Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Blogs)   Two years ago, one cosmologist wrote 'string theory is not a scientific theory'. Now, a string theorist who saw it writes back 'inflationary cosmology is not science'. Time to watch the fireworks   ( scienceblogs.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Star Trek, James Webb Space Telescope, Key West, Universe, Dr. Siegel, James Webb Space, carefully curated selection, things Star Trek  
•       •       •

1624 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Oct 2017 at 3:06 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-10-01 02:07:45 PM  
13 votes:

LordZorch: Yeah, how many extra dimensions does string theory need this week?  17? 30?


That's not actually a problem.  If it accurate describes and predicts the observations of reality, then it can use as many dimensions as it needs.  Hell, standard quantum mechanics says electrons are only notionally there until they need to be actually there, at which point they just are, cuz reasons.  It's borderline magical hooey - but it both accounts for observed phenomena and can make predictions that are reasonably accurate to within the tolerances we considered to be "right".  So, by the standard of "Dafuq you talkin' bout, Willis?" we have for how the universe works presently, string theory isn't really that wacky.

Where it falls down is the ability to make falsifiable predictions.  Until someone can devise an experiment that can test string theory, it is the scientific equivalent of drunken wanking.  If pushed on the issue, I think it sounds plausible, and may even be a more accurate representation of reality than what we have now.  But it is still at the stage of spitballing.  I wouldn't be surprised if they get something workable with N dimensions where N is larger than is really manageable, but at least it is a proper testable theory.  And then after a few years, someone will get enough data to start carving N down to a more reasonable number, as data shows that what we thought were separate dimensions were just inefficiencies in the math and/or measurements.  Quantum mechanics was an unholy mess until people like Dirac realized you could simplify the hell out of it once you understood what you were looking at, for example.
2017-10-01 03:11:17 PM  
8 votes:
Except, you know, one of these theories is based on observations...
2017-10-01 05:57:10 PM  
7 votes:

Jake Havechek: String theory is a bunch of farking hooey.

Yeah, let's add some more dimensions so the math works out correctly!


Well, they kept adding particles to make the math work correctly, and as a result, we have the Standard Model, and it is fully populated with particles that were eventually discovered, many several decades after they were added just to make the math work out correctly.

Time dilation is weird, but Einstein added it via math before his theories were able to be tested.

Dark Matter was added to make math work, but it has long been used to make falsifiable predictions that confirm its existence (But, so far, not its nature).

String theory is (so far) worthless for other reasons - mainly, being unable to make falsifiable predictions - but adding weirdness to make the math work is actually the norm.
2017-10-01 10:01:12 PM  
5 votes:
The important thing to remember (and I say this as a physicist!) is that physics is not reality, in the same way that this:
www.nature-education.org

Isn't the earth.

It is a map of the earth, and this is  a seemingly trivial, but important distinction.

Physics is a tool built out of math and observations to describe reality. It is a damn good tool. But it is still a construct, one we are continually refining.

This understanding is also useful in shutting down the frustrating "Well, ALL science ultimately boils down to physics!" variety of physicist. Why, yes, I in theory COULD do biology using physics, in the same way I *could* measure the distance between here and the moon using a pair of calipers. It's just the wrong tool for the job, so it will A) Be needlessly complicated and B) Probably give me the wrong answer anyways.

/That said I will believe string theory is a theory when it has a falsifiable predictions,even if it's one we don't have the tech to test.
2017-10-01 12:35:05 PM  
4 votes:
Whatever.  I see cosmetology schools all over the place. Your move string guy
2017-10-01 08:37:07 PM  
3 votes:
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

tl;dr: Science advances one funeral at a time.

To be fair, Planck inhabited the crabbed European intellectual world which hoped to make the 20th century distinctively better than the century before, and limited its goals thus. But Planck put his finger on a phenomenon that we had to wait for Karl Popper to fully articulate.
2017-10-01 07:08:38 PM  
3 votes:

Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut: Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut:

String theory is pushing 37 years old at this point, and has had access to computers and analytical techniques that Einstein, Newton, and Kepler would have crapped their pants over. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.

