Naty1 said:
I would prefer to think that eventually we will discover some formulation from which things emerge naturally...say by chance, or by some statistically based process that favors certain darwinian results over others.
Naty1 said:
I think the easiest way to reach an intuition about a minimum scale is that, there may be a smallest observable level, in the sense that there is a level of complexity where the observer is simply unable to formulate further questions.
I hate this idea, but who knows. I'd vote for an as yet undiscovered simplicity.
What I meant with this is not in contradiction with what you
say from my point of view. On the contrary do I see a way to combine them since I am not talking about a classical observer, I'm thinking about evolving observers and this goes well in line with your
darwinian idea. It was pretty much what I'm probing in the neighbour thread :
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=294823
Naty1 said:
I think strings are often now viewed a "fundamental entities"...bits of energy vibrational patterns...But what caused them to emerge from where ever they originated??
I ask the same question. I do not like the idea of fundamental continuum strings as a starting point, my comment only aimed to the general point of how can there be elementary distinguishable units (I didn't say I think it makes sense that these are strings :). The closests thing I persoanlly get strings if I try to be positive towards it, is in fact from string bits, where I picture the bits to be indistinguishable ordered states, so that when the population of bits gets high enough, the systems of states will look like a 1D continuum. I imagine that the mass of the extended object relates to the number of bits. If the bits are many enough, by the law of large numbers the string will for all practical purposes behave like an actual continuum string with a certain mass density. There are also some possible long shot ideas howto picture the string tension from this view, because the size of the string might be related to a uncertainty measure that lives in lower dimensions. It's even how I picture dynamical dimensionality, that measures defined on lower dimensions, map out an emulated higher dimension, and later on, one might argue that the measure on an alternative microstructure is more "fit", and therefor makes the higher dimensional interpretation mroe favourable although in principle they are dual. Similar do how a string traces out a membrane if you look in time. Such structures can form in the memory structure of an observer, and thus induce a map of the environment.
This is somewhat in line with my own thinking, and I can see it tangent to string things, but it's neverthelss not string theory. Even though I don't favour strings, I do see possible ways that strings in one way or the other mightr have a place in continuum models. But they are hardly fundamental as I see it. But that's just me.
/Fredrik
