Reply
Thu 4 Dec, 2014 11:44 pm

Aftermath of the 10th and the 11th Dimension

The fifth dimension is like the human race, a multiplicity of unique outcomes which converge at a single point we perceive as an individual life. We are said to exist in the third dimension since light enters our retinas and the world has shape. Except, we live in the fourth dimension or our world would have no motion. The first and second dimensions represent the evolving nature of our consciousness but hold no meaning in the ‘real’ world. The confusion arises when we assume that the word ‘real’ has any ‘actual concreteness.’ Actual, real, concrete, these words all describe an idea also represented by the number 1 in computer language. Imaginary, unreal, abstract, these words all describe an idea which cannot be represented without opposing what is thought of as ‘real,’ or in computer language 0.

I lack the mathematical understanding to truly grasp the geometrical implications of these dimensions so I would not bother with what may lay between the fifth and the tenth dimension. However, I find the notion of the existence of a tenth and eleventh dimension insanely ironic. I support the forethought of scientific inquiry with all of my soul. But I cannot shake the thought that physicists are playing a game like a tap dancer who has no competition except an audience of other tap dancers (which is actually not far from my conclusion). The 10th and the 11th dimension, 1…0, and 1…1, is this not the framework of reality as we know it?

The first dimension requires time to ‘exist’ at all and the second dimension is merely an extension of the first in another direction. The same is true of the third dimension which continues in an additional direction. The fourth dimension is thought of as time because we cannot draw in any other direction than up/down, left/right, and then adding depth; 1…0, 0…1, 1…1, which brings us back to 0…0, where time exists. The fifth dimension takes us back to the beginning, except this time it starts 0…1 (for the purposes of the metaphor). The fifth dimension is another possible beginning, another possible time, but its existence is not consecutive, it’s simply imaginary.

If we return to the analogy of the tap dancer competing for an audience among tap dancers then we soon realize that all great forms of art, study, language, and even culture stem from this very thing; all accomplishment is the harnessing of a skill. I break down what I do not understand to simplistic terms not to detract from the potential achievement but to clarify its cause. And, I confess that I cannot understand a facet of our universe which exists only within a language I have not developed thoroughly enough to imagine. Although this revelation does not detract from what we may be able to do in the aftermath of the 10th and the 11th dimensions.

What are your qualifications to discuss cosmology? Do you have a degree in physics? The equivalent?

@Brandon9000,

To discuss cosmology does not require a heightened understanding of math but an evolved ability to express ideas with language.

If you read more closely you see that nothing I claim is extraordinary, I've simply made observations that are easy to substantiate with logic. Thank you though for expressing such an obvious concern.

@JLO1988,

As I understand it, the concept of "dimension" as used in mathematical physics implies "an independent factor" required to describe "the physical state" of an entity (particle or sub-particle).

A useful explanatory consideration is the technique called "factor analysis" applied to data (usually in the social sciences) which yields the minimum number of dimensions of variability needed to account for data considered as "points in hyperspace". These dimensions are "orthogonal" to each other (i.e. mutually perpendicular) which can really only be

* visualized* in 3D. However since concepts such as "correlation" involve calculation of

*angles *in hyperspace, mathematicians simply extrapolate trigonometry from three dimensions to n-dimensions in order to maintain mathematical coherence.

But mathematical coherence can be a far cry from

*cognitive *coherence which usually involves visualization. The point is therefore that dimensionality in physics is about what is

*needed* to account for data, rather than being reflective of some abstract concept of "reality" or some geometric "picture".

@fresco,

I think you're missing the point of my essay, I know that I am missing the point of your response to it.

@JLO1988,

No. I entirely agree with your point that what physicists postulate may be impossible to "visualize" and therefore to "comprehend", and that "reality" is a nebulous concept. That point in turn raises ontological issues involving the meaning of "existence". I have tried to give you a handle on mathematical coherence which to some extent has replaced cognitive coherence (aka understanding) as perhaps the best we can hope for, and you will find that this point was endorsed by Feynman and Hawking.

For more detailed discussion I have recently recommended "Arguing about Science" 2012, Bird and Ladyman. (Chp 7 "Realism in Science")

@fresco,

Excellent, well you clearly have more knowledge than me on the subject. I will look into the concepts you presented.