re: I don't trust string theory and neither should you

quote:

---

When you look at it and think real hard then wala, you have it

---

WTF is up with the "Wallas" today?

quote:

---

Now, let me preface my further comments by admitting that the mathematics involved

---

Stopped reading right here...

frick math

i hope there aren't 11 dimensions ...


11 rexes would be difficult to bear ...

quote:

---

Neither does Dr Cooper

---

/thread

quote:

---

Now, let me preface my further comments by admitting that the mathematics involved are well beyond my education, and perhaps even outside my aptitude, and that the relevant human principals are by empirical observation entirely worthy of the type of respect we so unduly grant to, say, obviously stupid brain surgeons.

But when asked to consider the workings of this and other possible universes, should we not insist on total empiricism over the multiple dimensions they propose? Now, I'm not suggesting that we must sensorily experience every natural phenomenon in order to concede its existence; for example, it's easy to accept the actuality of electromagnetic waves above and below the visual light spectrum because we know from experience that our senses are physically limited.

But are those eleven string theory dimensions the same sort of proposition as waves and particles we can't see or we've yet to detect? I don't think so. The problem is that, despite claims to the contrary by those physicists and mathematicians, we CAN'T EVEN COMPREHEND THEM.

The spatial dimensions (i.e. height, width, depth, time) are easy enough to grasp and experience, and position with the universe might also be considered and comprehended as a fifth. But it seems to me that anything beyond those are merely abstract mathematical constructions, invented for the sake of a descriptive formula. They no more exist, by my understanding and skepticism, than two. Yes, the NUMBER two exists, and two of many things definitely exist, but two, itself, does not. It is mere abstract description.

---

All I know is trucks and lifts and this thread doesn't talk about either

The purpose of Science as a discipline is to provide natural explanations; if we as laymen can't comprehend their declarations then they're not explanations at all and Science has failed.

Basically, I'm asserting two things here: it's likely not possible that the human mind can comprehend more than the familiar dimensions of time, space, and position, and it's not contradictory that a scientific statement can be coherent but also incomprehensible.