Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What??
Mentat, I doubt very much whether you even understood my post.
What sort of a response is this?

I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way. You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
M-theory is founded upon a 2-dimensional membrane.

In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundamental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.

You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
In actual, M theory has been called a democracy of branes. It is not founded on the concept of 2 dimensional branes, but branes of ALL spatial extents. A 1 dimensional brane (a string) is no more fundamental than a 2D or 3D brane, going all the way up to a 10D brane.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

... Scroll down to just over halfway. The back-drop to this 1-dimensional activity is presented as a 2-dimensional surface - in this case, a sphere.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.

http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/mainpage.html

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".
A 2-d membrane has zero thickness = it's impossible for such a membrane to have a tangible reality unto itself.

Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by (Q)
Lifegazer: Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness.
And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

Appeal to Ignorance Argument. Using your logic, if you cannot explain how to fly the space shuttle, then accept my reasoning that no one is able to fly the space shuttle in space.

It's not an appeal to ignorance. I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.
Given that people such as yourself refuse to address my own reason, I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.

Name them. Explain why they are fallacies. Say something meaningful.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.

Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

 

[Lifegazer]

Forget 'membranes' if you want. Let's talk about 1-dimensional strings... which are fundamental to M-theory.
How can something exist as a material entity if it has zero width and zero breadth?

 

[Eh]

I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"

Mathematically (logic) it seems that we have nothing to refute the idea, no matter how repulsive the concept of 1 dimensional objects seems. Unfortunately, string theory is not the only quantum gravity candidate that attempts to build a theory based on 1 dimensional "things".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Eh
I don't know, it's kind of like a 5 dimensional person demanding, "how can a material object exist with zero (insert name for measure of 4th dimension here) and zero (insert name for measure of 5th dimension here)?"

A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.

 

[quantumdude]

I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.

Some points:

On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’? We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us. The first major revision in our concept of tangibility came when we learned that atoms are mostly empty space. Who’s to say that this will not be another radical revision (indeed, it promises to be)?

On 1D Strings
Recall that the particles of QFT are 0-dimensional. However, when one looks closer, one sees that they are dressed in a cloud of virtual particles. Does anyone here know whether strings are similarly dressed? Does anyone know if there is some other phenomenon at work?

On LG’s Argument
Let's imagine a 2-dimensional membrane, for example. It's easy to imagine one. It's easy to coneptualise one.
But now, let's talk about the tangible reality of such a concept. Can such a thing exist beyond our perception/imagination of it?
When you consider that a 2-dimensional membrane has length and breadth - but zero width - then it becomes clear that it cannot exist beyond the mind's imagination. **For how can such a membrane have tangible existence (external existence), if it has zero thickness?**

By reason, it cannot. A 2-dimensional entity can only exist within the mind, as a concept.

LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.

That is an appeal to ignorance. I know I have told you this about a half dozen times, but I am going to tell you again. The appeal to ignorance argument is as follows:

X has never been proven/disproven. Therefore, X (does not exist)/exists.

You just did it up there, but you were a lot more longwinded about it.

Typical LG Argumentaion
I once tried to explain to LG why he does not convince anyone of anything. I explained that the basic program of his debate style is as follows:

1. Make an invalid argument (typically using the fallacies of appeal to ignorance, appeal to incredulity, or equivocation).
2. Insist that he is right until someone proves him wrong (and even this does not matter, because he does not accept any disproofs of his ideas).


Is that happening here I wonder?

Mentat: “I understood your posts perfectly, especially the parts where you stated that 2d membranes could not exist. This may be what you believe, but you shouldn't try to make others believe the same way.

LG: Come on Mentat - I presented reason for my conclusion. It's got nothing to do with "belief".

Incorrect. You presented questions and assertions, nothing more. No valid argument was ever presented.[/color]

Mentat: You seem to believe that, just because you don't believe in 1-d or 2-d objects, they cannot exist, but this is not necessarily the truth.

LG: Okay Mentat... I'm listening. Explain to this forum how a 2-dimensional membrane can exist if it has zero thickness. And if you cannot do it, then accept the reason of my argument.

This is shifting the onus of proof. You failed to make your case, and you will cling to it as long as no one proves the opposite. That is not logic, that is subtrefuge.[/color]

Mentat: The answer is the same as that of, "How can a three-dimensional object exist, without extent in the fourth spatial dimension?". It just does.

