Replies

Sorry to be a bit late responding to your long and carefully constructed post #83, Alamo-Girl. Here are a few thoughts on some of what you wrote:

You wrote: "The 'will to live' permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. For that reason, we assert that it is field-like (existing in all points of space/time). It is observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle. It is observed in the simplest of life forms (cell intelligence, amoeba)."
My response: this is entirely hypothetical. There's no evidence of which I'm aware that what you call the 'will to live' exists. I fear that you're hypostasizing here.
You wrote: "If a universal vacuum field is the host or medium for the lowest but universal will, the “will to live” - then it may be measurable indirectly by its effects on other fields, such as the electromagnetic field in living organisms. Alternatively or additionally, it may be geometrically related to the semiosis (the language, encoding and decoding) in living creatures, the DNA, e.g. post 881 on the Behe thread. Such possibilities are being investigated."
My response: again, no evidence of such a field. And I don't know what you might mean by "geometrically related" in your second sentence.
You wrote: "We strongly believe that space/time consists of more [than four] dimensions, the number is uncertain because of the duality between several of the theories. However, we are much more confident of the multi-dimensional structure because Strominger and Vafa were able to recreate the Hawking and Beckenstein blackhole entropy using string theory."
My response: Maybe physical reality includes more than four dimensions, maybe not. We just don't know yet. I prefer to withhold belief while keeping the possibility open.
You wrote: "Exactly what additional dimensions can tell us about other subjects is under investigation. One theory suggests that the reason gravity is so small relative to electromagnetism, strong and weak atomic forces is that it is interdimensional. As positive gravity is a space/time indent, negative gravity would be a space/time outdent and thus shed light on the acceleration of the universe.
"Another string theory, the f-theory (father theory) suggests that there is also an extra time dimension in which case our perceived timeline is actually a plane. This would help explain non-locality and superposition but it also would damage our notion of physical causality.
"Extra dimensions may also present the Shannon spheres more like multi-dimensional hypercubes – helping us to understand how semiosis (language, encoding/decoding) arose in biological life.
"And likewise, the extra dimensions may help us to understand the “will to live” and “self-will”. It is possible that the field-like will is a universal vacuum field of a different choice of coordinates."
My response: I guess we'll have to disagree on the usefulness of using exceedingly hypothetical constructs of fundamental physics to support philosophical theses (and vice versa). The physics can all too easily degenerate into buzzwords and the philosophical theses can get tied to the physics constructs du jour.
You wrote: "IOW, our four dimensional worldview is a seemingly arbitrary choice of coordinates out of set of 10, 11 or 12 (for instance). Sirag is proposing that most of these additional dimensions are used in the phenomenon of consciousness (and presumably, life or a higher reality).
"Sirag however puts all of consciousness into a single entity, a “universal consciousness” even though he suggests seven dimensions as host. Personally, I dismiss this part of his speculation as a personal bias towards Eastern mysticism."
My response: Here you begin to address the main question I earlier posed about Sirag's views. But I must disagree with your assertion that "our four dimensional worldview is a seemingly arbitrary choice of coordinates out of [a] set of 10, 11 or 12 (for instance)". Length, width, height and duration can hardly be called arbitrary measures of the physical reality we find ourselves inhabiting. Furthermore, I can make no sense of the notions that extra (physical) dimensions "are used in the phenomenon of consciousness (and presumably, life or a higher reality)". Sirag would here be bordering on babble, it seems to me. And, finally, I hope you'll forgive me for quoting myself:
I would still like to know what it means to "identify the E7 reflection space (a 7-d complex space) with universal consciousness." I'm unable to attach significance to the identification of a mathematical object with a (presumably) physical process the existence of which is entirely unsupported by evidence.

I don't see that your defense of Sirag addresses the heart of what I'm asking here.

Well, that's it for now. Time for some sleep.

Best regards...

Thank you oh so very much for your thoughtful – and very well formatted – reply! I won’t repeat the dialogue here, just my response:

1. I provided evidence of the will to live on the links which were part of the paragraph you excerpted. These refer to research on cells and amoeba indicating a will to live, struggle to survive which are often associated only with organisms who possess physical brains. The other evidence – which I really didn’t feel warranted a link – is that the molecular machinery in the organism (cardiovascular, neural, alimentary, etc.) are functionally oriented and yet work together for the survival of the organism. When any of these suffer a fatal insult (brain death, heart attack) – the remaining portions of the machinery proper plus all other functions nevertheless struggle to survive. In the case of the heart attack, new vessels are routed around dead tissue. In the case of brain death, a respirator allows life to continue nevertheless.

2. WRT “geometrically related” – a field is defined as existing in all points of space/time. Some fields, such as gravity, are thought to be inter-dimensional (open-string). If a universal vacuum field is the host to the will to live, then there is nothing to preclude an inter-dimensional field.

3. Actually the Strominger-Vafa computation was very strong evidence for multiple dimensions. But of course, you are free to dismiss any evidence you wish in formulating your views.

4. Indeed. We must agree to disagree on the import of theoretical physics.

5. Since you dismiss extra-dimensionality per se, there is no point in attempting to evaluate Sirag’s speculations because he surmises a “universal consciousness” from the excess dimensions in string theory.

For any Lurkers interested in what extra dimensions “mean” to us: The Curse of Dimensionality