Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

  • Thread starter Lifegazer
  • Start date
  • #51
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.
 
  • #52
FZ+
1,561
3
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.
 
  • #53
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 subconcious 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.
 
  • #54
3,762
2
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?
 
  • #55
3,762
2
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 percieved 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.
 
  • #56
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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.

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.
 
  • #57
3,762
2
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.

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 cancelled 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.
 
  • #58
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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.
 
  • #59
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'.
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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.

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 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.
 
  • #61
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Tom: You then bolster that claim by asking, how a 1D string can be tangible.

LG: I was only enforcing my point. You have no reason to counter my points.
Here, I think, is one of the main stumbling blocks for you. You cannot seem to get your mind around the concept of the fallacious appeal to ignorance, which is what you were committing in the question to which I referred. Look back at my analyses of your argument, and you will see my comments about this.

The main idea is that, you cannot prove a statement X by maintaining a skeptical position on statement ~X. That is the fallacy in question, that is what you were doing, and that does not enforce your point in any way.

You seem to think that your conclusion must be accepted unless someone comes up with a sound argument for the negation of your conclusion. That is not so. When you yourself do not forward a sound argument for your conclusion, then there is no reason for anyone to accept it. That is the reasoning behind the approach that I, (Q), and Mentat have been taking, and it seems to go completely over your head.

edit:

This is made most clear when you said to (Q):

Look pal; this is the philosophy forum - not the physics forum. When you come in here claiming that 1 or 2-dimensional concepts can exist as tangible beings, then expect your assumption to be challenged by reason.

In fact, (Q) never claimed what you say he did, but you seem to interpret challenges to your argument in support of X as a claim of ~X. Of course, that is not the case.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Lifegazer
Originally posted by Tom
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.
String-theories are not my theories. Nor the fact that string-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings, are my 'facts'. How many scientific-references would you require before you actually believed that string-mathematics are founded upon that concept? String-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings is an absolute-fact. It doesn't matter whether particles are dots or not. That doesn't change this fact.
It's like me saying that Christianity is founded upon 'God', and then you denying this just because you don't think God exists. Clearly, you're missing the point.
Whatever you say about "0D particles of QM/QFT." and "dots", is irrelevant to this point. Ultimately, string-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings. And any credibility of those math is dependent directly upon that premise. In fact, it's actually impossible to produce mathematics of a zero-dimensional particle, because a zero-dimensional particle = nothing, or, a singularity of energy, existing beyond space & time. In the former case, reason dictates that 'something' cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing. And in the latter case, a "singularity of energy, existing beyond space & time" would unify all energy at the same 'point', since all points of such energy must exist at the same point if they are beyond space & time. I.e., there cannot be a relative difference of position in space & time, of two dots that exist beyond space & time. They exist at the same 'place', for lack of a better word.
You seem to think that by denouncing the value of the aforementioned premise (with mentions of QM and 'dots'), that you also denounce my argument. But you don't; because string-mathematics are founded upon this concept, and my argument merely attempts to show what a 1-dimensional entity is, by reason. And by reason, it is a concept of the Mind. A plain, for example, with zero-dimension of existence perpendicular to itself, cannot be tangible in itself. There is zero-substance to a plain with zero-dimensions to its own perpendicular. This is an obvious point-of-reason. And if reasoning about these things is pointless, then you can throw your string-mathematics in the garbage - straight-away - since mathematics is reason.
If you want to rebuke the meaning of 1-dimesional strings, then you also rebuke the validity of the math. Simple as that.
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 at the theory to see what it says.
I have pointed-out to you what it says. I can find many more such-references if you like, though I'd rather be spared the hassle. And I must emphasise that your lack of confidence in strings is an issue which you must take-up with the scientists who hypothesised this premise. Not with me. I'm merely telling you what reason has to say about that premise. But it's not my premise. Where have you heard me advocating 'strings' as the source of creation?
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.
This has got nothing to do with learning string-theory as a whole. This argument revolves around the premise of those theories.
Say, for example, I built a whole theory upon 'God'. Would you consider your reasoned & valid complaints/analysis of my premise sufficiently answered with "You need to know my theory as a whole before you can discuss my premise."? Of course not. You don't need to know my theory to question/analyse my premise. Likewise, neither do I need to know string-theory to analyse the validity/meaning of its premise.
 
  • #63
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
Originally posted by Lifegazer
String-theories are not my theories. Nor the fact that string-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings, are my 'facts'. How many scientific-references would you require before you actually believed that string-mathematics are founded upon that concept? String-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings is an absolute-fact. It doesn't matter whether particles are dots or not. That doesn't change this fact.
You are so shortsighted, it is unbelievable. Of course the QM picture of particles is important. From what point do you think the extension to strings is made?

