Replies

Thank you for your reply!

There are two worldviews on the subject. One sees three spatial dimensions evolving over time.

The other sees four dimensions, one of which is time - x,y,z and t for time.

The first view allows no additional temporal dimensions, the second does, e.g. Vafa's F-theory and Wesson's 5 Dimensional Relativity, 2 Times.

The second view is also expressed in Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe:

“A mathematical structure is an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of it but to the entire videotape. Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime — the bird perspective — these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described by Newton’s laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta — a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that store and process information. Our universe is far more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know to what, if any, mathematical structure it corresponds.

“The Platonic paradigm raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To an Aristotelian, this is a meaningless question: The universe just is. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why it could not have been different. If the universe is inherently mathematical, then why was only one of the many mathematical structures singled out to describe a universe? A fundamental asymmetry appears to be built into the very heart of reality.”

Tegmark, Max, “Parallel Universes,” Scientific American, May, 2003

[ There are two worldviews on the subject. One sees three spatial dimensions evolving over time. The other sees four dimensions, one of which is time - x,y, and t for time. ]

Waded thru Wesson and Vafa and Tegmark a little, till each spat on my Jib which made me tack away.... Wonder if Jesus considered these possible ramifications.. The human body is a wonderful bit of mechanics.. Most (of them(humans)) in time and history)) are clueless as to how it works in space/time.. It just does.. i.e the arm connected to the shoulder then to the backbone on down to the sphincter..

Humans bodys work fine not knowing how they work (usually).. it don't seem to be required (by God) to know how the body works(exactly).. It does however seem to be a requirement to know what and how the spirit works.. evidence: the Bible(written or oral even experiencial)..

What is required of the "frog in the well"(frog metaphore).. Cause it is certain we are all frogs in wells.. Few, it seems, could possibly understand the "tailings" of human fact mining.. and the "gold" thats been found could indeed be fools gold.. (math, geology, anthropology, even geometry.. etc.)

After a lifetime of wading thru the shoals and swamps and mountain peaks.. nugget hunting.. One thing is/seems certain to me.. When it gets complicated I'm probably on the wrong path.. Jesus does seem to make things "simpler".. as a matter fact he appears to operate on the "keep it simple stupid(K.I.S.S.) principle.

In my readings, he recognizes the human body but leads toward the spirit.. Theologically as in other "sciences" when it gets complicated the odor of BS is detected.. even if not seen.. Cynical?.. maybe..

Two dimensions "this one" and the "spiritual one".. seem to me to be quite practical.. Tacyons may be just a mental construct.. with marginal use.. After all a frog in a well seems to be limited to an either/or duality.. More than two options might be beyonds mans ability to comprehend.. It seems so.. beyond duality man seems to lose track chasing the maze..

Little wonder the Bible is so solid.. The spirit riding the donkey(mankind) is quite bibical.. Could be "the spirit" where all thought is generated will never under stand "this universe".. The human brain can't handle it and the human spirit don't really need to know.. If, as I suspect, human spirits will one day command "gifts" to manipulate "this universe" easily.. "We" won't "have" to know..

Meaning, as the human body operates easily in this "realm".. (not knowing the mechanics of it).. the spirit will operate in the other/different realm not needing to "know" the mechanics of "there".. This human experience just might be a mandatory test to spiritual suitabilty for that "there" experience.. Oversimplified?.. maybe..

But consideing "many" of these types of conversations.. it appears to me people do better with "simple".. All mannar of imaginings can come from that well in the ground(frog).. Counting the rocks on the wall(math) seems to be a common practice then to the shape((of the rocks)geometry).. True, its lonely in that well.. you must do something.. To think that, that, frog is not alone in that well.. the Holy Spirit is there to.. often/mostly ignored.. Theres a duality for you, the frog in the well ignoring the Holy Spirt.. Must think on that today.. Now theres a concept..

Sorry, Wesson drove me to it..

We can and do certainly create all kinds of different reference systems and multi-dimensional mathematical equations.

One of the most widely used and generally useful system for physicists in relativity today is called Minkowski space which defines the world in the 4 dimensions of x, y, z, and -t. (negative t)

However, there are a variety of coordinate systems that can and are used depending upon the particular physics under investigation.

Some of the systems have verifiable relevance to real life (Minkowski for instance) where all the dimensions can be measured and proven.

Other systems are multidimensional; and usually have very limited ability to be proven, verified, in the real world. String theory and its variants for instance.

Mathematically we deal witn n-number of dimensions and can make the mathematics do all sorts of interesting tricks, but many of those tricks will have zero truth, or reality, if they could be experimentally investigated (which most cannot).

I personally get a little impatient with the theorists (though I am one myself) who get all wrapped up in their mathematics and may lose sight of the real world. They tend to make a large number of simplifying assumptions, which take their formulas out of reality (but can still illuminate if verifiable)

It is rather like using a language to write beautiful elegant poetry or elaborate fiction rather than using the language to write dull documentaries and non-fiction. both use the same language, it must meet rules of grammar, spelling etc...one defines a reality (and is correct linguistically) and the other defines vast worlds of fiction (but is also correct linguistically).

Just because the math is correct does not make it real. (though certainly at times it does illuminate paths to new realities since it is much more a modelling language than the written language)