LG: You call this a reasoned response?

Why not? It’s every bit as reasoned as your argument, and it has the added bonus of being consistent with the known principle that the universe tells us how it behaves, not the other way around.[/color]

Mentat: Side note: I did not mean to offend you, by calling it a belief, but you didn't actually present a good reason for me to believe as you do.

LG: Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

This is another attempt to shift the onus of proof. LG, you are the one who needs to show why it is impossible for such a thing to exist. Answer the question.[/color]

LG, people are responding to your “argument” (and I use that term very loosely in your case), and there are no evasive maneuvers going on here, except the ones you are pulling![/color] You have been squirming for two pages now, and getting quite indignant about it. You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
I looked at the websites provided by LG and nowhere in them did I find string theory presented. It seems that LG is still chasing geese.

Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?

On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘tangible’?

It would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.

We know from experience that a priori arguments cannot settle the issue. We cannot dictate to the universe what it is to qualify for existence, the universe dictates it to us.

If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.

LOL

Your argument is basically:
1. Imagine a 2D membrane.
2. Can it exist beyond our imagination?
3. It cannot exist beyond our imagination.
4. For how can it exist beyond our imagination?
5. Therefore, it cannot exist beyond our imagination.

Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.

That is an appeal to ignorance.

I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves. Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.

You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong. [/B]

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

I have presented my reasons for showing why the aforementioned concepts cannot be 'real' unto themselves - reasons which, so far, not a single person here has addressed.

No one has addressed your reasons because they are based on assumptions that you alone seem to comprehend.

If anyone here understands the mathematics behind string theory, and I doubt anyone here does, they would still not be able to explain them to you simply because you don’t understand the mathematics nor probably ever will.

How is it possible for anyone to accept your so-called “reasoning” when you are unable to comprehend an answer to a question that you also do not comprehend?

I presented Mentat/anyone with the opportunity to support (using reason) their own belief - that concepts can exist unto themselves, externally to the mind.
And what do I get? An evasive manoeuvre about appeals to ignorance.

The pointing out of a fallacious argument is not evasive - it is necessary. No one is going to argue a pet theory based on fallacies and nonsense. You can rant all you want and declare yourself the “Big Kahuna” simply because you think no one can produce a valid argument that refutes reality exists within a single mind.

Why should anyone waste his or her time arguing someone else’s delusions?

You’re clearly way out of your league.

 

[(Q)]

Lifegazer

A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.
Imagine a 1-dimensional line. It can exist within your mind. But in 'reality', such a line has zero thickness and zero breadth. Result: Such lines are a concept of our imagination.
Consequence: There is no reasonable way to posit the external-existence of any such strings. They can only exist as thoughts.

Strawman argument – Appeal to Ignorance -more fallacies.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?

Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.

It (edit-the requirement for tangibility) would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.

Well, there you have it. You've assumed your conclusion in your definition of "tangible".

If a line (string) has no other extension in space than its own length, then it cannot have any extension in space. For a line without any other dimensions of extension cannot have substance unto itself. It's an imaginary-line... a conceptual-string.

You are just asserting again, because your conclusion comes from your definition of "tangible".

Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.

LG, I presented the whole argument. You have presented no reasons or examples.

I gave reasons for what I stated. They were (and have still been) ignored or evaded. I then invited reasoned explanation to counter my argument by explaining how such entities can exist unto themselves.

LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument? Your entire style of debating is exactly as I said it is. You construct an invalid argument (or in this case, no argument at all!) and then maintain a skeptical position on the opposite of your conclusion. That is not logic! That is appeal to ignorance.

Again, nothing has been forthcoming.
There is only one reasoned point-of-view here, and that has been my own. Responses have been largely evasive and defensive. Such as your own, here.

You are so biased, it is unbelievable. LG, I analyzed your argument, and found that it is complete BS. I explained in detail why. The only evading here is being done by you. When you say that you have 'reasoned' your conclusion when you have not presented a valid argument, you just make yourself look dumb.

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?

Appeal to ignorance, once again.

You are hopeless.

You're free to cling to your little religion if you want, but stop clubbing people over the head when they don't want to go to your church. When you start being logical, then you will gain some credibility.

