Posted on 03/01/2019 9:44:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Co-founder of string field theory and physicist Michio Kaku made waves last year — or at least seemed to — when it was reported that he’d proven the existence of God. The Geophilosophical Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies quoted Kaku as saying, "I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. To me, it is clear that we exist in a plan which is governed by rules that were created, shaped by a universal intelligence and not by chance."
Reacting to that public comment, Kaku said: "That’s one of the drawbacks of being in a public sphere: Sometimes you get quoted incorrectly. My own point of view is that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God."
"Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable," Kaku says. "That’s called 'science.' However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God." He's noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such 'non-falsifiable' problem.
Part of the problem, of course, is that "God" has different meanings to different people, and in discussing It/Him/Her, there’s apt to be confusion. And yet believers continue to ask scientists this question, perhaps seeking scientific confirmation for their faith. They want to know if Kaku’s an atheist, but when we can’t agree on what God is, “atheist” has even less meaning.
In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”
It’s that second “God” to which Kaku is drawn. He tells innovation tech today that the universe could have been random, but that instead “Our universe is rich; it is beautiful, elegant.”
He’s stuck by what he sees as its exquisite simplicity, pointing out that all of the laws of physics could fit on a single sheet of paper, and, “In fact, what I do for a living is to try to get that sheet of paper and summarize it into an equation one inch long.” He asserts that with his string field theory, he had that one-inch explanation of everything, but that with new developments in membrane theory, he needs a little more room. For now.
Still, Kaku says, this will happen. Physics is the opposite of most other fields of study, he says: With every new advance it gets simpler, and in that lies his sense of wonder. “So, that’s the God of Einstein. The God of beauty, [the idea] that says that the universe is simpler the more we study it.”
Kaku recounts:
"When scientists use the word God, they usually mean the God of Order. For example, one of the most important revelations in Einstein’s early childhood took place when he read his first books on science. He immediately realized that most of what he had been taught about religion could not possibly be true. Throughout his career, however, he clung to the belief that a mysterious, divine Order existed in the universe."
That other kind of God clearly has less appeal for Kaku, as it generally does for physicists and other scientists, including Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who says that believers he talks to tell him that God is all-powerful and good, but when he looks at ”all the ways Earth wants to kill us,” he just doesn’t see how both could be true.
So when Kaku asserts that the goal of string field theory is to “read the mind of God,” it’s important to remember he’s talking about Einstein’s God of Order. To “read the mind of God” would be to find that (one-inch) equation that explains everything in the cosmos. Bearing in mind the continual game of leapfrog going on between math and physics, and that the latest leap is physics' string theory, which requires a new type of math, Kaku mischievously suggests that the ultimate solution to the schism between physicists and mathematicians could be that God is a mathematician. And, he says, the mind of God — the explanation of Order — may turn out to be string field theory’s “cosmic music,” the resonating of strings through 11-dimensional hyperspace.
--
*ping*
My first thought was that the show either has or will reference the guy’s name, especially since I learned what a POS Chuck Lorre is.
Will miss seeing Bob Newhart on it, the only attraction for me lately except for William Shatner last week, whom I’ve met.
“String theory” - nuff said.
https://www.famousscientists.org/michio-kaku/
He did build a particle accelerator in his garage when he was a kid. So he’s got that going for him.
RE: Who is this guy?
See his credentials in Post #9 of this thread.
So he's a particle physicist, who 45 years ago described a theory that can't be tested or verified.
That qualifies him as an expert in global warming, nuclear disarmament, nuclear power, theology, extraterrestrial intelligence?
He believes that anyone who doesn't believe that global warming is the result of human activity, and who tries to test that theory scientifically, is "misusing science."
On the contrary. He personally believes in a God of order, but he correctly points out that such a belief is not falsifiable.
I built a remote controlled tank in my parents’ living room ...
from a Tamiya kit.
No wonder I didn’t go to Haavaaahd.
“String Theory”
THEORY!
The biggest mistake someone can make is to ignore either faith or reason. They actually compliment each other and need each other.
For example, Martin Luther hated reason. Just google that and find his quotes. He had no use for reason.
David Hume, on the other hand, had no use for faith. He was a utilitarian who believed that faith was not needed in any form. He was unable to understand anything that touched the mysterious.
Let us rejoice that Michio Kaku has opened his heart to consider the true Mysterious.
“He seems to me to be the science equivalent of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.”
I think you asked fair questions but I didn’t ge the above out of this article.
“Science is based on what is testable, reproducible, and falsifiable,” Kaku says. “That’s called ‘science.’ However, there are certain things that are not testable, not reproducible, and not falsifiable. And that would include the existence of God.” He’s noted that discerning whether you live in a Matrix-style construct or not would be another such ‘non-falsifiable’ problem.
That is exactly right and an example of why people like Dawkins et al are charlatans.
“...
Scientific American’s Amateur Scientist column described in detail exactly how to build a particle accelerator back in the 1960s; I would imagine his particle accelerator was strongly influenced by that column. It was based on a Vandergraff generator, and isn’t nearly powerful enough to produce antimatter.
.....”
I saw those things at high school science fairs 46 years ago, All based on that article. Some of them actually worked. Nobody died, no tunnels into a evil dimensions releasing Cthulli (did I spell that right?) & no death ray guns made & no one (at least to my knowledge!) became a super villain!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.
saw the series on Einstein, one time this guy ask Einstein if he fears God, his reply - he scares me to death. I think scientist know GOD made all of this and they appreciate or understand his power.
That dude is not as cool and groovy as he thinks he is
I'm not basing the comparison to A-O-C on the content of the article, I'm basing it on the pervasiveness of Michio Kaku in popularized science and the intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) world.
The central axis of my comparison was that — like A-O-C — this guy inserts himself into every subject and acts like he has something important to say, and the MSM amplifies his opinions and pronouncements so they sound like they're the Holy Writ and no one in their right mind would disagree.
I don't really care one way or another. He can make a buck any way he wants, and if he's figured out how to become an oracle of popular science, more power to him. He's no more harmful than Deepak Chopra, I suppose.
I'm just curious about the process by which these more or less ordinary shlubs get picked to be the go-to guy for science in general.
I've never seen that quote from Einstein. Can you document it? On the other hand:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Agnosticism,_atheism,_and_deism
From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."
In a 1950 letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.