How is it that scientists can believe in HILBERT SPACES but NOT HEAVEN???

Question

In other words, why is it they can beleive in 10 dimensional spaces....6 more than we're accustomed to....but HEAVEN couldn't possibly be one of those????

Eggman..."String Theory" proposes EXACTLY that. 10 dimensional space.

Ah...so if we haven't PROVEN something's existence, then it doesn't exist at all??????
That's pretty arrogant, isn't it?

Answer 1

The job of science is to search for proximate causes.
The job of religion is to seek ultimate causes. There is no conflict unless one of them is not doing it's job correctly.
Scientists are not acting in a scientific capacity if they claim
that heaven is a scientific fact. That's like expecting your baker to build a space shuttle. Science does not say that heaven does not exist. Science does not have the tools to make that decision.

Answer 2

Science makes observations of the physical universe and then tries to theorize physical explanations.

Science is looking for the facts. It doesn't know the answers. It freely admits that.

Most religion is obtuse. Nearly all religion is based on dogma. It's not based, generally, on asking questions and finding answers. It's based on "don't question," and "here's the answer."

Religion is hypocritical. It denies science he right to look for the truth. When science says, "We don't know," religion says, "See! You can't prove what you say is true! It is, therefore, clearly wrong." But, for some reason, religion doesn't feel it necessary to apply the same criteria to themselves (hypocrisy). They blame everything on some deity or other (which one depends on the religion), but feel no need to prove the existence of their particular deity. They expostulate, "Of course HE (or SHE, or IT) exists. You have to believe it," and then they add smugly, "or you'll go to hell."

Why can't religion, if they're so sure of their contention that, for some reason, a spiritual deity would need to create a material universe, leave science alone to search for the truth? Maybe one day science will turn over a rock and find absolute proof that religion was right along.

Maybe it's because religion has been proved wrong so often by science. Let's see....
=> The Earth was flat.
=> There's a heaven "out there" somewhere.
=> The Earth was the center of the universe. People were killed because of this one.
=> The Earth was the center of the solar system. People were excommunicated because of this one.
=> Man is the only intelligent life in the universe. By the way, science has tried to help them on this one... but they have to keep revising the definition of intelligence in an effort to keep man on top. So religion took it away from science and contends that man is the only critter with a soul. But, since nobody can prove man doesn't have a soul or that other critters do... or even whether or not a soul exists at all, religion claims victory.

N-dimensions is rationally possible in mathematics. Finding a distance in n dimensions is just as easy as in two dimensions or three. The same mathematical rules apply the physical laws that apply in three dimensions are a subset of those that apply in n dimensions.

Heaven apparently isn't "out there" somewhere. Those who contend that it is, really should read their particular holy books. I know one that specifically states where heaven is. Yet most religions assure us that it's a place where all "good little boys and girls go." We've looked into space a little, and we have yet to find the planet or galaxy called "heaven." At least deity hasn't marked it too well. Science again, doesn't know for sure, but so far, while it can mathematically justify the existence of multiple dimensions, it hasn't found any indication of heaven.

Answer 3

A Hilbert space and "10 dimensional spaces" are a mathematical constructs, like a Taylor expansion. Scientists "believe" in them for the same reason they "believe" in the Pythagorean Theorem - because they've been proved in the mathematical realm with mathematical rigor. They are not even physical objects whose existence you can dispute - just abstractions.

Heaven isn't in the physical world either. What can you say about its existence proof? Where's the theorem?

Re second follow up. I never said you need to prove something for it to exist. Your question pertains to *belief*, not existence. Not believing something without proof is not arrogant, it's the definition of objectivity. Nonobjective people such as yourself first accept something as true "fooor the Biiiible tells me soooo" , and then require weekly validation from priests to maintain the cognitive dissonance that results from subsequently pondered inconsistencies. Better check your calender, there might be a Retreat coming up.

Answer 4

A true scientist doesn't *believe* in anything. Science is about formulating theories that explain what is observed, and extrapolating those theories to assist in creating new things.

Newton observed several things in nature and proposed theories/laws that explained them and and for several centuries scientists used his work to create devices that didn't exist. When Einstein came along and proposed what essentially rendered Newton's works to be technically incorrect, scientists examined his work purely on merit and adopted it because it explained the environments in both the Newtonian- and the relativistic worlds.

There's nothing that prevents someone from proposing something that explains everything we observe today, and highlights flaws in Einstein's work. The point being scientists dont believe in something so strongly that we reject any rational explanation that it is wrong.

We may view Newton's calculations to be incorrect, but we still consider Newton to be a great scientist because at the time he formulated them, it was a great step forward, and even today for the overwhelming majority of situations, his calculations are completely adequate.

This is the primary difference when we discuss heaven and other religious assertions. Their proponents do not tolerate any line of thinking that shows their assumptions to be flawed, regardless of what the evidence is.

Here are a couple of questions for you to think about the infinitely powerful God and Heaven:

1. If God is infinitely powerful and can solve any problem, can he solve problems such as:
a) Create a problem that is so difficult that God is incapable of solving or b) create an evil that is so strong that it will destroy him.

2) If God is all-knowing, he knows exactly how many great-great-grandchildren you'll have and which of those will go to heaven, and which wont. Given that he's never incorrect, poor Jill who will be born in 2250 has already been sentenced to Hell for eternity, and there's nothing she do in her life to change that, while her twin, lucky Jack has a free ride to Heaven regardless of what he does in his life because God knows that fact today. So please explain the part of the fair loving God - imagine if we had laws on our books that did the same for people six generations down.

3) A commonly touted version of heaven is one we are reunited with our loved ones who passed the God test. Assume you married a widowed woman and on the magical day, you, your wife, and her first husband all showed up in heaven. Please explain how you'll coexist in total happiness.

Answer 5

The universes being 'comparable' to ours potential that the constants in physics are distinctive. If string concept is genuine, then each universe has distinctive values for constants. There could be some universes the place ? is distinctive, meaning that the probabilistic nature of the sub-atomic international is basically distinctive. There could be universes the place the cosmological consistent is particularly great, meaning that atoms rip aside. There could be universes the place Newton's consistent could be plenty larger, meaning that gravity is plenty greater than it extremely is in our universe. If the Everett interpretation of the quantum mechanics wave-functionality is genuine, then each little thing it is bodily achieveable can and could ensue in yet another reality. it extremely is a advantageous theory, yet once you study string concept and/or quantum mechanics in mathematical element, you will locate that the assumption of heaven and hell being in replace universes is impossible. additionally, i do no longer see that anti-count has to do with this.

Answer 6

Extra dimensions are a mathematical requirement of some string theories. They are not a question of belief. If experimental evidence is not found to support their existence, then they don't exist. Plain and simple. And string theory is then wrong.

Just like heaven. If you cannot find physical evidence of its existence, then it doesn't exist. Period.

Answer 7

because God Made the mathematics of finding heaven too eluding and so the scientists can't prove it and they believe only in what their numbers tell them.they might be able to prove Hilbert Spaces and so since the numbers give them a definite answer,they believe it.
guess they should have more Faith and trust a more in God than in numbers.

Answer 8

I don't think scientists are ready to say anything definitive about alternate dimensions at this time. There is no evidence yet to suggest that heaven is an alternate dimension from our own 3 spatial dimensions, its just something that you obviously WANT to believe, and there is no room for that in the scientific method.

Answer 9

because they don't want to believe in Heaven,