M-Theory versus Whitling's String Hypothesis versus Creationism

I originally wrote this to a friend who sent me a link
< http://rense.com/general61/bbang.htm > to an article posted on a web site. In it, the author predicts an untimely demise for the Big Bang theory due to misinterpretation of red shift. If all the universe is not expanding away from a central point, the author states, Big Bang is a Bust.

Be that as it may, it would be a far greater coup for those who support the notion of a continuously self-creating universe, than for the Creationists who insist on Intelligent Design. The fact is, I.D. fares better under Big Bang than without it, simply for supplying the idea of an "instant" for creation. An ongoing creation simply has no need for a creator but becomes, instead, just another natural process more correctly known as 'accretion'. Accretion, the process of growth and increase, supports only evolution.

I put this message here because atheists (and, so, panatheists) get accused of supporting a negative philosophy (NO gods, NO supernatural, NO devil, NO Hell, NO beliefs, NO…), the message inherent to that being a form of accusation that atheists resist beliefs and have, therefore, nothing upon which to frame a moral/ethical system. Nothing could be farther from the truth, and such statements violate awareness that facts show atheists to possess moral standards far greater than those of their accusers by the use of their power to reason, the reason we are atheists in the first place. Moral practices are inherently secular as it is, and such accusations serve as a coverup of that Naked Truth.

Creationists would love for their errant criticism to be true and, in fact, too many intellectually lazy atheists make it appear to be so. (Lazy, as in, "No God, so why should I care?" (apatheism)) That becomes the root from which grows the false idea of "atheists being inherently immoral and unguided; that atheists lead an unprincipled life in which they cannot be trusted to 'do right'; that atheists are, therefore, treacherous because they have no instilled 'operating system' and so feel free to behave however they want." That is the opposite to the Naked truth, which is that material atheism is derived from testable principles, whereas "revealed" doctrines come from hearsay about whatever somebody decided to say, that cannot be tested. Somebody "revealed" to somebody else what they wanted to be true, "revealed" to somebody else that a god said it, "revealed" that, even though it cannot be shown to be true, killing off all who refused to take the man at his word would leave only believers willing to carry on the spreading of it.

So, let's don our clown outfits if we don't want to ever be differently perceived. The only advantage "revealed" doctrines have over those derived from discovery has to be that any time a question arises, somebody can "reveal" an answer. They most often "reveal" different answers in different places and times, and "reveal" that they came from the supposed-to-be-same gods, and then have to "reveal" why such an abundance of difference has occurred, but they do vomit up a prolific amount of answers, which then leads to a kind of apologetics in which nobody ever apologizes.

Talk about 'moral relativity'! We who prefer tangible reality over vested-interest-supporting guesswork (Excuse me, strike that and insert "revelations") are forced to wait while a reluctant system of discovery coughs up correct answers and then verifies them to be true. Meanwhile, supporters of self-proclaimed "revealed" answers have dug in and built forts around their systems and work hard to undermine what they then proclaim to be "attacks by atheistic heretics against The Truth". Infidels on parade. How often have you lived through that process in your short lifetime?

That is the wrong way to go about things! Ignorance supports the existence of a nonexistent set of gods. Hard and interested study, refusal to accept assumptions as fact, and a complete lack of evidence erodes unfounded beliefs and the self-proclaimed revelations upon which they get founded. Removal of all credence relegated to a nonexistent set of primitive gods ought to undermine the veracity of self-proclaimed revelations and show them to be what they actually are: Lies, mainly "revealed" in accordance to whatever commercial or vested interest they succor. Who are the true infidels? Remove all basis for proclaiming "revelations" and you remove the main source for all the manipulative dogma in support of dangerous wrong-headed belief systems. That requires starting at some point previous to the 'beginning' and working things out from there.

While all kinds of assumptions have been contrived in its support, what was formerly known as "String Theory" serves that purpose by demonstrating with mathematical precision why an Intelligent Designer (also an assumption on the part of creationists) is an unnecessary contrivance rigged up to explain away a self-creating universe. It violates the principle of parsimony as well as the defeasibility principle, on top of Newtons Rules for Reasoning. The universe can be as well understood without it as with it, while eliminating one more unanswerable question asked about nothing in evidence. Also, thrown in as a straw man to draw discussions away from the main topic of interest in his essay, String Theory does not require the Big Bang to function; it is, in fact, even more likely to be true without the singular Big bang.

Enter Whitling's First, Second, and Third Hypotheses:
at the link given later in this textual body.

All the idea of strings accomplishes for me is to provide a tenable view not only alternative to the faulty Genesis story, but with more likelihood of complying with the facts (and Newton's Rules of Reason) (and Occam's Razor) (and a bunch of other stuff). My String Hypothesis offers a reasonable view of a self-creating, self-sustaining universe an average, reasonable, thoughtfully studious person can quickly grasp.

That is, in fact, about the only relationship my 'String Hypothesis' has with the mathematical philosophy that now supports 11 dimensions, has taken into account all the variations of String Theory, and is now known as "m-theory". It is a mathematical theory, not a scientific theory, because the posits and proofs are entirely mathematical. Like one plus one equals two: It's mathematical, it's true, but it's not scientific. Most people will not realize that makes a difference: Science is based on materially testable evidence and proofs, and mathematics may not be able to supply that in our lifetimes, if ever, regarding this theory. Still, not even mathematics gives tenable support for any part of Creationism, not even Dembski's or Behe's stuff.

