"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty? Learn the basics of science then
repost or simply read a basic text on mathematical modeling
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/053...lance&n=283155

I picked up an older copy for about $25.

Rest of usual very long winded semantic junk snipped.

Bill

wrote in message
oups.com...
Bill Hobba wroteth:
"S D Rodrian" wrote in message
...
The Achilles Heel of String Theory.

The instant the term "dimensions" ["the number of
elements in a basis of a vector space," "the quality
of spatial extension] is used in any text to describe
anything which might exist apart from our reality
(universe)... you can be certain it is a science-
fiction text, and NOT science (as "the systematic
study of reality").

So models have no connection to realty?

Such an absolute statement! ]

It was a question not a statement.

Since you are a person
obviously lacking the gift of subtlety, I shall be more
categorical still, for your sake:

"Some models do have a connection to reality, but
not all of them." NOTE that my paragraph specifies
those models which use so-called "dimensions."
Specifically: NONE of those "models" have any
connection with reality whatsoever (they lose all
connection to reality the instant the term "dimension"
is a mention):

Then linear programming and operations research are out and those that make
a living from it selling their expertise are fooling themselves and their
clients. And out goes QM because it uses a Hilbert space which has - wonder
of wonders - an infinite number of dimensions. You are obviously ignorant
of very basic stuff.


Why? Because if the mind can conceive of any
"conceivable" manifold (or, so-called dimension), then
that "dimension" can exist in our reality as part of
our so-called three-dimensional reality WITHOUT
having to "add anything to it" (to our 3-D reality).

"Pushing" it OUT of our reality is an unnecessary
artificiality perpetrated ("mathematically") via the
common confusion that arises when we speak of our
reality as somehow strictly "3" dimensional. Or,

HINT: If it exists inside our 3-D reality,

Your proof that our reality (whatever that is) is 3d and, for example, extra
dimensions are not curled up on a scale too small to directly perceive is
eagerly awaited.

Bill

? there is no
need for it to exist outside it. Therefore it adds nothing
to speak of it as "an additional" dimension (it adds
nothing to our reality). DOUBLE HINT:

There is nothing "1" dimensional in our reality.

Therefore it's nonsense to try to speak of
anything being "2" dimensional, and therefore
even more absurd to speak of anything being "3"
dimensional (in reality), and so on & so on...
the sequence becoming more and more absurd
as it goes on.

Hope this simplificationalism helps, but I know from
experience that simpletons are not necessarily always
the first to grasp the simplest things.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com

In sci.physics.electromag Bill Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics. The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions, which is an unproven
assumption.

I'd appreciate comments on these observations by the OP.

--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

wrote:
In sci.physics.electromag Bill
Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded
semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics.

Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

If we do not define reality... we are mad.
It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

Think of a dog's brain, and what he makes of
the items in his master's house: Since most of
those items have no "dog use" they must not
register as they do to us. Therefore your dog
must think that you live in a heap of trash, a
clean, a synthetically perfumed dump. (Which
is why most dogs puzzle eternaly over their masters'
objection to their crapping all over the place, I'm
su "It's just a dump, forheavens'sake! Wolf!")

Reality is all. And we can hardly go about
thinking everything at the same time, now can we!

Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three! This is a
bum assumption [that our reality is confined
to three dimensions] ... but if you go back up
this thread of posts you will eventually reach
the part where I point out your insanity (that's
my job). And then you too shall be cured!

I'd appreciate comments on these observations
by the OP.

OP
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

A nation of wolves will make a bloody mess of any/all
governments proposed for them. ---S D Rodrian



..
..
..

In sci.physics.electromag wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics.electromag Bill
Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded
semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics.

Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

I use the word "semantics" to mean the study of the meaning *of words*.

The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

If we do not define reality... we are mad.

I am not saying that one should not define reality. However, I question
the particular definition which was chosen.

It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

I cannot agree that "social agreement ... makes [things] sensible".

Additionally, that which is not sensible may nevertheless be real. Many
wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not sensible, and were
unknown prior to the invention of certain machines. Nevertheless, they
are real.

The same may hold true for spatial dimensions in excess of 3.

Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three!

No, not quite. I am assuming that the possibility exists that there are
more than 3 spatial dimension. I have no strong opinion on whether such
dimensions are real. I concede that they are not presently sensible. I
hold open the possibility that, with unknown technology, they may become
sensible.