It's like me saying that Christianity is founded upon 'God', and then you denying this just because you don't think God exists. Clearly, you're missing the 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.

Clearly, you're missing the point, and it seems your stubborn pride ("I can reason anything out without learning anything") is what is standing in your way.

Whatever you say about "0D particles of QM/QFT." and "dots", is irrelevant to this point.
If you had half a clue, you wouldn't say that. See my previous posts for why that is so.

Ultimately, string-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings. And any credibility of those math is dependent directly upon that premise.
That is your uninformed opinion.

In fact, it's actually impossible to produce mathematics of a zero-dimensional particle, because a zero-dimensional particle = nothing, or, a singularity of energy, existing beyond space & time. In the former case, reason dictates that 'something' cannot emanate from absolutely-nothing. And in the latter case, a "singularity of energy, existing beyond space & time" would unify all energy at the same 'point', since all points of such energy must exist at the same point if they are beyond space & time. I.e., there cannot be a relative difference of position in space & time, of two dots that exist beyond space & time. They exist at the same 'place', for lack of a better word.
I have no idea of what this is about, but I assure you that the mathematics of point (0-D) particles has been produced.

You seem to think that by denouncing the value of the aforementioned premise (with mentions of QM and 'dots'), that you also denounce my argument. But you don't;
Not only would that show your argument to be unsound, but the structural flaws I have pointed out make it invalid.

because string-mathematics are founded upon this concept, and my argument merely attempts to show what a 1-dimensional entity is, by reason. And by reason, it is a concept of the Mind. A plain, for example, with zero-dimension of existence perpendicular to itself, cannot be tangible in itself. There is zero-substance to a plain with zero-dimensions to its own perpendicular. This is an obvious point-of-reason.
You keep saying it is obvious, but...
1. No proof has been offered that that is the case and
2. No proof has been offered that string theory uses objects like those.

And if reasoning about these things is pointless, then you can throw your string-mathematics in the garbage - straight-away - since mathematics is reason.
If you want to rebuke the meaning of 1-dimesional strings, then you also rebuke the validity of the math. Simple as that.
I have pointed-out to you what it says. I can find many more such-references if you like, though I'd rather be spared the hassle.
No, it is not "simple as that". You speak of the mathematics of string theory as though you have some understanding of it, when you do not. 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.

And I must emphasise that your lack of confidence in strings is an issue which you must take-up with the scientists who hypothesised this premise. Not with me. I'm merely telling you what reason has to say about that premise. But it's not my premise. Where have you heard me advocating 'strings' as the source of creation?
You have mischaracterized what I have said. I said that I do not have confidence in your take on string theory. First, because I know that you do not know the theory itself. And second, because you are notorious for taking scientific facts and twisting them to suit your philosophy.

This has got nothing to do with learning string-theory as a whole. This argument revolves around the premise of those theories.
Of course it has to do with learning string theory. You are trying to make an argument out of what string theory says. Any philosophy of science has to be built on a knowledge of the science. It is absurd to approach it any other way.

Say, for example, I built a whole theory upon 'God'. Would you consider your reasoned & valid complaints/analysis of my premise sufficiently answered with "You need to know my theory as a whole before you can discuss my premise."? Of course not. You don't need to know my theory to question/analyse my premise. Likewise, neither do I need to know string-theory to analyse the validity/meaning of its premise.
Probably not, but you would certainly need to know *something* about it. And no, those websites you produced do not count.
 
  • #64
351
0
Hello LG.

String theory is an extension of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is based on 0 dimensional particles. 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.

In the same way, strings are multidimensional wavefunctions extrapolated from a one dimensional entity. They aren't truly 1 dimensional.

In any case, just because something is 1 dimensional doesn't mean it does not exist. You argue that something can have no "substance" if it is one dimensional. I don't understand what you mean by this. If you are asserting that a 1 dimensional string has no volume, that is correct. But why does a lack of volume require that something not exist? It has length, a property which can be measured. Measureability means tangibility. If by substance you mean mass, you clearly don't understand string theory. Even laymen explanations will tell you, the mass of a string is determined by its vibrational pattern.

So a string has no volume, I'll give you that. But that has nothing to do with whether it exists or not.

On a sidenote, scientific theories can never be 100% proven by definition. String theory doesn't require that strings actually exist, in any place. It simply provides a mathematical explanation that if done correctly, makes accurate predictions about the universe.
 