What my 'string hypothesis' mainly attempts to convey is an idea about how strings could be generated in matter-free space, by interaction between the only two conditions present before material erupted into existence. It tries to describe how, although time nor space have any physical kind of existence, their natures are very different but interactive (as in 'Space/Time Continuum').

You may think it strange to think so, but it is, in fact, their lack of tangible existence that places both in the same playing field, where they may conflict or interact with each other in a way that produces energy. Energy equals material. That answers the Creationist claim of there being no alternative to a Supreme Creator as the originator of existence.

All the rest of it falls downhill in importance after that. Ask a question: The Supreme Creator still needs some kind of its own origination explained, and so does not at all answer the question of how it all got started. It is a chimera, an enigma. Time and space, on the other hand, 'exist' because time passes (one way or another) and space can be found anywhere something else does not take it up, on their own, with no necessary point of origin, forever in both directions (they both being backward and forward to infinity). The question may remain: which is more apt to be true, the string hypothesis, or the Genesis Myth? A better question is: Which moves us closer to the truth, the string hypothesis or the Genesis Myth?

My attempts to describe the ten (eleven?) dimensions of physical existence complies with ancient ideas about the three material realms: micro, macro, and cosmo. I drew some pictures of it that I put on here: http://community.webshots.com/album/74456720RNfqJL, an attempt to use two dimensions to describe 11.

Strings get described (by those who do the math) as being helical in shape: that would give them the three dimensions required for physical presence. The helix may be open-ended or closed in a circular loop. The link will also take you to a graphic about my first and second hypothesis.

However it might get plotted out, ability to conceive of shifts in viewpoint is what makes the three-realm description of existence tenable. Example: As seen from within the micro realm (that of strings, atoms, electrons, molecules , quarks, muons, and all of that) the macro realm that we occupy would look much like the heavens seem to us. We would have to do a complete viewpoint shift to view things from the macro realm wherein we perceive ourselves to exist, but we recognize it is here only as a result of all the tiny invisible particles that give us such firm footing (or a hard place on which to land when we do slip, as I now can very well vouch). We can extrapolate that, and see how what we call moons, stars, planets, etc would serve as particles in a similar fashion to a gigantoid standing on the surface of the universe.

I paused in the writing of this to watch "The Elegant Universe" on our local PBS station. The description of M-theory made by all those pedigreed people is very different from my view of the universe. Theirs leaves a lot to be explained, however 'elegant' their mathematics is: Where did the 'branes' come from (where did God come from?)? How can the branes exist as separate 'parallel' units (Where is heaven?--why can't we find it?)? If strings exist as tiny bits of energy, where did they come from (where did the Heaven come from that God existed in)?

You can find more about The Elegant Universe at the eddress, PBS.org. My point here is that their presentation still leaves the same questions as creationism, and so is not satisfactory.

If I sat here for hours writing this, I would likely end up with a host of such examples of such questions, but I will stick to the Writers' Rule of Threes. My String Hypothesis has the advantage of simplicity, independence, lack of such questions, plausibility to anyone who can once get a handle on it (which I think ought to be easy) but people need to first conquer their own resistance and reluctance to consider it, to not reject it out of hand the way they do, to not wrongly associate it with anything other than its own self (and to get beyond all those other things that would also take me beyond the Rules of Threes). In other words, they need to understand, take to heart, and follow (that's three!) Thom E. Blaylock's commendable advice in the Honest Man's Philosophy. <http://www.jovialatheist.com/hmp000.html>

In my view, the so-called 'Parallel Dimensions' would not be 'parallel, they would be more accurately stated as 'tangential'. The one-dimensional condition known as 'time' constitutes the first dimension on the string hypothesis (a more correct term than 'theory') and builds upon that, three dimensions at a time, upward through the three realms of perception for a complete-but-simple view of the universe. I believe the eleventh dimension is gravity, a result of material's presence in space. For further study:
The Complete Universe of Memes; Reality 101

EVOLUTION:

Life on earth began in the oceans, when simple proteins gained an ability to replicate.

Evolution proceeds as defects in the replication process sometimes prove beneficial in the confines of all the varied conditions life found as it spread, and as variations die away that do not 'fit' as well into an environment as those with which they compete. Defects that did not meet or enhance the ability of life to persist proved fatal, which did not promote that particular defect's ability to persist in those conditions. When circumstances change, different features may be those which aid survival in the ongoing competition between and within a species, sometimes even seeming to reverse when circumstances require.

The beginning of animal life began with the sponges, not with apes as anti-evolutionists are laughably apt to insist. In fact, it is conceivable that apes and monkeys could have evolved from us, and that we are relatively hairless because of having lived as sea animals before going inland to find room as our numbers increased.

Think about that!

Predators Versus Prey

Both are requirements for natural ecological balance. Within human societies, predators are quite apt to pretend they are prey in order to gain sentiments in their favor and against the social elements they seek to overcome. Any efforts at self-defense made by their victims are then seen as attacks by the majority of a society thus convinced about their 'evil' ways.

It Starts in Time

It might seem it would take time forever to build a universe. Time has had forever in the past, and another forever in the future to do whatever it will. From our puny vantage point in space, and our own puny spans of existence, that may seem inconceivable. We are, however, barely noticeable winks in comparison, our existences hardly meaningful in the scheme of it all.