< Without using a name >
|
I
asked my better half (a native English speaker) to have a look on my
last few essays on superstring theory. Her reaction: "I
can't read your texts. You are an atheist inside and out. Your whole
worldview is atheistic; I can't jump in and comment or correct anything
because it's based on false premises, and if this has been going on
since 1989, I still have to find God." This surprising rebuttal
indicates that it may be worthwhile to elaborate in more detail on
these rather provocative thoughts.
|
First of all, it may be criticized - quite rightfully so - that the world we live in cannot be analyzed down
to the naked bones with mathematical gear. We should humbly and
decently live in this world and do our best. Sitting down and wasting
time by writing dubious tranctatus is not our best to do. If I started with Wittgenstein
(1.1. Die Welt ist die Gesamtheit der Tatsachen, nicht der Dinge), I
should also respect the end: (7. Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber
muss man schweigen).
|
| On the other hand, it took Wittgenstein himself 525
numbered statements to come from the first to the last one (189 pages
including introduction in the bilingual edition 1922). This surmounts the volume of my treatise by
far. It is a widespread misconception that thinking about our world and its what- and how- and wherabouts is no serious occupation for common people. But I'm not like everybody else. My theories about the inner workings of the world date back to my early childhood.
|
Also since these early years I've been aware of an inner and an outer world.
I
aspired to become a great philosopher and ended up as a little
biochemist. Nevertheless, I always kept on thinking about how all
things might be connected with each other in a great logical system. In
the late 70ies I realized that christian conviction can be based on
firm logical ground and not only on belief: God has become human in
Jesus.
|
And
in the late 80ies I stumbled over string theory that later developed
into superstring theory. After stumbling I fell right into the honeypot. But did I? You may judge yourself by reading my 'Traktat über die Wirklichkeit'.
To my impression I'm still today the only thinker to suggest
recognizable contributions of dimensions beyond spacetime to our
reality. When I came to this idea I was in my mid-thirties, still
flexible enough to think the improbable.
|
Today I'm sober
enough to recognize some peculiarities in this hypothesis. While the
basic 4 elements are distances and time and have nothing to do with us
as human beings, the next 3 elements bring us together with our
conspecifics and probably also with all other living species on this
earth. These first 7 dimensions interact with each other, but the last
three somehow stick out of the normal. They have no practical value on
first glance.
|
We
do research on the first 7 dimensions, but we have no instruments or
methods to deal with the upper three ones. They are accessible to each
of us in very personal means. We cannot deal with them by localisation
or by timing. They are simply there or simply not. They refuse
exploratory strategies developed under the rule of the lower
dimensions. This pertains also to their independence of distance and
time.
|
These latter properties prevent their targeted use or strategic deployment in conflict and aggression. Given
the extremely high number of solar systems in the cosmos and the
insignificance if distance and time, myriads of highly developed
societies have already contributed to this pool of 'higher feelings'.
The result is an impersonal treasure of ... of 'something'. Each of us has in principle access to it and may contribute to it.
|
We
don't know what it is. It is
the great unknown. It is what it is. Nevertheless, it is the product of
countless highly developed civilisations over billions of years. It
will most likely have changed slowly over these billenia. It slowly got
more intensive, more effective. Maybe we today feel it better than
others in earlier eras of the cosmos.You may have noticed that down to
this last paragraph I avoided mentioning of a 'higher being'.
Indirectly I alluded to IT several times, without using a name.
|
7/26 < MLB (8/26) > 8/26
|
Cosmic Feelings?
|
