Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
No, bb, Hank made a statement that I was contesting. He and I, I think, live in different worlds. As to yourself, the most heinous charge I could level at you is depth of insight complemented by eloquence. There isn't much about which we disagree, bb.
OK. Sorry for the miscue.
Hank, the high significance of the operator in quantum mechanics is that at some fundamental level a non-deterministic decision is made. This obviously involves free will of some sort. Were this not so, the math could describe it. This has been shown to be impossible. The mechanics of quantum mechanics (if you will) are not understood and I would go so far as to say they can never be understood in deterministic terms.
Consciousness and free will are thus alive and well within the physics profession, denial and dissembling by many physicists notwithstanding.
Hank, I think you said you're an autonomist/objectivist and I take you at your word. Trouble is that objectivism doesn't say much at all of significance philosophically. You live your life as a responsible adult because you believe its right. I respect that. But it's not philosophy. You're also a bit of a curmudgeon. And I like that. You also ride a bike. I like that a lot. Now you see, I am indeed following along, albeit mostly silently.
Hank, we are so far apart on our understanding of dimensionality, I really have nothing to contribute your discussion.
But for those who are interested in geometric physics and extra time dimensions, Cumrun Vafa of Harvard appears to be the name to watch. Here are a few of his articles:
SPARE TIME. Descartes gave us co-ordinate geometry, with its three spatial dimensions. Einstein put time on an equivalent footing, creating 4-dimensional spacetime. String theory added six more spatial dimensions, and M theory added yet one more for a total of eleven (see Update 329). Now Cumrun Vafa of Harvard has added still another----an extra element of time---to make the existing theories more compatible with each other. Because of possible side effects, such as faster-than-light travel or questionable causality (time would not be measured sequentially along an axis but would spread out into a plane), Vafa's "F Theory" has not found many adherents yet. (New Scientist, 1 November.)
Dualities as Geometric Transitions (pdf)
Doctor Stochastic, you said:
I am not an objectivist. The very first sentence of the page I linked to begins, "Autonomy is not a philosophy, not an ideology ...." I agree with much of what many objectivists have written, however.
...objectivism doesn't say much at all of significance philosophically...
If it doesn't say much, what does that say about all the people who so vehemently oppose it. If it's so innocuous, why worry about it? It's pretty easy to say, "well that doesn't say much about such'n'such. Just once, I would like someone who has actually studied objectivism to point to some specific assertion and explain what is wrong with it.
Now, I can do that. My disagreements with objectivism are primarily refinements, but objectivism does have two or three very serious flaws. There is no metaphysics or ontology, and in the area of politics it makes some major mistakes, actually of a collectivist nature. Objectivist epistemology has made the first real advances in that area of philosophy since Locke (because after Hume, the entire field was destroyed). There are flaws with the epistemology, (one serious mistake in their understanding of the nature of perception and a mistake in their understanding of definition relative to concepts, for example) but all are correctable. The most important contribution of objectivism is their explication of the true nature of concepts as "identifications" and nothing more, which sweeps away mountains of metaphysical and mystical rubbish.
You live your life as a responsible adult because you believe its right. ... But it's not philosophy.
The way I live my life is entirely determined by my philosophy. If I learn that some aspect of my philosophy is incorrect, and it bears on my values, choices, or actions, the way I live my life will change. I live according to principles based on my understanding of my nature and the nature of the world I live in. One of those principles is that the purpose of my life (and yours) is to enjoy it (not make it last as long as possible). That's one reason I ride a bike and consider it an act, among other things, of moral defiance. But, of course, that is not philosophical.
You're also a bit of a curmudgeon.
My wife and my kitties think I'm a pushover.
I am indeed following along ...
Quite. How would you like to write my biography?
So, please do not be so quiet, and tell us some more about you. What is your philosophy and what principles do you live by? I believe they must be interesting, because you are. For example, is you choice of a screen-name significant or fortuitous?
Hank
Sorry to be so scarce lately, A-G. Work life is frantic and may stay that way a while.
Personally, I think the question of dimensionality sets up the next frontier for the human mind.
More or less intuitively, I’ve proposed that, if there is a dimension beyond three of space and one of time -- 3D[s] + 1D[t] = 4D -- it may be a t-dimension, not an s-dimension.
But there is huge resistance to this proposition. If the fifth dimension is a time dimension, then all known laws of causality are thrown into doubt. The 4D world guarantees you a linear succession in time, past to present to future. Add another dimension, then what does the world look like?
