10+ Dimensions, string theory fantasies or truth?

[Rhombus]

Would that plane count as another dimension?

 

I found the website rather fun to watch, with a smoth and nice narrarator and such.. probably could be an interesting read that book, but until we are able to fold any dimension and travel like that, I don't really care since it has about 0 impact on my day to day life..

 

oh cool, there are itty-bitty particles that vibrates in a mathematical theorised 10-th dimension.. Will that delay NwN2 anything?.. no?.. next topic.

 

Still, discussing things for which my knowledge level mostly is base on reading various things on the internent is always fun..

 

Well, then you show me something real, anything, that cant be drawn in 3D

 

Good ultimatum, since it can't be met. As I assume your defenition of "real" is probably defined by what we can see and experience as humans.

 

On a final note, people are far too dismissive of the word "theory." It seems as though people think it means that it's nothing more than a guess. Most of science (as mentioned earlier) is simply a theory. Gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

 

But like electricity, the phenomena that those theories explain can be observed in day to day life, and are as such way more important to know about, and can't really be compared to M-Theory.. which, being a unification attempt, is just a theory that explains how other the effects of previous theories could work together and try to make up for their flaws.. and that we now still have to observe the phenomenas that the M-theory explains... or have I missunderstood that?

[213374U]

Is there a single law of physics that would allow a shape to revolve around anything put a point or an axis? Except in theory.

This question only makes sense in basic, euclidean geometry. There are other accepted geometric models, which you are obviously unaware of. Euclidean geometry is probably the most "intuitive" one, but is a tad outdated, and wholly insufficient when dealing with problems more complicated than calculating volumes and distances.

 

 

My point is that any 'dimensions' above 3D+time are purely theoretical and does thus not exist... except in 4D and beyond space..which is a theoretical place that doesnt exist either.

The same can be said for any number of natural phenomena we know about only from mathematical predictions, and later, indirect evidence. So, yeah. I guess the weak nuclear force doesn't exist, either.

 

 

Just to show you when math and reality parts. In mathematics its perfectly acceptable to place an apple on a table, remove 2 apples and be left with -1 apple. Now, could you do that in reality?  "

You can do that in your imagination, not in mathematics. I'll leave the implications of that for you to deduce.

 

 

on what basis do you presume to believe you are correct in this statement? I see no evidence to support Kaftan's inability to understand, simply his refusal to accept this theory.. which is not the same thing ... don't be so presumptious as to believe yourself capable of understanding things better simply because others do not accept what you take for thruth or reality..

He said "maybe". You see, it's pointless to try and explain quantum physics to somebody that can't properly solve an integral (this is just an example, I'm not making any assumptions about Kafty here), and so on, and so forth. If anyone could be a theoretical physicist, there would be no need for candidates to undergo several years of training in mathematics alone.

 

It's fine for people to have a philosophical take on existance and a cosmogony of their own, but sometimes, that is going to conflict with hard, cold facts provided by science. I know about your little logical loophole that allows you to disregard anything you wish, be it theory or "facts" (I know you will chuckle at this), but for most people, being stuck in a philosophical insufficiency supported by nothing just doesn't cut it.

 

It's pointless to continue the discussion, though. Laozi won the thread in like, page 2:

Electricity, pffft. Who uses that, everything I use is fueled by hate or raw sex appeal, or a combination of both.

 

 

Well, then you show me something real, anything, that cant be drawn in 3D

 

Good ultimatum, since it can't be met. As I assume your defenition of "real" is probably defined by what we can see and experience as humans.

As a matter of fact, that's a pretty poor "ultimatum". Alan provided a good example that takes root in our lack of proper understanding of time. But take it a little further, and try and make me a drawing of time itself. You can't draw an electron in 3D. It's just not possible, but you can easily die from having one too many of these little buggers. You can't also draw light, and tell me light doesn't exist. You can't draw cold or heat.

 

So there. The list goes on and on.

Edited July 10, 2006 by 213374U

[taks]

As for your Dad's educational background, I'm sure I don't need to tell you that Science is different from Engineering.

not as much as you would think. engineers such as myself spend a lot of time researching new theory ala scientific method. however, credentials and background are meaningless as "proof" someone is correct.

 

On a final note, people are far too dismissive of the word "theory."  It seems as though people think it means that it's nothing more than a guess.  Most of science (as mentioned earlier) is simply a theory.  Gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

so true. mathematics is really the only "science" where proof exists. and, even still, proof only exists within the assumptions of the system you are using to prove something anyway. that's sort of what i was getting at earlier, i.e. the dimensions that we can perceive are only "proved" in the same sense as higher dimensions are "proved", through the math that is used to describe them.