 

[Kerrie]

please continue your string theory discussion here...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You call this a reasoned response?
Actually, a 3-dimensional object can exist without the dimension of time. But a 3-dimensional-object cannot change without the dimension of time.

Really? You think that a plain with zero thickness can exist unto itself? You need to think about this carefully. How can a plain actually exist, if it has zero thickness? Answer the question.

Did you read my post at all? I said "fourth spacial dimension! How can something exist without extent in the fourth spacial dimension? The answer is, it just does. And thus, that is the answer to "how can something exist, without extent into the 3 dimension?".

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.

Then my point is made: string-theories are founded upon 1-dimensional entities. This is what science is saying - not me.

My argument studys this premise. It asks what it actually means to be a 1-dimensional being (i.e., a string... or, for practical purposes: a line).
What it means - by reason - is that a singular point is extended/stretched in accordance with that dimension - in this case, 'length'. The resultant entity is represented as a line (a string).
... Now; the important question follows: How can a line (or a string) actually have an extended existence - upon a length - whilst having zero-width and zero-breadth?
The correct answer is not "We cannot know.", or "There's no way of knowing."; for we have reason to resolve this issue.
And reason states that a real string cannot have substance, unless it has breadth and width amongst its length.
Remember; we're considering a tangible string, where both ends are connected by a line of itself. But if that line has zero breadth and zero width - and zero any other dimension, as 1-dimensional would imply - then that 'string' cannot have substance. A length with zero thickness of any dimension, can only exist in the mind.

LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument?

Is the argument above, not clear? Do I not give reasons for my conclusions? You might disagree with those reasons, but you cannot call them assertions.

 

[Lifegazer]

With my last post in mind, I should add that if string-theory is correct, that physics is advocating explaining material-reality via concepts borne of the Mind. I.e.; physics is seeking to explain the origins of our perceived universe via things which emanate from the mind. Essentially, this means that physics is positing the theory that our perceived reality emanates from Mind.

 

[Lifegazer]

I would also like to remind the reader that what I have said here is not a refutation of any particular string-theory. The whole point of everything I have said is to draw the reader's attention to the fact that string-theories are borne of conceptual entities. Thus if science wants to continue down this track, then it should acknowledge that it is now looking to the Mind as the source of material entities.

 

[FZ+]

Do you then see logical extrapolations/interpolations, and mathematics as products of the mind? It seems to me that it is only reasonable that theoretically conclusions from limited observation, and mathematically derived probables as being derived and interpreted from the original piece of evidence, not from the source of the mind. Ie. The mind is the processor, not the creator.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Do you then see logical extrapolations/interpolations, and mathematics as products of the mind?

Mathematics is most-definitely a product of the mind. It's a language, devised by the understanding within man's mind - his reason.

It seems to me that it is only reasonable that theoretically conclusions from limited observation, and mathematically derived probables as being derived and interpreted from the original piece of evidence, not from the source of the mind. Ie. The mind is the processor, not the creator. [/B]

In order to understand universal-data, the mind must first have the ability to comprehend that data. The ability to reason precedes the ability to 'know'.
Even at the origins of sensory-awareness, the mind must already understand what it is representing as sensation upon awareness, for sensory-awareness is a subjective- representation of an external-environment... and it is impossible to 'represent reality' unless 'reality' is already understood.
And so the mind already knows what it is seeing before awareness becomes aware of it. I.e., the Mind (at a subconscious level) understands what it is seeing before it becomes aware of those sensory-images.
This is highly significant. It is clear to see that 'Minds' had the ability to understand/reason universal-data before knowing what that data was saying. It is also clear to see that 'Minds' understood their environment prior to perceiving of it.

Thus, the origins of 'Mind' (in any organism), saw the absolute-origins of reason and understanding - not to forget creative-ability and the freedom-of-will and ability/power to
represent this 'reality' with sensory-subjectiveness. All these facets were instantly-present at the origin of Mind. They were not created by any evolutionary process. They were instantaneous attributes.
Any organism which perceives of its environment, secretly knows that environment before perceiving of it. And if the diversity and splendour of our own sensations are anything to go by, then the ability to artisticly create sensory-awareness, is an ability not to be scoffed at: turning photonic-data into colour-experience, for example; is an act which ranks-greater than
turning water into wine. It is an act of absolute will, and absolute
ability. It's a Self-act.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did you read my post at all? I said "fourth spacial dimension! How can something exist without extent in the fourth spacial dimension? The answer is, it just does. And thus, that is the answer to "how can something exist, without extent into the 3 dimension?".

