Your rebuttal fails to take into account that string theory is both completely incapable of being tested and is a subject of debate among physicists. I.e. string theory isn't accepted by a near consensus of physicists, so you shouldn't use it in arguments.ChaoticBrain wrote:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db ... 2576#comic
In case people want to know what Zach is even talking about.
Of course, what the engineer failed to take into account is that string theory indicates that objects can be smaller than the Planck length, and those that are can basically defy the laws of physics as we can identify them on the human scale, making them, for all intents and purposes, incorporeal. And since the philosophical implication of this question is that angels are incorporeal... well, simply put, this bozo managed to make engineering look like a less legitimate field of study than philosophy.
Also, string theory explicitly does NOT allow for things to be smaller than the Planck length (and have physical properties, i.e. things less than Planck length are meaningless, the concept of "existence" is debatable at that point).
Modern theories do allow things to exist at the Planck length, it is just impossible to describe anything happening at less than Planck length (i.e. quantum effects take over and make two particles less than 1 Planck length apart completely indistinguishable).
Also, the laws of physics at the human scale are called Newtonian Mechanics. It was proved 100 years ago that they do not apply in a variety of circumstances.
