< Doing justice to the world >
|
Either you wait unpatiently for
my next inquiry into our multidimensional reality, or you already feel
bored being afraid of another round of meaningless schnick-schnack
('Unsinn'). It may be 'Unsinn', I admit, but I find it quite
entertaining. And since I basically write for myself, I simply ignore the possibility to bore readers.
|
Since a few years, we can ask Google what its KI thinks about any particular idea.
I was surprised how talkative it got if confronted with the idea of a
10-dimensional world. It even claimed to know what 'super-symmetry'
was, although - after reading - I still don't know what it is. So,
something is still going on with that subject, but our imagination is
to weak to find a convincing narrative for easy communication.
|
If
you went through some of my essays on the subject, you know that my
approach is rather unconventional. Instead of speculating on
super-coiled properties too tiny not only for our bare eye, but also
for our most powerful instruments, I begin by asking what any events or
facts need to be taken serious. They need to be measured or counted (Galileo Galilei), results have to be reproduced, and we need a sound hypothesis to explain them.
|
With
such thoughts, nothing is 'super-coiled', but we simply follow
established rules of scientific research. To my impression, these rules
lead us several steps closer to a true reality than any suggested (but
invisible) 'properties' can do. What is the difference? The difference
is observation, communication and hypothesis forming, i.e. human
activities. While measuring and counting can be accomplished with
(almost) perfect precision, to deal with such results is a less
reliable mastery.
|
The
'physical world' is the arena of high-precision (line; area; room;
time) while what we make of these is the arena of low-precision skills.
The latter depend on debates, social environment, customs and power;
paradigms are shifting over the eras.
Although it is evident that the reception of any solid events or facts
will always be subject to much less solid controversies and fashion, we
grant the latter ones no explicit role in our world view.
|
The reason is obvious: we have
trouble to measure and count these higher order features. Nevertheless, they are of enormous
influence. We can reason about them, discuss them, even write thick
books about them, but they will always stay some kind of 'soft'
property of our reality. So what? Should we simply dismiss them? We
just miss appropriate algorithms to include them in the description of
our reality. Maybe at some time in the future, we will distinguish
high-precision from low-precision dimensions.
|
At the upper end, further
dimensions may exist that are simply 'free', with no precision at all
(not even with a low one). Maybe this is the only way to do justice to
this wonderful world of ours. A theory on the whole world may satisfy
the mathematicians, but finally they will have to accept that their
equations are true, but good for nothing. Nothing useful can be
calculated with them. At least they prove our freedom.
|
| 8/26 < MLB (8/26) >
|