Do you get it now?

 

[Mentat]

Lifegazer, I would like to humbly ask that you stick to one line of reasoning, and not contradict yourself. You posit that the Mind is the creator of all perceived reality in one post, while in many previous posts, you have called string theory absurd because the ideas (In Your Opinion) could only exist in the mind. This kind of self-contradiction is irritating and betrays a lack of confidence in your seemingly strong convictions.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then my point is made: string-theories are founded upon 1-dimensional entities. This is what science is saying - not me.

It would be best if you stop declaring "what science says". You have never looked at string theory in detail. All you know of it (and me too, for that matter) comes from publicity webpages for lay people. I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that picturing a string as an extremely short, infinitely thin shoelace is not right.

My argument studys this premise. It asks what it actually means to be a 1-dimensional being (i.e., a string... or, for practical purposes: a line).

Your argument simply rejects the premise, with no explanation. All you did was say that the strings of string theory cannot be tangible, because tangibility requires spatial extent in 3 dimensions (which is the very point on the table). You then bolster that claim by asking, how a 1D string can be tangible.

Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious.

What it means - by reason - is that a singular point is extended/stretched in accordance with that dimension - in this case, 'length'. The resultant entity is represented as a line (a string).
... Now; the important question follows: How can a line (or a string) actually have an extended existence - upon a length - whilst having zero-width and zero-breadth?

Yes, that is the question. The problem is that we have no definitive answer yet.

The correct answer is not "We cannot know.", or "There's no way of knowing."; for we have reason to resolve this issue.

I never said that we cannot know, I said that we do not know. It is not possible to answer this with reason alone. When it comes to questions of science, experiment, not reason, is the final court of appeals.

And reason states that a real string cannot have substance, unless it has breadth and width amongst its length.
Remember; we're considering a tangible string, where both ends are connected by a line of itself. But if that line has zero breadth and zero width - and zero any other dimension, as 1-dimensional would imply - then that 'string' cannot have substance. A length with zero thickness of any dimension, can only exist in the mind.

That is pure assertion on your part. All you've done is restate your conclusion.

Is the argument above, not clear? Do I not give reasons for my conclusions? You might disagree with those reasons, but you cannot call them assertions.

I can and I do call them assertions. Yes, your argument is clear. It was clear the first time you posted it, too. The problem is that it is clearly invalid[/color].

The whole thing goes like this:

1. String theory uses 1D strings as objects.
2. Tangible objects must have extent in 3 dimensions.
3. Therefore, stringsgs cannot be tangible, by 1 and 2.
4. How can they be tangible?

Premise 1 is disputable, for the reasons I gave. The strings could be (and probably are) dressed. Also, I would like to know how quantum fluctuations affect things.

Premise 2 is what makes the argument circular. You have simply assumed your conclusion here. Also, your definition of tangible is wrong. All it means for something to be tangible is that it must be able to be detected. It is not at all clear that the strings of string theory cannot interact with detection devices, and thus be considered tangible.

The conclusion (#3) is simply a restatement of Premise 2.

The question (#4) is an appeal to ignorance.

That is why your argument is rejected.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Tom
It would be best if you stop declaring "what science says". You have never looked at string theory in detail. All you know of it (and me too, for that matter) comes from publicity webpages for lay people. I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that picturing a string as an extremely short, infinitely thin shoelace is not right.



Your argument simply rejects the premise, with no explanation. All you did was say that the strings of string theory cannot be tangible, because tangibility requires spatial extent in 3 dimensions (which is the very point on the table). You then bolster that claim by asking, how a 1D string can be tangible.

Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious.



Yes, that is the question. The problem is that we have no definitive answer yet.



I never said that we cannot know, I said that we do not know. It is not possible to answer this with reason alone. When it comes to questions of science, experiment, not reason, is the final court of appeals.



That is pure assertion on your part. All you've done is restate your conclusion.



I can and I do call them assertions. Yes, your argument is clear. It was clear the first time you posted it, too. The problem is that it is clearly invalid[/color].

