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.
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.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.
Name them. Explain why they are fallacies. Say something meaningful.Allow me to introduce you to the concept of fallacies. Your arguments are littered with them.
You call this a reasoned response?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.
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.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.
A 1-dimensional entity can have no material/tangible reality unto itself.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)?"
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?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.
It would have to have a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions.On Tangibility
One has to ask, exactly what does LG require for something to be ‘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.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.
Incorrect, since you fail to mention the reasons/examples I have provided in order to state '3'.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.
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.That is an appeal to ignorance.
How can I be open to any arguments which might counter my own, when none have been forthcoming?You need to be less dense and more open to the possibility that you are wrong. [/B]
Originally posted by Lifegazer
Are you saying that I made-up those extracts I pointed-out?
It (edit-the requirement for tangibility) 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?
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.
Then my point is made: string-theories are founded upon 1-dimensional entities. This is what science is saying - not me.Originally posted by Tom
Of course not. I said that I went through the websites. I also raised questions about them.
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.LG, can't you tell the difference between an assertion and an argument?
Mathematics is most-definitely a product of the mind. It's a language, devised by the understanding within man's mind - his reason.Originally posted by FZ+
Do you then see logical extrapolations/interpolations, and mathematics as products of the mind?
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'.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]
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?".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Originally posted by Tom
It would be best if you stop declaring "what science says". You have never looked at string theory in detail.
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.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.
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.Your argument simply rejects the premise, with no explanation.
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?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).
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.You then bolster that claim by asking, how a 1D string can be tangible.
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.Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Tom: Your entire argument rests on circular reasoning and appeal to ignorance, which are both fallacious
LG: No it doesn't.
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.
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.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.
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?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.
This has got nothing to do with learning string-theory as a whole. This argument revolves around the premise of those theories.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.
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.
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 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?
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.
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).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?
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.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.
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'.I have no idea of what this is about, but I assure you that the mathematics of point (0-D) particles has been produced.
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.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.
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.You have mischaracterized what I have said. I said that I do not have confidence in your take on string theory.
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?
Hello CJ. Glad for your response.Originally posted by CJames
Hello LG.
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.String theory is an extension of quantum mechanics.
See post to Tom. That suggestion is nonsensical - by reason.Quantum mechanics is based on 0 dimensional particles.
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.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.
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 the same way, strings are multidimensional wavefunctions extrapolated from a one dimensional entity. They aren't truly 1 dimensional.
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.In any case, just because something is 1 dimensional doesn't mean it does not exist.
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.You argue that something can have no "substance" if it is one dimensional. I don't understand what you mean by this.
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'.
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).
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 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.