasp of "full reality" , contradictions surface. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that all the systems are inconsistent and there are points in every system which can not be explained with in the system. The statement "I can not be proved" if constructed in the language of logic and inducted with in any given system leaves us with a helplessness as if one proves this statement he would just prove that he can not prove it and if it can not be proven then there are points in the system which can not be proven (both lead to the same dilemma). Hence i think that Godel's incompleteness nullifies all the efforts towards TOEs (theories of everything).

[CAxrrAYN]

Since long i intend to write on "Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem" as i think that it explains the limitations of science. For any scientific theory ,especially if its from theoretical physics , it must pass the mathematical scrutiny. Mathematical consistency can only be expected from a system if its consistent and a non consistent can not be explained fully but in parts. We see the same thing in physicist. Quantum physics at one hand and general relativity on the other hand explain the material reality around us in parts but whenever one tries to combine them so that we can have a grasp of "full reality" , contradictions surface. Kurt Godel's incompleteness theorem shows that all the systems are inconsistent and there are points in every system which can not be explained with in the system. The statement "I can not be proved" if constructed in the language of logic and inducted with in any given system leaves us with a helplessness as if one proves this statement he would just prove that he can not prove it and if it can not be proven then there are points in the system which can not be proven (both lead to the same dilemma). Hence i think that Godel's incompleteness nullifies all the efforts towards TOEs (theories of everything).

Godel's theorem is about logical, rational, scholastic approach to truth. It is not an argument against science. Scholasticism was already decimated effectively by empiricism.
And we Muslims are already, by the Grace of Allah (SWT), well placed to observe the limitations of science.
No morality can be decided based on science - it ultimately flows into moral relativism.
Of course by now science has progressed enough to tell us themselves the limitations of empiricism.
Wave-Particle duality and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are two absolutely clear cut examples of that.
Concept of renormalization in quantum field theory is a third example but some work has to be done on that to clarify the matters.

Question of theory of everything is a slightly different one.
As a scientific theory legitimate test of any TOE is experiment.
Godel's theorem has no bearing on it - that is in the realm of logic.
If there is a physical reality, empirically, it is there -logic be damned.

This brings us to the specifics of theory of every thing.
There are four fundamental interactions in nature and we have perfect theories for all of them. Salam-Weinberg Model for electro-weak interactions - that takes care of two. Quantum chromodynamics for strong interactions and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for gravitational interactions. What ever experimental data we have can be explained using these theories.

There are many physicists who wanted to go to supersymmetry, then supergravity and finally to superstring theory.
Recent Large Hadron Collider results on Higgs as well as supersymmetry have thrown a spanner into those plans. Experimental results have confirmed Higgs, that was a long standing prediction. The experiments have also rejected supersymmetry that too was not so short standing prediction. Rejection of supersymmetry so far is a big set back to the theory of everything enterprise.

I sure have missed some vital links in my argument but I will not notice them till people point them out. So that is it for now.

[Emunsesoxmete]

Godel's theorem is about logical, rational, scholastic approach to truth. It is not an argument against science. Scholasticism was already decimated effectively by empiricism.
And we Muslims are already, by the Grace of Allah (SWT), well placed to observe the limitations of science.
No morality can be decided based on science - it ultimately flows into moral relativism.
Of course by now science has progressed enough to tell us themselves the limitations of empiricism.
Wave-Particle duality and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are two absolutely clear cut examples of that.
Concept of renormalization in quantum field theory is a third example but some work has to be done on that to clarify the matters.

Question of theory of everything is a slightly different one.
As a scientific theory legitimate test of any TOE is experiment.
Godel's theorem has no bearing on it - that is in the realm of logic.
If there is a physical reality, empirically, it is there -logic be damned.

This brings us to the specifics of theory of every thing.
There are four fundamental interactions in nature and we have perfect theories for all of them. Salam-Weinberg Model for electro-weak interactions - that takes care of two. Quantum chromodynamics for strong interactions and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for gravitational interactions. What ever experimental data we have can be explained using these theories.

There are many physicists who wanted to go to supersymmetry, then supergravity and finally to superstring theory.
Recent Large Hadron Collider results on Higgs as well as supersymmetry have thrown a spanner into those plans. Experimental results have confirmed Higgs, that was a long standing prediction. The experiments have also rejected supersymmetry that too was not so short standing prediction. Rejection of supersymmetry so far is a big set back to the theory of everything enterprise.

I sure have missed some vital links in my argument but I will not notice them till people point them out. So that is it for now.

Stephen Hawking is also of the opinion that Godel's incompleteness specifies the impossibility of TOEs (including string theory) and hence defines the limitations of science. http://f241vc15.wordpress.com/2008/0...ncompleteness/

[gkruCRi1]

Stephen Hawking is also of the opinion that Godel's incompleteness specifies the impossibility of TOEs (including string theory) and hence defines the limitations of science. http://f241vc15.wordpress.com/2008/0...ncompleteness/

Problem with the argument is that scholasticism, the logical approach to truth and reality, has been equated with empiricism.
The question for Hawking is the validity of the assumption that a theory is merely a logical system. If that is the case then his argument is true. By definition a scientific theory is to be tested by experiments and not by logic.

