The Pseudoscience Of String Theory (Part 2)

Anyone who believes that string theory has been empirically "confirmed" in the same way that one could "confirm" that electrical current is caused by the flow of electrons has jumped ahead of the scientific evidence in favor of a mere hypothesis--meaning the premature acceptance of string theory is pseudoscientific--but this does not mean that it is not profitable to understand its significant philosophical ramifications.  In order to grasp the ramifications of string theory, one must understand the basic concept at the heart of the hypothesis.

The core of string theory is the notion that subatomic particles ultimately reduce down to tiny, vibrating strings of energy when broken down beyond quarks (which contribute to protons and neutrons).  This, if true, would mean that matter is comprised of a completely immaterial substance.  Matter itself would still be physical; it would simply be revealed that matter is comprised of something nonphysical.  Those who think that matter might not even exist as a physical substance are completely misguided, but string theory certainly entails a model where energy creates or sustains physical particles.

If string theory is correct, then one could find an explicit manifestation of supernaturalism in a seemingly unlikely place.  It is not as if supernaturalism hinges upon the truth or falsity of string theory, of course.  No one even needs to appeal to the demonstrable existence of an uncaused cause that preceded the cosmos to prove the veracity of supernaturalism, as logic, space, time, and consciousness are all strictly immaterial.  Consequently, these four existents are by definition supernatural, as an immaterial thing is distinct from the natural world, whatever the relationship between them is.

Is string theory potentially true?  Of course!  Would supernaturalism be refuted or inherently false if string theory could be proven false in full?  Not at all, as the aforementioned immaterial existents prove that the most fundamental aspects of reality are already nonphysical, and no one needs the scientific method to discover them.  A person must use the immaterial laws of logic to argue against the immateriality of logic, exist as an immaterial onsciousness in order to doubt the immateriality of consciousness, and think during the immaterial passage of time in order to argue against the immateriality of time, for example.

Thus, anyone who suggests that proving the existence of immaterial things hinges on science is deluded at best.  Science cannot even prove that matter exists to begin with; logic and immediate physical sensations do [2], although the vast majority of the historical philosophers (if not all of them) never offered even a single sound argument for the existence of matter.  If science cannot even prove that something physical and tangible exists, it certainly cannot prove the existence of anything immaterial, although some scientific concepts do connect with the metaphysics of explicitly supernatural things (like how nonphysical energy forms matter according to string theory).

The nature of recent scientific speculation has become increasingly foreign to everyday experiences, but this has only highlighted the fact that scientific models are rooted in philosophical metaphysics, even if some scientists ineptly proclaim that science has replaced philosophy--an impossible thing!  Reality is dictated and revealed by logic, not by unveriable scientific claims.  Still, despite its current unverifiability, string theory is a system with very overt philosophical implications that anyone interested in contemporary science needs to acknowledge.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-pseudoscience-of-string-theory-part.html

[2].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/08/matter-is-not-illusion.html