Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

Another God

I have only got to the end of the third page so far, and will continue catching up later when I have more time, but as I have read all of this discussion, I have slowly been able to imageina tangible 1 D string. It is not difficult once you change your mindset.

i think the problem with your reasoning on this topic LG, is that you have thie either-or situation set up in your mind, where there is your theory - The mind theory, or there is the materialist theory.

I am neither. I am loking at this current problem from the perspective of a more mathematical universe. A universe where observable reality is simply a manifestation of mathematically relative interactions. This theory is not exclusive, it could exist within the mind theory even...but it doesn't have to.

Anyway, getting to the point, if you stop questioning how 3 dimensional material couild possible exist in 1 dimension (something which is obviously absurd, so absurd that you perhaps shouldn't have bothered asking such a question, and definately shouldn't have disguised such an absurd question as something so technically difficutlt.) and start thinking of strings as a 1 d cause behind a variety of 4 dimensional realisations.

attempting to clarrify: I assume that strings do stuff. If they do stuff, then they must be able to interact. Now, do they only interact with things on their 1 D access? Or do they interact with things in 3D, 4D or 11D?????

Since I know virtually nothing about String theory, I am only guessing, but that should put us on pretty even ground I guess: So I am going to suggest that these 1D causes, these 1D origins of force...interact with things in more than 1D.

Imagine a copper wire, with electrons being passed through it. It gives off a field doesn't it? Well, now make that copper cable infinitely thin, but allow the origin of the field to remain. Sure, the copper can't possibly exist without depth, but strings aren't copper. Strings obviously aren't material. Strings are something different. Strings are 1D. But they have multiple Dimension results.

Tom Mattson

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.

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.

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.

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?

Tom Mattson

CJames: Quantum mechanics is based on 0 dimensional particles.

LG: See post to Tom. That suggestion is nonsensical - by reason.

No, not "by reason", it is "by LG's personal opinion". The universe is not subject to your a priori arguments. If such things exist, then it is the universe that will dictate it to us, not the other way around.

CJames: However, closer inspection of QM reveals that it's not as simple as that. The "0 dimensional particles" are extended into a probabisitic, multidimensional wavefunction.

LG: No they're not.

Oh, for crying out loud, yes they are! You really must stop spouting off about things you know nothing about.

Another God

So very very LOL.

Greg Bernhardt

Lets move on, this is going nowhere and it's not even about Philosophy.