M-Theory

[Avatar]

Well, that's sorta my point. Not the same thing at all as saying that mathematics represents or describes the real world at all, is it? More like, this is as close as we can get to explaining (or understanding) what is going on around us.

It's a guess. A best guess, to be sure, but still a guess.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

But they made it up!

Probably not. Remember, at one time, it was common knowledge that the earth was flat. I mean, it's obvious! But some people observed things that suggested otherwise. So they observed more, came up with whatever theories, etc.

It was also common knowledge - based not on observation, but common sense - that heavier objects fell faster than lighter objects. But when some people actually looked, they saw that wasn't the case. So they assumed that wasn't the case, experimented, and came up with equations. Gravity does, indeed, pull things down to the earth at 9.8 meters/sec/sec. (I think that's the rate?)

I don't know anything about Newton, so I don't know what he may have observed that suggested instantaneous rates of change. But I doubt he simply decided, for no reason at all, to assume the opposite of what everybody had always said.

[Avatar]

As I understand it, (and I'm happy to be corrected), his theory couldn't work as long as things took a unit of time to happen. So he removed the amount of time required from his equation, and it balanced.

I'm pretty sure he never saw anything that changed instantaneously.

Just like these M-Theory guys never saw extra dimensions only a fraction of a mm across. *shrug*

I'm not saying they have to be wrong by any means. What I'm saying is that they have no way of knowing that they're right, but instead, have had to presume it is true, because that's the only way their theory can work.

If there isn't actually an 11th dimension, then it's back to the drawing board. Just because it's there, doesn't mean they didn't make it up.

--A

[Loredoctor]

Not the same thing at all as saying that mathematics represents or describes the real world at all, is it?

I think mathematic is the only way to describe the real world, and that it is truth. Recall that it follows principles of logic. And we can see maths around us - the universe is modeled on maths. Sure numbers don't exist, but the laws do. Weight of protons, curvature of space-time, that sort of thing.

[Avatar]

It's the way to describe it, but that doesn't mean that the description is any more accurate than a poem would be, does it?

Well, perhaps technically more accurate, but still prone to interpretation of our observations. Surely we observe first, then describe?

--A

[Loredoctor]

It's the way to describe it, but that doesn't mean that the description is any more accurate than a poem would be, does it?

Well, perhaps technically more accurate, but still prone to interpretation of our observations. Surely we observe first, then describe?

--A

But you can't misinterpret maths unless you are an idiot or maths-illiterate. Maths is fundamental, and the reason why many astronomers argue that it should be the language we try to communicate with aliens (or a universal language).

[Avatar]

But you can misinterpret your observations...

--A

[Loredoctor]

But you can misinterpret your observations...

--A

True, but we have good track record. Misinterpretation is rare - or is picked up easily. But we know the universe runs on laws - on mathematical systems - you just cant misinterpret them. Would be like misreading the constant of light; you cant.

[Fist and Faith]

As I understand it, (and I'm happy to be corrected), his theory couldn't work as long as things took a unit of time to happen. So he removed the amount of time required from his equation, and it balanced.

I'm pretty sure he never saw anything that changed instantaneously.

Just like these M-Theory guys never saw extra dimensions only a fraction of a mm across. *shrug*

I'm not saying they have to be wrong by any means. What I'm saying is that they have no way of knowing that they're right, but instead, have had to presume it is true, because that's the only way their theory can work.

If there isn't actually an 11th dimension, then it's back to the drawing board. Just because it's there, doesn't mean they didn't make it up.

I imagine many explanations for this or that could be invented; explanations that are internally consistent, and that could not be falsified by the observable universe. And these explanations could have zilch to do with the observable universe. Beyond the vibrating "strings" of energy, I don't know the first thing about M. Even after reading as much as I could of the link from your first post, I don't know the first thing about it. For all I know, M is one of these explanations.

However, I'm going to give Newton the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if he observed anything that made him come to the conclusion that instantaneous changes were happening. But everything I do know about him says that he did work from the starting point of observation. As did guys like Galileo and Copernicus.

And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a type of non-Euclidian geometry arose from the thought that the earth was not flat. If someone is watching a ship sail away, it seems to disappear, from the bottom up. If you know the speed of the ship, can a mathematical system be developed that accurately measures the size of the planet?

Remember, with science, and I'm going to piss a lot of people off by saying that math's best expression is as a tool for science, if it isn't accurate, we discard or modify it. Have Newton's developments been used to predict things that were later found or verified?

Ultimately, I find poetry, or at least fantasy and sci-fi, more satisfying than math and science. (Loremaster likely goes the other way.) They certainly describe some aspects of reality, and sometimes better than math and science. But we don't try to use them the same ways we use math and science.