 

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

On a final note, people are far too dismissive of the word "theory."  It seems as though people think it means that it's nothing more than a guess.  Most of science (as mentioned earlier) is simply a theory.  Gravity, thermodynamics, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeh, I think Ive spammed forth enough stupid arguments already.

 

 

But the thing with String theory and its vast number of extra dimensions, as opposed to Thermodynamics or Gravity, is that we cannot even come close to proving any of its predictions through experiments as we can with other theories. It could be a relatively good way to make calculations on the universe, but it could also be complete nonsense. That last part seems to be forgotten, as string theory is uniformly hailed as the next holy grail of science in the media.

[213374U]

But the thing with String theory and its vast number of extra dimensions, as opposed to Thermodynamics or Gravity, is that we cannot even come close to proving any of its predictions through experiments as we can with other theories. It could be a relatively good way to make calculations on the universe, but it could also be complete nonsense. That last part seems to be forgotten, as string theory is uniformly hailed as the next holy grail of science in the media.

Give it time. If it's garbage, it'll eventually be dismissed as such, and it'll go the way of the aether. Edited July 10, 2006 by 213374U

[Kaftan Barlast]

My bet is on a dismissal

[Pidesco]

Yeh, I think Ive spammed forth enough stupid arguments already.

 

 

But the thing with String theory and its vast number of extra dimensions, as opposed to Thermodynamics or Gravity, is that we cannot even come close to proving any of its predictions through experiments as we can with other theories. It could be a relatively good way to make calculations on the universe, but it could also be complete nonsense. That last part seems to be forgotten, as string theory is uniformly hailed as the next holy grail of science in the media.

 

Sorry, but I think that bit that I highlighted falls within the "stupid arguments" category. =]"

 

You see, you don't have to see the extra dimensions to prove String theory true; all you have to do is find some sort of indirect evidence of the theory. For example, if the theory were to predict that a new particle exists and shows up when certain conditions are met, all you'd have to do is create an environment where those conditions happen, and soon you'd be able to prove that String theory is true (in a way).

 

 

Actually, this reminds me that Comte in the 19th century said that we would never discover what stars were made of because we would never be able to reach them. Well, at about the same time a physicist was doing just that through spectroscopy.

[metadigital]

I don't really care since it has about 0 impact on my day to day life..

 

oh cool, there are itty-bitty particles that vibrates in a mathematical theorised 10-th dimension.. Will that delay NwN2 anything?.. no?.. next topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.

 

The unexamined life is not worth living.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Yeh, I think Ive spammed forth enough stupid arguments already.

 

 

But the thing with String theory and its vast number of extra dimensions, as opposed to Thermodynamics or Gravity, is that we cannot even come close to proving any of its predictions through experiments as we can with other theories. It could be a relatively good way to make calculations on the universe, but it could also be complete nonsense. That last part seems to be forgotten, as string theory is uniformly hailed as the next holy grail of science in the media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry, but I think that bit that I highlighted falls within the "stupid arguments" category. "

 

You see, you don't have to see the extra dimensions to prove String theory true; all you have to do is find some sort of indirect evidence of the theory. For example, if the theory were to predict that a new particle exists and shows up when certain conditions are met, all you'd have to do is create an environment where those conditions happen, and soon you'd be able to prove that String theory is true (in a way).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats exactly the kind of experiment I was referring to. If someone was able to perform such an experiment then I would of course admit that String Theory is on to something. You either read too much or to little into my post.

 

 

random fact of joy: I got firefox to work on Linux, hooray!! )

[taks]

random fact of joy #2: my custom motherboard running a semi-custom version of linux refuses to recognize the kernel and root file system (NFS mounted, unfortunately) properly and fails to execute init during bootup. any time the message reads "kernel panic", things are not well. i'm about to drop-kick the whole kit and kaboodle.

 

taks

[Rhombus]

I don't really care since it has about 0 impact on my day to day life..

 

oh cool, there are itty-bitty particles that vibrates in a mathematical theorised 10-th dimension.. Will that delay NwN2 anything?.. no?.. next topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance.

 

The unexamined life is not worth living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hah.. I like these more:

 

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

 

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing."

 

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."

 

 

The last one is one I can agree 100% with, now if that makes me wise as the two others proclaim, I will leave to others to decide.