Quite possibly so.  But even following what looks like probable dead ends around is still a part of science.  If nothing else it's a good source of tangential "I wasn't even looking for  that!?" discoveries and data.  You also often end up doing some solid foundation data on what's going on with something in your quest to prove or disprove whatever.  The problem with this kind of thing (well, ok in my opinion it's the main problem) is when you get a generation or two that's bound and determined that "X is the way things work, dammit" before anyone's capable of proving that it at least functions as if that theory was true.  That kind of thing can lead to EVERYBODY heading off down the "not actually the case" path for quite a while.  Science derail, basically.  But hey, derails are also part of the process so... shrug.

How long were they working on Luminous Aether before they gave it up?


Can't say - there are still a few loonies pushing it to this day :)  Butttt, we actually did get some pioneering electrical research from the aether/phlogiston crowd - one of the "I wasn't even looking for that?!" things I mentioned earlier.  Science is funny that way.  Even if you're looking for the wrong thing, you often trip over a few useful bits.  Then someone comes along 20 years later, collates the bits, does some thinking, and becomes  a pioneer of science.  Fun, no?
2017-10-01 05:20:21 PM  
3 votes:

Dragonflew: I think string theory is as ridiculous as the idea we're all living in a simulation, but I am not nearly smart enough to argue.


Well the simulation concept is less a scientific theory than a philosophy problem. What is real? Everything you experience has to filter through the phenomenon captured through your senses. And be interpreted by the judgement and experience of your nervous system. Those interpretations are assembled and projected into a mental image, which is a bit fuzzy and your mind is constantly filling in the blanks.

How can you ever really know what is real, and what you are imagining?
2017-10-01 05:19:56 PM  
3 votes:

Evil Twin Skippy: ajgeek: It isn't a theory; it's a hypothesis. We haven't been able to adequately test it yet.

Hell it hasn't even made a falsifiable prediction yet. It's not even a hypothesis.


Anyone that figures that "Bullshiatting about how stuff might work when we can't do much to prove it either way" isn't science is being purposefully disingenuous.  Or has never actually met another scientist for more than 5 minutes.  Sure it's very early on in the process science, but still.  Half the science that's ever been done started that way, and stayed that way for many a moon due to lack of opportunities to prove otherwise at the time.  It only becomes "Not science" if and when you refuse to test it once the technology/opportunities are available.  Until it's put up or shut up time, the whole "I'm right you're stupid" thing is just schoolyard posturing.  Even science geeks get a little grade school-ish sometimes, as stuff like this proves.  Hell, especially science geeks.  I've seen some arguments that wouldn't be out of place on a kindergarten playground.  Pretty much "No YOU'RE a poopyhead" once you strip the rhetoric.
2017-10-02 12:21:38 AM  
2 votes:

KerwoodDerby: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

tl;dr: Science advances one funeral at a time.

To be fair, Planck inhabited the crabbed European intellectual world which hoped to make the 20th century distinctively better than the century before, and limited its goals thus. But Planck put his finger on a phenomenon that we had to wait for Karl Popper to fully articulate.


I mean, I grew up with String Theory and I think it's a hot crock of shiat, as do most of my classmates.
2017-10-01 07:09:55 PM  
2 votes:

lindalouwho: I've always wanted string theory to be true. For one, if everything/everyone is made out of exactly the same thing it will drive racists and bigots crazy.


Even without string theory, everybody is made out of the same things!

All baryons, they just include morons too.
2017-10-01 06:21:09 PM  
2 votes:

bigdanc: Jake Havechek: String theory is a bunch of farking hooey.

Yeah, let's add some more dimensions so the math works out correctly!

Lol I know!  Don't these guys know we already have everything figured out so we don't need to think of anything new!!!!


Mathematics does not explain everything, not even in this universe.
2017-10-01 06:14:58 PM  
2 votes:
The string theorist is 100% correct.

The various string theories can at least theoretically be tested, even if we don't have the ability (or willingness given the expense) to build the earth-circumference sized particle accelerator that would be required to test them.

Not so much for inflationary cosmology. When what you come up with is "and then the rules of physics changed", any hypothesis of what the rules were before they changed is, by definition, unfalsifiable.