We Muslims should be able to do better than them - the very occurrence of the word determinism should send alarm bells ringing. But that is a different problem.

[Pdarassenko]

Problem with the argument is that scholasticism, the logical approach to truth and reality, has been equated with empiricism.
The question for Hawking is the validity of the assumption that a theory is merely a logical system. If that is the case then his argument is true. By definition a scientific theory is to be tested by experiments and not by logic.

We Muslims should be able to do better than them - the very occurrence of the word determinism should send alarm bells ringing. But that is a different problem.

I think that the discussion can be stretched back to the old Platonism vs nominalism debate where empiricism can be seen as an tributary of nominalism and the realism can be taken as a continuation of Platonism. Kurt Godel was a staunch Platonist himself. One can differ with it but i see empiricism as something insufficient to have a final say in the issues related to the new battles on the frontier of physics. The fist thing to originate is thought which through logical and rational codification transforms into a theory. The theory make some predictions and then empirical means are invoked to produce a visible certainty in the thought. Empiricism comes the last and counts the least. The empirical means to justify a theory is nothing more than the basic human wish to create a link between the abstract reality and matter. Science , no matter how material it becomes , have its own philosophy and metaphysics which keep on governing on its upper most layer where nothing is empirical.

Secondly , we have seen that arguments which were logically true but lacked empirical verification in some time have been entitled with empirical verification once the means were available. The cosmological argument proposed by Imam Ghazali in the 10th century Khorasan was distasteful to many of the rationalists of his age. It was unimaginable that the conclusion derived by the Imam would ever meet some kind of varification but it was in 1932 through Hubble's observations when we came to know that philosophically codified argument was an empirically observable and testable fact.

[Info-phone]

Not very much relevant to the discussion superficially but deep down these words from the famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin do have a link with the discussion at hand.

"Science is not about what is true, or what might be true.
Science is about what people with originally diverse viewpoints can be forced to believe by the weight of public opinion."

[ziIReIGS]

I think that the discussion can be stretched back to the old Platonism vs nominalism debate where empiricism can be seen as an tributary of nominalism and the realism can be taken as a continuation of Platonism. Kurt Godel was a staunch Platonist himself. One can differ with it but i see empiricism as something insufficient to have a final say in the issues related to the new battles on the frontier of physics. The fist thing to originate is thought which through logical and rational codification transforms into a theory. The theory make some predictions and then empirical means are invoked to produce a visible certainty in the thought. Empiricism comes the last and counts the least. The empirical means to justify a theory is nothing more than the basic human wish to create a link between the abstract reality and matter. Science , no matter how material it becomes , have its own philosophy and metaphysics which keep on governing on its upper most layer where nothing is empirical.

We know that philosophy - it is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He proposed the solution the problem: How to differentiate between scientific and non-scientific theories? His theory of demarcation is that scientific theories are falsifiable, these can be tested in laboratory. Now that is empiricism.

What you are saying in above highlighted text is of course true. Let me repeat an anecdote from a Karl Popper interview in Scientific American by John Horgan. Horgan asked Popper whether his theory of demarcation falsifiable. Popper leaned forward and put his hand on Horgan's and said, "I do not want to hurt you but that is a silly question?" "Why?", asked Horgan. "My theory is not a scientific theory", said Popper.
Secondly , we have seen that arguments which were logically true but lacked empirical verification in some time have been entitled with empirical verification once the means were available. The cosmological argument proposed by Imam Ghazali in the 10th century Khorasan was distasteful to many of the rationalists of his age. It was unimaginable that the conclusion derived by the Imam would ever meet some kind of varification but it was in 1932 through Hubble's observations when we came to know that philosophically codified argument was an empirically observable and testable fact. This too is all very well. We have a hierarchy. Some truth can be reached scholastically.

Sherlock Holmes : After eliminating the impossible whatever remains, however incredible, is the truth.

Some truth requires empiricism.

Suppose we are on an island and we see a black sheep. To find whether all sheep are black there we have to depend upon empiricism. Logic does not decide that.

Some truth can be decided by Wahy only.

Morality is part of that. Faith too.

And there is a hierarchy of superiority in this.

[Usogwdkb]

The cosmological argument proposed by Imam Ghazali in the 10th century Khorasan was distasteful to many of the rationalists of his age. It was unimaginable that the conclusion derived by the Imam would ever meet some kind of varification but it was in 1932 through Hubble's observations when we came to know that philosophically codified argument was an empirically observable and testable fact.

could you please elaborate more on this please, for the benefit of myself and others who are unaware of Imam Ghazali's cosmological argument. jazakumullah

[Aagotiq]

Not very much relevant to the discussion superficially but deep down these words from the famous theoretical physicist Lee Smolin do have a link with the discussion at hand.

"Science is not about what is true, or what might be true.
Science is about what people with originally diverse viewpoints can be forced to believe by the weight of public opinion."