 

 

Painfully slow non ninja-edit:

 

Great site btw, thanks for the link. Found this one to my tastes aswell..

 

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - My old buddy, Albert.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Rhombus

[alanschu]

The one I liked was:

 

"The more you know...the more you know you don't know."

Edited July 11, 2006 by alanschu

[metadigital]

I just realised how true it is that all philosophy is really Socrates and everyone since have added footnotes ...

[Pidesco]

That would be true if Socrates had actually written anything. To this day, historians and philosophers still don't know which parts of Plato's writings involving Socrates should be considered historical accounts and what was actually Plato just using Socrates' persona to expound his own philosophical views.

[metadigital]

Irrelevant, though, as it is the "Socratic thought" as a bunch of metaphysical ontological observations rather than what some historical figure may or may not have actually said.

 

Imagine where we'd be if people were insisting on a fundamentally verbatim literal transcription of historical figures everywhere ...

[taks]

religion would have issues.

taks

[Kaftan Barlast]

I enjoy the philosophy of the great Sphinx

 

To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

 

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

 

When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.

 

and...

 

 

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...

The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...

Mr. Furious: ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?

The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

 

[Pidesco]

Irrelevant, though, as it is the "Socratic thought" as a bunch of metaphysical ontological observations rather than what some historical figure may or may not have actually said.

 

Imagine where we'd be if people were insisting on a fundamentally verbatim literal transcription of historical figures everywhere ...

 

I'm not asking for that! It's just that in this case for all we know, everything that is nowadays considered Socratic could in fact be entirely the work of Plato. And, of course if this was the case Plato should be the one to get all the respect.

 

Oh, and by the way if you ask me Plato is much more than just a footnote to Socrates his work in metaphysics and politics appears to be completely beyond anything Socrates said on those subjects.

 

P.S.: I could be wrong, but of Plato's works involving Socrates I think the only one that is considered more or less historical is the Apology.

 

 

Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, to me, Socratic Thought doesn't seem to be all that important in philosophy. Pretty much everything that has been done in philosophy seems to have gone above and beyond anything Socrates might have done, and furthermore I think he' wouldn't be able to make head or tails out of anything that has been done in philosophy, at least since St. Augustine. Plus, he seems to have been a smug bastard. :D

 

Also, the only thing that has really truly impressed me about Socrates is the bits in the Apology that are startingly similar to Christ's Sermon on the Mount.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Pidesco

[thepixiesrock]

I enjoy the philosophy of the great Sphinx

 

To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.

 

He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.

 

When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.

 

and...

 

 

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...

The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...

Mr. Furious: ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?

The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hahahahahaha, that was one of my favorite parts of the movie. Actually, the whole movie was my favorite part.

[alanschu]

So if someone says you don't know anything, is it a compliment?

[metadigital]

Yes. And no.

[metadigital]

I'm not asking for that! It's just that in this case for all we know, everything that is nowadays considered Socratic could in fact be entirely the work of Plato. And, of course if this was the case Plato should be the one to get all the respect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Plato was magnaminous.

Oh, and by the way if you ask me Plato is much more than just a footnote to Socrates his work in metaphysics and politics appears to be completely beyond anything Socrates said on those subjects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't remember asking you.

P.S.: I could be wrong, but of Plato's works involving Socrates I think the only one that is considered more or less historical is the Apology.

 

 

Edit: Actually, after thinking about it, to me, Socratic Thought doesn't seem to be all that important in philosophy. Pretty much everything that has been done in philosophy seems to have gone above and beyond anything Socrates might have done, and furthermore I think he' wouldn't be able to make head or tails out of anything that has been done in philosophy, at least since St. Augustine. Plus, he seems to have been a smug bastard. :D

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is always the way that people after the fact think that the effort to think of something was easy, even though no-one had thought of it before.

Also, the only thing that has really truly impressed me about Socrates is the bits in the Apology that are startingly similar to Christ's Sermon on the Mount.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

CONSPIRACY!? Or coincidence?

[Rhombus]

Plato is one of my favorites aswell.. his own philosophical statements have such depth it's almost frightening.. take this one about wisdom:

 

"He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato

 

It is mind boggling... such truth.. just.. damn.

 

[metadigital]

What are you saying, Rhombus? That Jesus Christ invented beer?

 

 

Well ... are you?

[alanschu]

I thought it was Yahoo Serious.

 

Oh wait, he just put bubbles in beer.