Thalion wrote:Hegel completed what Kant said: what is rational is real, and what is real is rational. We give laws to nature but we are also at the same time subject to those laws; they are in fact variations of the same thing.
I really don't know what else I can say about the physics. Do you actually know the history/theory behind what we're talking about? Maxwell proved that light travels at a constant speed in his laws of electromagnetism. The concept that certain things could not be known did not exist before the Uncertainty Principle and so there is no way it could have been created around something empirically observed. (going back to my first point: many of Kant's beliefs were reflected in the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) I have no idea how you could argue against that. How could you possibly express things in more than 4 dimensions if math is based on observations? (it can be done)
Your views seem to be something like stoicism or skepticism: all that exists is thought or all that exists is what we observe, which is not true. Idealism has been illustrated to be correct.
On one point: the uncertainty principle, with or without its mathematics does not tell us how things can be known. We are left with the maths but sense is left behind. For those who insist on claiming that mathematics can provide us with a picture of the world, we need only examine the absurd metaphysics that arises from unbridled imagination playing upon the simple signs of mathematics in probability theory to show that mathematics cannot provide us with such a picture.
Before we talk of a fourth dimension we better say what we mean by it. We can say that the fourth dimension is another spatial extension, but as we have no perception of that, it is an empty model.
And it is not enough for a perceptually empty model to be regarded as a potentially viable one by a mathmatics, for mathmatics is a tool used in the service of our perception.