  • #65
3,762
2
Also (as a side note (since everyone else has pretty much explained what I was going to, pretty well)), lifegazer, you were wrong in saying that string theory is only about one-dimensional strings. There are also two-dimensional branes, three-dimensional branes, etc...

I, like Tom, ask you to stop making assertions about string theory, without having first studied it. At least read a layman's guide to it (Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe is an excellent start).
 
  • #66
Lifegazer
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 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 very picture you paint - of a substantial 'dot' of energy existing at zero-dimensions of existence, is logically absurd. Any reasoned analysis of "a tangible-dot of energy exists in no/zero dimensions", would quickly see that:-
a) A tangible-dot of energy must reside in at least 1-dimension of existence. It cannot exist at '0D' (nothing). It must exist at 1D.
b) A dot-of-energy at 1D is a completely-uniform entity (a singularity). Furthermore, a dot-of-energy cannot have any referential properties or attributes, which we associate with space & time. This is clearly obvious since a 1-dimensional 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 1-dimensional 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 string-theory is founded upon 1-dimensional strings. That's ALL I am concerned with here. I'm not concerned with the analysis of the proceeding string-mathematics, which are thus built from the foundational-premise 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 legitimate-right 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.
String-mathematics are founded upon 1-dimensional strings. 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.
I have no idea of what this is about, but I assure you that the mathematics of point (0-D) particles has been produced.
Of course the mathematics of 0D particles has been produced - by conveniently turning an 0D existence into a 1-dimensional 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 1-D. There can be no such 'thing' as an 0D particle-of-substance. 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 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?

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

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.

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

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.

How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?
Taking things back a page:
LG, please, for your own sanity and for everyone elses, when someone presents a critique of your argument of the style Tom has done here, instead of responding with 'I have given reasons for this,but no one has responded' etc, just cut and paste the reasons you have given (label them as such first), and let the reasons speak for themselves.

If you do this, it will be very obvious that you have given the reasons, and you won't get people hounding you for those reasons over 3 or 4 pages as always ends up happening.

To the outside observer, it might be concluded that the majority of your posts are just very elaborate trolling exercises where you manage to hook about 4 or 5 people on a long winded chasing of an invisible tail. I have faith that this isn't the case, but just try to reply directly to the criticisms, rather than redirecting them to somthing they have missed previously.
 
  • #68
Lifegazer
Originally posted by CJames
Hello LG.
Hello CJ. Glad for your response.
String theory is an extension of quantum mechanics.
String-theory is an in-tension of QM. I.e., String-theory is a theory which seeks the CAUSE of those proceeding quantum-mathematics. In truth, quantum-mathematics would be an extension of 1-dimensional strings. Don't forget that - it's important you ponder it.
Quantum mechanics is based on 0 dimensional particles.
See post to Tom. That suggestion is nonsensical - by reason.
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.
No they're not. They're extended into a 1-dimensional string - from the 0-D particles which neither make no sense, nor can be mathematically addressed. Don't forget that string-mathematics proceed the premise. So, all that fancy "wave-function" stuff is an effect of the 1-D string - not the cause of it.
In the same way, strings are multidimensional wavefunctions extrapolated from a one dimensional entity. They aren't truly 1 dimensional.
Really? Make your mind up CJ. You cannot build a whole complexity of string mathematics upon a 1-dimensional entity if there is no such thing as a 1-D entity. If you do, the mathematics are meaningless nonsense.
In any case, just because something is 1 dimensional doesn't mean it does not exist.
I never said that. I merely said that it cannot have tangible - definite - existence. Such an entity can only have a singular/indivisible/unbounded/uniform/absolute type of existence.
You argue that something can have no "substance" if it is one dimensional. I don't understand what you mean by this.
Imagine a 2-D plain. The plain itself is 'nothing' - literally - since the plain itself would have no extension away from itself. No 'thickness' in itself. No reality. Ungraspable.
The same argument applies to a 1-D string. The extension of length has no dimensional-thickness in itself - since 'length' is asserted as the only dimension of existence. Thus, the length of a 1-D string has no dimension of existence within itself.
***I.e., a 1-D string has zero cross-section.***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by Lifegazer
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'.
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.
 
  • #70
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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?
 
  • #71
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,500
8
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.
 
  • #72
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3
Originally posted by Tom
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! [/B]
So very very LOL.
 
  • #73
18,264
7,947
Lets move on, this is going nowhere and it's not even about Philosophy.
 

Related Threads on Lifegazer Philosophy 101 (from Faith in Science)

  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
76
Views
11K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
90
Views
6K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
135
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
787
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Top