Same thing for what goes on inside black holes. The number of YouTube physicists using authoritative tones explaining what physics looks like inside the schwarzschild radius is enough to make one go mad.
2017-10-01 05:56:38 PM  
2 votes:

Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut:

String theory is pushing 37 years old at this point, and has had access to computers and analytical techniques that Einstein, Newton, and Kepler would have crapped their pants over. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.


Quite possibly so.  But even following what looks like probable dead ends around is still a part of science.  If nothing else it's a good source of tangential "I wasn't even looking for  that!?" discoveries and data.  You also often end up doing some solid foundation data on what's going on with something in your quest to prove or disprove whatever.  The problem with this kind of thing (well, ok in my opinion it's the main problem) is when you get a generation or two that's bound and determined that "X is the way things work, dammit" before anyone's capable of proving that it at least functions as if that theory was true.  That kind of thing can lead to EVERYBODY heading off down the "not actually the case" path for quite a while.  Science derail, basically.  But hey, derails are also part of the process so... shrug.
2017-10-01 05:20:45 PM  
2 votes:
I've always wanted string theory to be true. For one, if everything/everyone is made out of exactly the same thing it will drive racists and bigots crazy.
2017-10-01 03:37:43 PM  
2 votes:
Whatever you say, I'm sticking with phlogiston
2017-10-01 02:21:12 PM  
2 votes:
I prefer the one electron theory.
2017-10-01 01:41:51 PM  
2 votes:
Yeah, how many extra dimensions does string theory need this week?  17? 30?
2017-10-02 06:00:14 PM  
1 vote:

lindalouwho: I've always wanted string theory to be true. For one, if everything/everyone is made out of exactly the same thing it will drive racists and bigots crazy.


Regular matter theory already proves that.

img.fark.net
2017-10-02 12:36:34 PM  
1 vote:

Harlee: Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut:

String theory is pushing 37 years old at this point, and has had access to computers and analytical techniques that Einstein, Newton, and Kepler would have crapped their pants over. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.

They still haven't cured cancer. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.

This is the genesis of the Cancer Conspiracy idiocy.

Dude. Both are exceedingly complex areas of investigation.

How, for example, would you even investigate "hidden" dimensions wrapped around our known (seen) three? You would need a particle small enough to slip into those dimensions; possibly a graviton... IF the theory explaining the relative weakness of gravity being due to gravity propagating in more than three dimensions is correct; and IF teensy tiny gravitons are more likely than huge particles.

So you need to actually find evidence of a graviton... and then figure out how to build a graviton equivalent to an ultra-precise medical X-Ray or MRI machine.

That sounds like a shiat-ton of computational power will be needed. harlee's personal opinion is that we will not determine whether string theory is valid until we have quantum computers advanced enough to actually be sold in retail stores.

And cancer? Not until we have complete knowledge and detailed maps of the human genome and of how every single gene interacts with every single other gene. Same problemo: we need far more computational power. Also: highly sophisticated AI, robots, and automation, for performing the tedious jobs of analyzing billions of samples would be nice.


Cancer isn't a single thing. It's a category of a large number of very different diseases, many of which we have cures and treatments for. That's what those "hundreds or thousands of PhDs and postdocs working on it" have produced. Suggesting that cancer research has produced nothing shows a stunning level of ignorance.
2017-10-02 01:23:58 AM  
1 vote:

ajgeek: What's the difference between a physicist, an engineer, and a mathematician?
A physicist sees the universe as a model for his math.
An engineer sees the math as a model for the universe.
A mathematician doesn't see the difference.

/do you have any idea how rare you are?


I am, and always have been, an avid Pratchett reader, so...yes. Very yes.