The whole thing goes like this:

1. String theory uses 1D strings as objects.
2. Tangible objects must have extent in 3 dimensions.
3. Therefore, stringsgs cannot be tangible, by 1 and 2.
4. How can they be tangible?

Premise 1 is disputable, for the reasons I gave. The strings could be (and probably are) dressed. Also, I would like to know how quantum fluctuations affect things.

Premise 2 is what makes the argument circular. You have simply assumed your conclusion here. Also, your definition of tangible is wrong. All it means for something to be tangible is that it must be able to be detected. It is not at all clear that the strings of string theory cannot interact with detection devices, and thus be considered tangible.

The conclusion (#3) is simply a restatement of Premise 2.

The question (#4) is an appeal to ignorance.

That is why your argument is rejected.

I think you've covered most of the points I was going to make very well, Tom.

As far as quantum fluctuations go: AFAIK they are responsible for the "small" size of the particle. What I mean is that the photon (for example) appears massless because quantum fluctuations have canceled out the mass caused by the vibrations of the string. I wish I could be more precise, but I'm not an expert (and can just barely understand some of the basic math of string theory).

I would like to put some emphasis on a point that you made, namely that things do not have to have extent in the 3rd dimension, in order to exist. As I pointed out before, that would be like saying that I don't exist, because I don't have extent into the fourth dimension.

 

[quantumdude]

Here is another illogical leap that has crept into this discussion.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I should add that if string-theory is correct, that physics is advocating explaining material-reality via concepts borne of the Mind.

The Mind is not a logical necessity of this argument. There is another possibiilty, namely that if string theory is correct, then we have to revise our understanding of what it means to be 'tangible'. As I noted earlier, this would not be the first time we have had to do such a thing.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
It would be best if you stop declaring "what science says". You have never looked at string theory in detail.

I've read enough to know that science says string-theories our founded upon 1-dimensional strings. And the two links I provided actually stated this too. So I'm bemused as to why you'd keep repeating these objections.

All you know of it (and me too, for that matter) comes from publicity webpages for lay people. I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that picturing a string as an extremely short, infinitely thin shoelace is not right.

A 1-dimensional string can be nothing other than that, by logical default. As soon as you try and make it something else, the premise that it is a 1-dimensional string becomes defunct.
I would also like to add that "infinitely thin" is a tangible impossibility, thus enforcing the point I've already been making.
The reason why it is a tangible-impossibility, is that the actual existence of that string, means that it has a definite existence. Infinity is an intangible-concept, as you must surely-agree. Hence you should also agree - since it follows - that "an infinitely thin, but tangible/existent string", is a logical impossibilty.

Now, my gripe here is not that a 1-dimensional string cannot exist; because it clearly can: in the mind. My gripe is that no scientist would ever acknowledge the significance of this. For what it means, is that fundamental-energy is emanating from a 1-dimensional source, and within a 1-dimensional source: The Mind.
There is no such thing as a 1-dimensional tangible-object. Thus, if reality truly is emanating from 1-dimensional energy, then the Mind has created the universe... and physics has finally found the essence of 'reality'.[/color]

Your argument simply rejects the premise, with no explanation.

I have not rejected the premise of a 1-dimensional string. I've merely tried to explain why that premise proves that reality is of Mind.
Like I said - I'm not disputing the credibility of string-theories. I'm merely trying to show what they really are, and what this means.

All you did was say that the strings of string theory cannot be tangible, because tangibility requires spatial extent in 3 dimensions (which is the very point on the table).

No. I said that tangibility would require the existence of at least 3 spatial dimensions. I explained why nothing tangible can exist in 1 or 2 spatial-dimensions (zero thickness of 1 or 2-dimensional entities = zero existence of said entity = such entities can only exist as a concept.). Thus, the "very point" has been addressed. But you still insist that I am giving no reasons for saying this. Which part of the above would you not class as constructive reasoning?

You then bolster that claim by asking, how a 1D string can be tangible.

I was only enforcing my point. You have no reason to counter my points. For example, when you respond with statements like "I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that picturing a string as an extremely short, infinitely thin shoelace is not right.", your are not deconstructing my argument (you are not addressing it): you are merely avoiding my argument with the introduction of a meaningless statement. A 1-dimensional string is exactly that. If it's not, then we're wasting our time with string-mathematics.

Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious.

