Recent content by wittgenstein

With TOTAL RESPECT! I am still confused. So, width is not defined as perpendicular to length? Suppose there are only 2 dimensions (width and height) height would not necessarily be perpendicular to width?

My question is IF dimensions are defined as perpendicular (4- d would have to be perpendicular to a cube just as width is perpendicular to length) then how can something such as a dimension that is defined as perpendicular be coiled up? How can that be perpendicular?

Still, a couple of decades later another physicist, Oskar Klein, tried to give Kaluza's idea an interpretation in terms of quantum mechanics. He found that if this fifth dimension existed and was responsible in some way for electromagnetism, that dimension had to be scrunched down, wrapping back...

"The three spatial dimensions we are familiar with from daily life are essentially infinite, while compactified dimensions are curled up, and have a finite size that ranges from a few microns (10-6 m) down to the Planck …" FROM...

Yes, I understand that gravity is curved spacetime. But is that the dimension that is curved?

I am confused! Dimensions are defined as perpendicular, and I have read that some are coiled up. How can something be perpendicular and coiled up?

I do not believe that our brains are an uncaused cause and that we transcend the material world. "Uncaused causer" belongs in theology and perhaps metaphysics not science. I am glad that Zellinger was not talking about that!

Lord Jestocost One domino causes a domino to fall. That domino causes the next to fall. The fact that the first domino started the chain does not mean that the second domino did not cause anything. If you are correct, then we cannot cause anything (unless you are saying that our brains transcend...

Thank you for your help. Zellinger must have been writing to professionals. To a layman it sounded like he was saying that superdeterminism cannot be true because if our thoughts are predetermined, they cannot be objective, which is clearly false. My brain hurts! LOL But now (because of your...

I am only talking about "free will" because it seems to be central to the Zellinger quote, even if "free will" is defined as unbiased.

I am familiar with Dennett. My degree is in philosophy. My point is that even if we say that Zellinger meant, " This means we need to assume our thoughts don't bias the outcome of the experimental results beyond some threshold of significance. [ Jarvis} " his reasoning still falls short. Just...

It seems to me that Zellinger's point is a metaphysical point (that free will is necessary for rationality) rather than a scientific one. Cool mint. I agree the brain does create all our thoughts. We may disagree tho on the idea that the brain can violate cause and effect. I think it cannot.

That was in response to Lord Jestocost. I disagree with him and believe that free will is not required for rationality.

Are you saying that our brains do not follow the laws of cause and effect?

So we do not get our thoughts from our brains? Or are you saying that our brains transcend matter? Can computers perform rational operations or are they also required to have free will?