"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little-"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET-Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point-"
MY POINT EXACTLY.
She tried to assemble her thoughts.
THERE IS A PLACE WHERE TWO GALAXIES HAVE BEEN COLLIDING FOR A MILLION YEARS, said Death, apropos of nothing. DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THAT'S RIGHT.
"Yes, but people don't think about that," said Susan. "Somewhere there was a bed..."
CORRECT. STARS EXPLODE, WORLDS COLLIDE, THERE'S HARDLY ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE HUMANS CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING FROZEN OR FRIED, AND YET YOU BELIEVE THAT A...A BED IS A NORMAL THING. IT IS THE MOST AMAZING TALENT.
"Talent?"
OH, YES. A VERY SPECIAL KIND OF STUPIDITY. YOU THINK THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS INSIDE YOUR HEADS.
"You make us sound mad," said Susan. A nice warm bed...
NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME? said Death" 
― Terry PratchettHogfather
2017-10-02 01:17:13 AM  
1 vote:

Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: I think string theory is as ridiculous as the idea we're all living in a simulation, but I am not nearly smart enough to argue.

Well the simulation concept is less a scientific theory than a philosophy problem. What is real? Everything you experience has to filter through the phenomenon captured through your senses. And be interpreted by the judgement and experience of your nervous system. Those interpretations are assembled and projected into a mental image, which is a bit fuzzy and your mind is constantly filling in the blanks.

How can you ever really know what is real, and what you are imagining?

Honestly, it just sounds like a spin on an old idea to me. Creationism became "intelligent design". Has intelligent design become "we're all living in a simulation run by some unknown entity wink wink" to make the idea sound even more scientific?

Actually that was De Carte. We only remember "I think therefore I am" but there was a hell of a lot more to that paper.


"On this, after having considered all things, we must come to the conclusion that the preposition 'I am, I exist' is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it or that I mentally conceive it."

-Renè Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy circa 1641

Those words would later become the foundational pillar of western epistemology, and would eventually be summed up by the phrase "cogito, ergo sum."

You fail as an engineer or fabricator if you do not know why that man's work is important.
2017-10-02 12:01:51 AM  
1 vote:
String theory is just mathsturbation until they get some experiments going.
2017-10-01 11:07:14 PM  
1 vote:

Felgraf: The important thing to remember (and I say this as a physicist!) is that physics is not reality, in the same way that this:
[www.nature-education.org image 540x280]

Isn't the earth.

It is a map of the earth, and this is  a seemingly trivial, but important distinction.

Physics is a tool built out of math and observations to describe reality. It is a damn good tool. But it is still a construct, one we are continually refining.

This understanding is also useful in shutting down the frustrating "Well, ALL science ultimately boils down to physics!" variety of physicist. Why, yes, I in theory COULD do biology using physics, in the same way I *could* measure the distance between here and the moon using a pair of calipers. It's just the wrong tool for the job, so it will A) Be needlessly complicated and B) Probably give me the wrong answer anyways.

/That said I will believe string theory is a theory when it has a falsifiable predictions,even if it's one we don't have the tech to test.


What's the difference between a physicist, an engineer, and a mathematician?
A physicist sees the universe as a model for his math.
An engineer sees the math as a model for the universe.
A mathematician doesn't see the difference.

/do you have any idea how rare you are?
2017-10-01 10:12:32 PM  
1 vote:

Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: I think string theory is as ridiculous as the idea we're all living in a simulation, but I am not nearly smart enough to argue.

Well the simulation concept is less a scientific theory than a philosophy problem. What is real? Everything you experience has to filter through the phenomenon captured through your senses. And be interpreted by the judgement and experience of your nervous system. Those interpretations are assembled and projected into a mental image, which is a bit fuzzy and your mind is constantly filling in the blanks.

How can you ever really know what is real, and what you are imagining?

Honestly, it just sounds like a spin on an old idea to me. Creationism became "intelligent design". Has intelligent design become "we're all living in a simulation run by some unknown entity wink wink" to make the idea sound even more scientific?

Actually that was De Carte. We only remember "I think therefore I am" but there was a hell of a lot more to that paper.


Cogito ergo Fark.
2017-10-01 09:07:40 PM  
1 vote:

lindalouwho: I've always wanted string theory to be true. For one, if everything/everyone is made out of exactly the same thing it will drive racists and bigots crazy.


Why does string theory need to be true for that ?
Do you think there are African and European atoms?
2017-10-01 08:03:22 PM  
1 vote:

drumhellar: Jake Havechek: String theory is a bunch of farking hooey.

Yeah, let's add some more dimensions so the math works out correctly!

