Why the need for background independence in String

[Sam Owen]

Why the "need" for background independence in String

It seems to me in any theory the first cause is still missing regardless of whether it is background dependent or independent so what does it matter ?

What is wrong with having a background against which nature is acted out ?

 

[Chronos]

All assumptions are suspect. It is not fair to cherry pick a background that happens to fit your model. It is hard to find a background that is self organizing, and very hard to have a universe with no beginning that fits any such model. The alternative is a universe that is infinitely old... and there is a preponderance of evidence that suggests otherwise. For example, where are all the sub-solar mass black holes?

 

[Sam Owen]

maybe the sub solar mass black holes are at Planck scale in the electron clouds but they only exist for an instant, long enough for a photon to pass through, an electron to exchange or a manifold to blip between dimensions

 

[mccrone]

It is hard to find a background that is self organizing, and very hard to have a universe with no beginning that fits any such model. The alternative is a universe that is infinitely old...

There are other ways to think about the issue of first causes. Rather than getting something out of nothing you can get your something out of a "background" of everything. Out of a vagueness, or a generalised potential.

This is certainly the metaphysics suggested by the string landscape approach. Every kind of mathematical "vibration" is possible, but self-stable resonances only begin to emerge as you move from a vague infinity of dimensions towards crisper systems with very limited dimensionality.