[Loredoctor]

Ultimately, I find poetry, or at least fantasy and sci-fi, more satisfying than math and science. (Loremaster likely goes the other way.) They certainly describe some aspects of reality, and sometimes better than math and science. But we don't try to use them the same ways we use math and science.

Yes, I do go the other way. It is my belief that literature (some of it) should be grounded in science and work up from there; hence my writing. Books should be 'essays' - or arguments with the reader or the world. I'm not the biggest fan of fantasy since it's so loosely based on science.

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I, otoh, am not concerned with the unlikelihood, or even impossibility, of a situation coming up in the first place, as long as it forces the characters - and, more important, me - to think about and feel things they hadn't before. Most of Hesse is free of any impossible fantasy elements, and I love his stuff as much as the wacky worlds of SRD or Le Guin. And if the goal can be accomplished within the natural laws of our universe, I'm all for it.

[Avatar]

Remember, with science, and I'm going to piss a lot of people off by saying that math's best expression is as a tool for science, if it isn't accurate, we discard or modify it.

See, there I completely agree with you. That's exactly my point. Math is a tool, a method of describing the universe, just like poetry is. The beauty of it is that it can be modified or discarded as becomes necessary, but the very fact that it can, and often must, be modified tells me that it is not the rock-solid foundation that some people treat it as, but merely another descriptive tool.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I think it is rock-solid, but our understanding of the universe very seldom is. We seldom get it right the first time. But once we do get it right... Who questions the strength of the earth's gravity? And how else could we describe it, other than saying that things fall toward it at 9.8 meters/sec/sec? Sure, there are more poetical ways to describe it, but what other ways would give us the information we need to know where a satellite is going to fall so we can evacuate the area beforehand?

[Loredoctor]

Art is qualitative, maths is quantitative. It is impossible to argue that a poem is just as effective as describing gravity as maths.

[Fist and Faith]

Depends on your goal. If you're trying to evoke an emotion, you might be better off using poetry. Not that science and math don't do so for me, but I'll bet poetry does it better for many people. Using gravity for such a purpose is just as valid a pursuit as trying to quantify it.

[Loredoctor]

Depends on your goal. If you're trying to evoke an emotion, you might be better off using poetry. Not that science and math don't do so for me, but I'll bet poetry does it better for many people. Using gravity for such a purpose is just as valid a pursuit as trying to quantify it.

True. But to convey the essence - the objective 'meat' of it - you have to resort to maths. Poetry, or art, might describe it, but ultimately to 'know it' you must use maths.

[Fist and Faith]

Agreed. Like I said about the falling satellite, math tells us things that can be vitally important to us that we can't learn in any other way.

[Avatar]

But experiencing it comes first. We need to know that there is gravity before we can strat working out the math of it. We haven't experienced an 11th dimension. Hell, according to this theory, gravity "leaks" into our universe from somewhere else, and is only partially about the size of bodies etc. That's going to change the way we look at gravity surely? And the math used to describe it?

If the experience comes first, math is nothing more than an explanation of the way we think it works. It's "made up" / formulated/whatever to account for the observable and testable phenomenon, based on our perception it. The math is not the phenomenon.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

But experiencing it comes first. We need to know that there is gravity before we can strat working out the math of it. We haven't experienced an 11th dimension. Hell, according to this theory, gravity "leaks" into our universe from somewhere else, and is only partially about the size of bodies etc. That's going to change the way we look at gravity surely? And the math used to describe it?

If the experience comes first, math is nothing more than an explanation of the way we think it works. It's "made up" / formulated/whatever to account for the observable and testable phenomenon, based on our perception it. The math is not the phenomenon.

Certainly not. Math is a tool we use to describe and understand various aspects of reality. But that doesn't make it arbitrary. Not many aspects of our lives do not owe much to math, and we are able to do some pretty extraordinary things because we use it as we do. Things that we could not have accomplished without math. If math was never noticed - if a caveman never began counting - and developed, we would still be cavemen.

As for M, I still can't say much. I'm sceptical about the usefulness we'll ever get from an 11th dimension. I don't know what the 5th is supposed to be, but I doubt I could comprehend even the smallest part of it. However, even if we learn that gravity is caused by something we never imagined before, Newton's calculations regarding its properties will remain. Learning that some 11th dimension causes it will not change the orbits of the planets.

[Avatar]

No, but it will change the reason, the concept, behind the calculations won't it?

Afterall, if it's not caused by the pressure planets exert on reality, (or whatever the hell causes it ), then that's a really fundamental assumption out the window.

(Wow, maybe black holes are actually holes into that "gravity-rich" dimension...)

--A