Well, they kept adding particles to make the math work correctly, and as a result, we have the Standard Model, and it is fully populated with particles that were eventually discovered, many several decades after they were added just to make the math work out correctly.


This, in harlee's opinion, is a huge vote in favor of it being correct. The probability of all these verifications all being spurious is vanishingly small.

Time dilation is weird, but Einstein added it via math before his theories were able to be tested.

Dark Matter was added to make math work, but it has long been used to make falsifiable predictions that confirm its existence (But, so far, not its nature).

String theory is (so far) worthless for other reasons - mainly, being unable to make falsifiable predictions - but adding weirdness to make the math work is actually the norm.


IF it were shown that gravity propagated in additional dimensions (unlike EM in only the three we see) then that might explain the order-of-magnitude problem with gravity.
2017-10-01 07:58:16 PM  
1 vote:
Obligatory (re: inflation):
A Capella Science - The Surface Of Light! (Lion King Parody)
Youtube 2INJiNpZFBI
2017-10-01 07:50:50 PM  
1 vote:

Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut:

String theory is pushing 37 years old at this point, and has had access to computers and analytical techniques that Einstein, Newton, and Kepler would have crapped their pants over. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.


They still haven't cured cancer. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.

This is the genesis of the Cancer Conspiracy idiocy.

Dude. Both are exceedingly complex areas of investigation.

How, for example, would you even investigate "hidden" dimensions wrapped around our known (seen) three? You would need a particle small enough to slip into those dimensions; possibly a graviton... IF the theory explaining the relative weakness of gravity being due to gravity propagating in more than three dimensions is correct; and IF teensy tiny gravitons are more likely than huge particles.

So you need to actually find evidence of a graviton... and then figure out how to build a graviton equivalent to an ultra-precise medical X-Ray or MRI machine.

That sounds like a shiat-ton of computational power will be needed. harlee's personal opinion is that we will not determine whether string theory is valid until we have quantum computers advanced enough to actually be sold in retail stores.

And cancer? Not until we have complete knowledge and detailed maps of the human genome and of how every single gene interacts with every single other gene. Same problemo: we need far more computational power. Also: highly sophisticated AI, robots, and automation, for performing the tedious jobs of analyzing billions of samples would be nice.
2017-10-01 07:13:11 PM  
1 vote:

Deep Contact: IgG4: I prefer the one electron theory.

The electron has a black hole.


frinkiac.com
2017-10-01 06:30:37 PM  
1 vote:
Thank Tzeentch for Fark. Otherwise I would have to retire to the neighborhood watering hole to be educated by the greatest physicists on the planet.
2017-10-01 06:24:57 PM  
1 vote:

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: Evil Twin Skippy: Some Junkie Cosmonaut:

String theory is pushing 37 years old at this point, and has had access to computers and analytical techniques that Einstein, Newton, and Kepler would have crapped their pants over. There must be hundreds or thousands of Ph.Ds and postdocs working on it. If it was going to produce something it should have by now.

Quite possibly so.  But even following what looks like probable dead ends around is still a part of science.  If nothing else it's a good source of tangential "I wasn't even looking for  that!?" discoveries and data.  You also often end up doing some solid foundation data on what's going on with something in your quest to prove or disprove whatever.  The problem with this kind of thing (well, ok in my opinion it's the main problem) is when you get a generation or two that's bound and determined that "X is the way things work, dammit" before anyone's capable of proving that it at least functions as if that theory was true.  That kind of thing can lead to EVERYBODY heading off down the "not actually the case" path for quite a while.  Science derail, basically.  But hey, derails are also part of the process so... shrug.


How long were they working on Luminous Aether before they gave it up?
2017-10-01 06:09:53 PM  
1 vote:

wildcardjack: Any sufficiently advanced branch of physics is indistinguishable from a series of in jokes.


Much like economic theory.
2017-10-01 06:03:33 PM  
1 vote:
Any sufficiently advanced branch of physics is indistinguishable from a series of in jokes.
2017-10-01 05:59:17 PM  
1 vote:
Take 5 separate ideas, smash them together, and you get M Theory, which is significant.

I'm not saying it is useful, but there is some potential. If we still had the competing, independent ideas, I'd discard them out of hand.

