Posted by Jonny Trigonometry on November 22, 2003, at 14:11:13
In reply to Redirected: What is consciousness?, posted by Dr. Bob on November 22, 2003, at 11:15:06
You've got a good point, there is no way I can tell whats wrong with something if I don't fully understand it. I agree, there are many fundamental flaws with my arguments... I don't beleive the Theory of everything will ever be solved, but it's fun to think about. Perhaps our attitude on the subject makes it impossible to solve though, if nobody wants to see it, it will never exist. Like sackhoullier said, because of the nature of the mind, things are only as complex as you feel you want them to be.
I'm not one to say string theory is wrong, I'm just sort of reluctant to accept it because it seems too wierd... i mean 10 or 26 dimentions? why only those numbers? I've got a vaugue idea of why they used 10 though, in order to put all known equations together, they needed to make a 4x4 matrix to describe folding of space-time, and that produces 16 possible combinations, and 6 of those are duplicates. NOTE: Stop here and think, what are physicists trying to do? They are trying to show a way to describe the folding of space-time from a vantage point outside the universe. In other words, they need a non-euclidian geometry to describe the universe... Well wait a minute, the tensor isn't the only non-euclidian approach to this problem, the other approach is fractional dimensions. I have much more appeal to fractals because they show that our understanding of dimentions is very basic, and there is far more going on than we think. For example, with fractals, things can have dimentions in between the euclidian ones, so instead of things being either zero, one, two, or three dimentions, they can be anywhere in between each successive dimention. So what it means is, you can have something with a dimention of 2.332, or 1.78 instead of just 2 or 1. So that means fractal geometry has the power to explain string theory only by using 10 or 26 of it's infinate ammount of dimentions. String theory goes and assumes the universe has exactly 10 dimentions because thats the ammount it takes to describe folds in space-time. Now, I'm all for the idea, but what about things that we don't have the equipment to know they exist or not? like mini-universes as sub atomic particles? As stephen hawking proposes, there is a wave-function of the whole universe, and that would imply that (even though it would take more energy than the universe is made from) if you zoomed out far from the universe, it would look and act like a particle. It might only last for a split second from that vantage point, because the rate of time is different. Things that exist on smaller scales have a faster rate of time than things on larger scales.
String theory does support the idea of being able to "leave" the universe if one were to concentrate enough energy to escape space-time, I don't know how much energy it would take though, and I personally think that it would take more energy than that of which all of the universe is made. In effect, this idea of breaking through "space-time" is like breaking the speed of light, It is impossible with our energy. Likewise, breaking absolute zero probably requires equivilant energies. When I speak of these barriers, I'm speaking of the boundry between dimentions.
I don't know my point once again, but I know that I have no "theory" as some of you say, I have merely a very weak hypothesis. I can't say I follow the whole "barking up the wrong problem" thing about schrodinger. He shows that we will never know the truth if we never look for it, how can you argue with that? I feel it is a problem in the way of a theory of everyhting. Keep in mind that if one day we actually create an AI, then that proves that we are able to describe awareness mathematically. Then what? We can incorporate it into our existing theories to describe an awareness that oversees the entire system of equations, and is created by the entire system, and that tells us if the cat is dead or alive within initial circumstances. Refering to my first post, this awareness is created by the "ether" of equations within a mind-space inside a computer... I don't even understand what that means, I don't know how we would incorporate it, but I feel it should be taken into consideration.
I admit that I even think these ideas are odd, and I'm having a hard time traversing the rough seas of the misunderstood universe. Basically, all I'm saying is "lets use the other form of non-euclidian geometry to describe the unverse and see where it leads us"
poster:Jonny Trigonometry
thread:282271
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20031113/msgs/282547.html