Originally posted by Tom
Of course the QM picture of particles is important. From what point do you think the extension to strings is made?

Why don't you answer that. You tell me how a pointofsubstance can exist at '0D' (zero dimensions, I assume). You tell me how
something can have existence in the realm of zeroness (= nothing).
The very picture you paint  of a substantial 'dot' of energy existing at zerodimensions of existence, is logically absurd. Any reasoned analysis of "a tangibledot of energy exists in no/zero dimensions", would quickly see that:
a) A tangibledot of energy must reside in at least 1dimension of existence. It cannot exist at '0D' (nothing). It must exist at 1D.
b) A dotofenergy at 1D is a completelyuniform entity (a singularity). Furthermore, a dotofenergy cannot have any referential properties or attributes, which we associate with space & time. This is clearly obvious since a 1dimensional entity exists outside of space & time. The obvious conclusion is that all particles of '0D' (which should read 1D) are absolutely free of definitions/properties associated with space/time/motion. They are all the same
~thing~.
In answer to your question: The 'point' at which an extension to string is made, is at a 1dimensional point.
All one needs to do to see that Christianity is founded upon God is to open the Bible and read it. All one needs to do to find out what string theory is founded on is open a textbook and read it.

I have read it  many times  that stringtheory is founded upon 1dimensional strings. That's
ALL I am concerned with here. I'm not concerned with the analysis of the
proceeding stringmathematics, which are thus built from the foundationalpremise I am concerned about. You seem to be forgetting that the math
are built upon the premise. And so it is absurd to suggest that I know the mathematics before I criticise/analyse the premise. Likewise, a philosopher doesn't have to read the bible to give his opinions about 'God'.
Reason has the legitimateright to analyse
ANY premise of any argument, without understanding the complexity of the proceeding knowledge, gleamed from that premise.
Your whole criticism of my argument is a sham. It has no basis.
Stringmathematics are
founded upon 1dimensional strings. Thus any serious thinker has a legitimateright to analyse the premise of those mathematics  without knowing those mathematics.
And that's exactly what I've done. And that's exactly what you fail to address.
I have no idea of what this is about, but I assure you that the mathematics of point (0D) particles has been produced.

Of course the mathematics of 0D particles has been produced  by conveniently turning an 0D existence into a 1dimensional existence. Something which science didn't have to do anyway  since it is obvious that
Existence must occur in at least 1 dimension. I.e., there must be a singular way to define said existence, other than 'zero' or 'nothing'.
When is it going to sink into your head that I am not going to accept your take on string theory, just because you dug up some publicity websites for laymen? That's all they are, you know.

It doesn't matter anyway. 0D should read 1D. There can be no such 'thing' as an 0D particleofsubstance. A logical impossibility.
You have mischaracterized what I have said. I said that I do not have confidence in your take on string theory.

I don't have a take on stringmathematics. I have a take on 1dimensional strings. And I am concluding that these mathematics point to a
Mind as the creator of materialreality.