It doesn’t matter, I suppose, whether the “next” (5D) dimension is of space or of time. Either way, bizarre results result. Consider the following, from the article you bumped me to (“The Curse of Dimensionality,” by Mario Koppen), which suggests that spatial dimensions are basically a “mental product”:
“...Poincare also considered the question about the three dimensional nature of our world, and he gives a surprisingly modern-sounding idea. According to him, a thinking entity, as ... human beings are, could assign to their world [whatever number of] dimension[s] they like, since all of them are mathematically equivalent. Thereby, the world appears to be an abstract premise for sensoric perception and muscular activity, and spatial dimensions are basically a mental product. The choice for three depends on the configuration of the human nervous system and the so-acquired evolutionary advantage. By using two 2-dimensional retinas, the movement of the two hands has to be monitored. A dimension of 2 would not suffice to perform such a control, and a dimension of 4 would allow for movements during which the hands may even shortly be disconnected from the remaining body. So, a dimension of 3 seems to be a good compromise....”
But if it were possible to have access to a fourth spatial dimension, a few “weird” things would become possible:
“-- It would be possible to directly perceive the interior of a body;
-- The content of a box could be taken without opening the box;
-- A node could be removed from a string without moving the ends of the string;
-- A body could be lifted without external forces;
-- A body could be moved into its mirror form….”
Koppen appears to argue that if there is a fifth dimension accessible to the mind, it is likely to be spatial, not temporal:
“…considering time as a fourth dimension is not the same as considering a fourth spatial dimension. While it is a good trick for describing relativity, it is [just not] more: We cannot move [back and forth] in time….”
Further he notes that “Up to now, there is no experiment known which demonstrates the fact of a merely 3-dimensional world, and also there is no fact known for which a 3-dimensional world would be optimal…. [And yet] simultaneous perception of different aspects of the same thing…would be a simple act for a four-dimensional (thinking) being….”
So Koppen basically rules out the possibility of any “extra” dimension being time (because of the “problems” that it introduces with respect to causality, the invariance of the time order); he suggests that if there is an extra dimension, it is spatial – which would then allow for the possibility of “simultaneous” perception “of different aspects of the same thing.”
But I can’t help but feel that this sort of thing, if anything, is an argument for an extra time dimension – the word “simultaneous” is the clue here.
Yet to visualize extra dimensions is extraordinarily difficult – perhaps because Poincare was right, that perception of dimensions is conditioned by the “configuration of the human nervous system and the so-acquired evolutionary advantage.”
Maybe it’s time for an expansion of consciousness, an “emergent property” that may provide a new “evolutionary advantage” for the human race.
Some day. :^)
“…considering time as a fourth dimension is not the same as considering a fourth spatial dimension. While it is a good trick for describing relativity, it is [just not] more: We cannot move [back and forth] in time….”
Over the years, more than one scientific theory had to hurdle that particular objection. Galileo comes to mind...
It also could host explanation for myriad paranormal phenomenon - from precognition to near death experience. And to top it all off, it is compatible with Scripture.
Yep, 'way too upsetting, A-G!
Yet perhaps the 4D block -- 3S + 1T -- can only be viewed as a plane from the fifth dimension (T the second). That way, since we "live" and "perceive" in 4D, we don't "notice" the brane-like quality of 4D. And since we don't "notice it," it is not "real" for us; that is, from our "perspective." Meaning Time is still perceived as linear and unidirectional for us. So we continue to experience time as a movement from past to present to future. And causation appears to be unaffected and unaffectable.
Just a wild speculation.... I'm reminded of Heraclitus' observation: "Nature loves to hide."
I think the same myself some days, Phaedrus! Is Hank really taking the position that there's no such thing as free will because "volition" is unavoidable?
Old joke in philosophy: It's because he had no choice in the matter.
PatrickHenry and I had quite a sidebar going on flying "by the seat of the pants." With super speeds, night flying and poor visibility - the pilot has to ignore his 'senses' and pay attention to the avionics.
I believe geometric physics puts the scientist in the same quandary. To understand it, he must ignore his physical senses.
Yes, but it's an old story. The solar system theory is certainly counter-intuitive. The earth seems quite stationary. Lesson learned: our senses have developed to be good enough for survival, but there's no need for them to have developed to the point where we can detect everything.
What puzzles me, however, is why we seem to have far more intelligence than we really require. Well, sometimes it puzzles me.
Thank you so much for the excellent analogies, A-G, PH! I think they really help us understand what the real situation is WRT the problem of another time dimension: It's essentially a cognitive problem.
Thank you for your reply!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.