View Single Post
Tom Mattson
#70
Mar25-03, 05:48 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Tom Mattson's Avatar
P: 5,533
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Why don't you answer that. You tell me how a point-of-substance can exist at '0D' (zero dimensions, I assume). You tell me how something can have existence in the realm of zero-ness (= nothing).
The 0-D particles of classical mechanics are indeed idealizations of the mind. If you extend this concept to 1-D strings, you get the infinitely thin shoelaces that you are talking about.

The 0-D particles of quantum mechanics, on the other hand, have extenstion due to their wavefunctions. CJames just pointed this out. The strings of string theory are extensions of quantum particles, not classical particles.

The 'shoelace string' is not the string of string theory.

Your whole criticism of my argument is a sham. It has no basis.
String-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings.
Why do you insist on being such a blockhead? I am explaining to you that this situation is more complicated than you realize, and that you need to learn something about the subject you are attempting to analyze.

Thus any serious thinker has a legitimate-right 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.
Any serious thinker would not write that drivel.

LG, you are making inferences on what you believe string theory says. However, the statements of string theory are mathematical. You could not possibly have anything meaningful to say about string theory without knowing something of the formalism. I don't know too much about it myself, but I know that:

1. It is both quantum mechanical and Lorentz covariant.
2. It reduces to the 4 known gauge theories in the low-energy limit.
3. It is supposed to generate particle masses, spins, charges, etc.

There is no way that you could give an analysis of a theory that does all that without having a good, hard look at the theory.

I don't have a take on string-mathematics. I have a take on 1-dimensional strings. And I am concluding that these mathematics point to a Mind as the creator of material-reality.
Of course you have a take on string theory. You have been presenting it for 5 pages now. Forget the Mind for a minute, and just think about this. You say that you know enough about string theory to know what its foundations are. However, all you know of it comes from nontechnical websites. Look at the distillation process:

Full blown string theory--->Publicity website--->Lifegazer's interpretation

What totally mystifies me is that you can happily run along making inferences on what is the result of not one, but two translations of a complicated theory. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of information was lost in both of those translations.

How can that not bother you? How can you continue to ignore the points I am making?