No it doesn't. Your entire counter involves you building to this conclusion with off-track responses. First you mention my inability to read/know about string-theories (when the only relevant point of those theories is that "strings are 1-dimensional" - hardly a difficult concept to bridge). Then you try to devalue the logical-meaning of a such a concept, by stating that QM might make that concept useless, in the context of reasoned-reality. But that would also devalue the string-mathematics themselves, whose very-existence is dependent upon this concept being exactly what is implied: 1-dimensional.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I've read enough to know that science says string-theories our founded upon 1-dimensional strings. And the two links I provided actually stated this too. So I'm bemused as to why you'd keep repeating these objections.

You are bemused because you have no idea of what you are talking about, and do not want to learn. The 1D strings are purported to be extensions of 0D particles of QM/QFT. If one starts with a dot representing the 0D particle and extends it to build a 1D structure, then one ends up with the shoelace-string that you are envisioning.

But the “dot” picture of a particle is wrong.[/color]

I cannot then have any confidence in your description of the strings of string theory without taking a look at the theory itself. I cannot believe that you are so arrogant that you cannot see the sense in having to actually look[/color] at the theory to see what it says.

A 1-dimensional string can be nothing other than that, by logical default.

Again, don’t bother telling me what the theory says. I know that you don’t know. When I am ready to learn string theory, I will learn it from a qualified physicist.

As soon as you try and make it something else, the premise that it is a 1-dimensional string becomes defunct.

Exactly my point. I do not think that your premise is reliable, nor do I think that it is identical to the one set forth in string theory.

I would also like to add that "infinitely thin" is a tangible impossibility, thus enforcing the point I've already been making.
The reason why it is a tangible-impossibility, is that the actual existence of that string, means that it has a definite existence. Infinity is an intangible-concept, as you must surely-agree. Hence you should also agree - since it follows - that "an infinitely thin, but tangible/existent string", is a logical impossibilty.

I would be inclined to agree that the infinitely thin shoelace cannot really exist, but I recognize that that is a point of view conditioned by daily macroscopic experience. As yet, I have seen no proof that such objects could not exist at the fundamental level of matter.

Now, my gripe here is not that a 1-dimensional string cannot exist; because it clearly can: in the mind. My gripe is that no scientist would ever acknowledge the significance of this. For what it means, is that fundamental-energy is emanating from a 1-dimensional source, and within a 1-dimensional source: The Mind.

Either that, or that’s just the way the universe works. As I said, no valid argument has yet been forwarded in support of this view. In any case, the Mind is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Tom: All you did was say that the strings of string theory cannot be tangible, because tangibility requires spatial extent in 3 dimensions (which is the very point on the table).

LG: No. I said that tangibility would require the existence of at least 3 spatial dimensions.

That’s what I said.

I explained why nothing tangible can exist in 1 or 2 spatial-dimensions (zero thickness of 1 or 2-dimensional entities = zero existence of said entity = such entities can only exist as a concept.). Thus, the "very point" has been addressed. But you still insist that I am giving no reasons for saying this. Which part of the above would you not class as constructive reasoning?

Sure, if you define “tangible” as requiring 3 spatial dimensions, then of course you will conclude that 1D and 2D strings are not tangible. But that is not what it means to be tangible. If X can interact with a detector to produce a signal, then X is tangible. You have not connected this with dimensionality.

I was only enforcing my point. You have no reason to counter my points. For example, when you respond with statements like "I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that picturing a string as an extremely short, infinitely thin shoelace is not right.", your are not deconstructing my argument (you are not addressing it): you are merely avoiding my argument with the introduction of a meaningless statement.

Of course I am addressing your argument, and of course that statement is meaningful. I am addressing your probable misconception of what a string is, and trying to show you that the situation is more delicate than you suppose. I explained it again at the top of this post. Your refusal to even think about it tells me that you really don’t care about anything except being “right”.

A 1-dimensional string is exactly that. If it's not, then we're wasting our time with string-mathematics.

“We”? LOL

Tom: Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious

LG: No it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

LG, I have—in detail—pointed out the misconceptions you are having, as well as exposed the invalid structure of your argument. You used to say that you don’t mind it when people tell you that you are wrong, as long as they explain why. That’s what I have done here. So have (Q) and Mentat. Evidently, you didn’t really mean it.