He is bitter.
Many physicists think that there should be a quantum theory of gravity.
He is one of them.
He has a theory for that and he pushed that, as every American does in their own characteristic fashion.
Unfortunately he is not the most the only contributor to that field, nor the most significant one also.
Abhay Ashtekar has made much more contributions to that field. Rovelli, Bojowald are the other people who have made as much contributions as him but he always says that he has a theory ....
Anyway the pinching point is that he has been trying to compete with a theory with which he can not compete. String theory.
String theorists not only over match his physics but his media management too.
Hence the bitterness.

*****************

You do have a point that media management can change the reality to a grotesque form.
We Muslims got to worry about that. By now it must be apparent to you that this is the matter on which I would like to focus my energies. Unfortunately people are not taking care of some other departments to the extent that is desirable. Like business, economy and finance matters, psychology as well as media. Just to name a few. We should try to rope in people for that and bring them here at SF.

Wassalam

[jamisi]

could you please elaborate more on this please, for the benefit of myself and others who are unaware of Imam Ghazali's cosmological argument. jazakumullah

I'll tell you the long journey:
Start here.
Craig is sufficiently good at debating that atheists are now advising each other to stay away from him for fear of looking bad — e.g. here and here. If you do not do that then you will not know what has been done using those arguments that are so ancient!

[JakeBarkings]

I suppose doing science is also a social science. Social science studies corporations, organizations, societies, families, religions, clubs, businesses etc. They also study scientists...and a social scientific study of scientists would reveal that their studies are not strictly speaking Science....many human elements enter into the doing of science and contaminate it. Mathematics is supposed to be the language of science...but it still depends on ordinary languages like English to write about it and this contaminates it too.

[CalBettaulp]

Craig is sufficiently good at debating that atheists are now advising each other to stay away from him for fear of looking bad — e.g. here and here. If you do not do that then you will not know what has been done using those arguments that are so ancient! Of course, Craig has his obvious problems, such as clinging to Trinitarian ideology (and this is obvious even in his more generic defenses of divinity, as when he says that "God was outside of time, then became temporal"). This is why in the other thread I was really trying to focus the attention of those brothers who can use the rational arguments to attack other non-Muslim religions. I totally agree that different people are influenced by different things, but those who take ratioanlity as their basis should not be shunned, as Islamic thinking tries to reach the people based on what they are.

[MP+4]

I suppose doing science is also a social science...

This is precisely where Karl Popper pop up in the picture. I shall quote from one of my posts above.
We know that philosophy - it is Karl Popper's theory of demarcation. He proposed the solution the problem: How to differentiate between scientific and non-scientific theories? His theory of demarcation is that scientific theories are falsifiable, these can be tested in laboratory.

[Buyemae]

So the scientist speaking in the video in the opening post (uploaded in 2009) is out of date now. We have a mathematically coherent explanation of reality (ToE) Theory of Everything.

Godel's theorem is about logical, rational, scholastic approach to truth. It is not an argument against science. Scholasticism was already decimated effectively by empiricism.
And we Muslims are already, by the Grace of Allah (SWT), well placed to observe the limitations of science.
No morality can be decided based on science - it ultimately flows into moral relativism.
Of course by now science has progressed enough to tell us themselves the limitations of empiricism.
Wave-Particle duality and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle are two absolutely clear cut examples of that.
Concept of renormalization in quantum field theory is a third example but some work has to be done on that to clarify the matters.

Question of theory of everything is a slightly different one.
As a scientific theory legitimate test of any TOE is experiment.
Godel's theorem has no bearing on it - that is in the realm of logic.
If there is a physical reality, empirically, it is there -logic be damned.

This brings us to the specifics of theory of every thing.
There are four fundamental interactions in nature and we have perfect theories for all of them. Salam-Weinberg Model for electro-weak interactions - that takes care of two. Quantum chromodynamics for strong interactions and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity for gravitational interactions. What ever experimental data we have can be explained using these theories.

There are many physicists who wanted to go to supersymmetry, then supergravity and finally to superstring theory.
Recent Large Hadron Collider results on Higgs as well as supersymmetry have thrown a spanner into those plans. Experimental results have confirmed Higgs, that was a long standing prediction. The experiments have also rejected supersymmetry that too was not so short standing prediction. Rejection of supersymmetry so far is a big set back to the theory of everything enterprise.

I sure have missed some vital links in my argument but I will not notice them till people point them out. So that is it for now.

[jinnsamys]

So the scientist speaking in the video in the opening post (uploaded in 2009) is out of date now. We have a mathematically coherent explanation of reality (ToE) Theory of Everything.

No , We don't have the mathematical structure to encompass String theory , let alone a TOE. String theory can be taken as the TOE of physics and it an a chain of the long efforts to bring general relativity and quantum mechanics into coherence with each other. For doing so , string theory invokes 7 further dimensions than our four dimensions and we don't have any evidence or mathematical coding for any other dimension , let alone 7 dimensions. The Hadron collider data has been disappointing for the string theorists as well as it was expected the such high energy Proton collisions might lead into the loss of energy or debris which may be attributed to the presence of another dimension but as far as i know it nothing as such has been recorded.

Here is a discussion on the present and future of string theory by the key players. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYeN66CSQhg