I wouldn't be surprised to find some concepts useful in non string physics, and I wouldn't be surprised that you can simplify string theory to 1=1. But it is hard to just say there's nothing there.
2017-10-01 05:58:36 PM  
1 vote:

Jake Havechek: String theory is a bunch of farking hooey.

Yeah, let's add some more dimensions so the math works out correctly!


Lol I know!  Don't these guys know we already have everything figured out so we don't need to think of anything new!!!!
2017-10-01 05:41:45 PM  
1 vote:
String theory.  Phhht.  They can't even answer the question: How long is a piece of string?

/now, thread theory, that's going places!
2017-10-01 05:27:17 PM  
1 vote:

Eravior: Chris Ween: Whatever.  I see cosmetology schools all over the place. Your move string guy

Screw it. I'm going anyway...

What the hell do hairdressers know about science?


At least as much as the average scientist knows about styling hair I'd wager.
2017-10-01 05:26:43 PM  
1 vote:

Dragonflew: Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: I think string theory is as ridiculous as the idea we're all living in a simulation, but I am not nearly smart enough to argue.

Well the simulation concept is less a scientific theory than a philosophy problem. What is real? Everything you experience has to filter through the phenomenon captured through your senses. And be interpreted by the judgement and experience of your nervous system. Those interpretations are assembled and projected into a mental image, which is a bit fuzzy and your mind is constantly filling in the blanks.

How can you ever really know what is real, and what you are imagining?

Honestly, it just sounds like a spin on an old idea to me. Creationism became "intelligent design". Has intelligent design become "we're all living in a simulation run by some unknown entity wink wink" to make the idea sound even more scientific?


Actually that was De Carte. We only remember "I think therefore I am" but there was a hell of a lot more to that paper.
2017-10-01 05:24:39 PM  
1 vote:

Evil Twin Skippy: Dragonflew: I think string theory is as ridiculous as the idea we're all living in a simulation, but I am not nearly smart enough to argue.

Well the simulation concept is less a scientific theory than a philosophy problem. What is real? Everything you experience has to filter through the phenomenon captured through your senses. And be interpreted by the judgement and experience of your nervous system. Those interpretations are assembled and projected into a mental image, which is a bit fuzzy and your mind is constantly filling in the blanks.

How can you ever really know what is real, and what you are imagining?


Honestly, it just sounds like a spin on an old idea to me. Creationism became "intelligent design". Has intelligent design become "we're all living in a simulation run by some unknown entity wink wink" to make the idea sound even more scientific?
2017-10-01 05:14:04 PM  
1 vote:

WilderKWight: Eravior: Chris Ween: Whatever.  I see cosmetology schools all over the place. Your move string guy

Screw it. I'm going anyway...

What the hell do hairdressers know about science?

No... It was a cosmologist. You know... A Russian astronauteer!


No that is a cosmonaut. You mean the editor of the "94 Ways To Make Sex Sexy In Bed" magazine.
2017-10-01 04:05:09 PM  
1 vote:

Eravior: Chris Ween: Whatever.  I see cosmetology schools all over the place. Your move string guy

Screw it. I'm going anyway...

What the hell do hairdressers know about science?


If they have enough dye you can get your hair red and blue shifted.
2017-10-01 04:03:42 PM  
1 vote:
OMG NERD BLACKFACE TBBT IS TEH WORST SHOW EVAR!!!!11

/someone had to
//ok not really
///I like TBBT, suck it
////what is this thread about again..
2017-10-01 03:44:48 PM  
1 vote:
img.fark.net
2017-10-01 03:38:43 PM  
1 vote:
It isn't a theory; it's a hypothesis. We haven't been able to adequately test it yet.
2017-10-01 03:36:48 PM  
1 vote:

Chris Ween: Whatever.  I see cosmetology schools all over the place. Your move string guy


I see way more Jo-Ann's stores than cosmetology schools, wherever I go in the US. Therefore, string theory is right.
2017-10-01 01:29:08 PM  
1 vote:
String theory, eh?

c2.staticflickr.com
2017-10-01 12:45:31 PM  
1 vote:
img.fark.net
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report