--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.electromag Bill Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics. The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

That's the trouble - he doesn't even attempt to define reality - not a bad
thing because philosophers can't agree on it anyway. The trick is to
tacitly assume things without stating them then say it must be true. And
(eg 'If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no need for it to exist
outside it.') making tautological statements saying precisely nothing.


Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions, which is an unproven
assumption.

He makes many underlying assumptions without even realising it, makes
tautological statements say exactly nothing as if they are significant
insight, and when such is pointed out it goes right over his head.

Basically he is a frustrated philosopher that should learn the basics of
philosophy/logic before posting - and not to science forums either.

Thanks
Bill


I'd appreciate comments on these observations by the OP.

--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote:
In sci.physics.electromag Bill
Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded
semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics.

Yup, this is indeed "the study of meaning."
Unless your usage is the reprehensibly vulgar
"propaganda."

The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

If we do not define reality... we are mad.

Not really. Science gets by quite well without an actual definition. It is
philosophy that wants to go further - but they can never actually agree on
anything.

It is our social agreement on the purpose/use
(et al) of things (including ourselves)
which makes them sensible.

Sounds similar to Wittgenstein - those that challenged him like Turing
disagreed. They debated each other to a standstill during lectures Turing
attended of Wittgenstein's. It was generally thought Wittgenstein won - but
later careful analysis led many to come down on the side of Turing eg more
than social agreement is required for things to be sensible.


Think of a dog's brain, and what he makes of
the items in his master's house: Since most of
those items have no "dog use" they must not
register as they do to us. Therefore your dog
must think that you live in a heap of trash, a
clean, a synthetically perfumed dump. (

As usual your logic is atrocious.

Bill

Which
is why most dogs puzzle eternaly over their masters'
objection to their crapping all over the place, I'm
su "It's just a dump, forheavens'sake! Wolf!")

Reality is all. And we can hardly go about
thinking everything at the same time, now can we!

Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three! This is a
bum assumption [that our reality is confined
to three dimensions] ... but if you go back up
this thread of posts you will eventually reach
the part where I point out your insanity (that's
my job). And then you too shall be cured!

I'd appreciate comments on these observations
by the OP.

OP
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com


A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

A nation of wolves will make a bloody mess of any/all
governments proposed for them. ---S D Rodrian



.
.
.

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:24:25 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

In sci.physics.electromag Bill Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics. The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions, which is an unproven
assumption.

I'd appreciate comments on these observations by the OP.

EW:

Actually the "definition-of-reality" sez if you walk off a cliff you die
quick. Period. Whomever dies quick does NOT get to define reality. Period.

nss
*********

Bill Hobba wrote:
wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.electromag Bill Hobba wrote:

Rest of usual very long winded semantic junk snipped.

I too think that this is semantics. The definition of reality, for
example, limits the possibilities.

That's the trouble - he doesn't even attempt to define reality - not a bad
thing because philosophers can't agree on it anyway. The trick is to
tacitly assume things without stating them then say it must be true.

I'm hardly interested in defining reality (not ALL of reality...
I'll leave that to the dictionary people). I am merely
interested in pointing out that magic does not exist in it.
(Along with pointing out the con-men/lunatics who
propose it does. This is rather a humble quest, I think.)

And
(eg 'If it exists inside our 3-D reality, there is no need for it to exist
outside it.') making tautological statements saying precisely nothing.

I think you need to talk with the dictionary people about a
definition for "tautological." Maybe this will help: "If you have
the money for the movie, there is no need for you to go out
in the street turning out tricks for the bucks." You were
probably thinking of things you were probably thinking of.

Additionally, there is an underlying assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions, which is an unproven
assumption.

He makes many underlying assumptions without even realising it,

Then point them out to me & ya gots me! I make one assumption
alone: If you are stupid you will seldom do intelligent things (and
not matter how clever you may be).

makes
tautological statements say exactly nothing as if they are significant
insight, and when such is pointed out it goes right over his head.

I will wear an impossibly tall Marie Antoinette wig this time.
I Promise! So: Point out, point out.

Basically he is a frustrated philosopher that should learn the basics of
philosophy/logic before posting - and not to science forums either.
Thanks Bill

Sorry, but I am a frustrated short-order cook only. I would
love to be able to dish out the hash like some fellows I know.

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com



I'd appreciate comments on these observations by the OP.

--
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
--Edward R. Murrow

wrote:

I cannot agree that "social agreement ... makes [things] sensible".

Please talk it over with your dog. And you'llassie I'm right.

Additionally, that which is not sensible may nevertheless be real. Many
wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation are not sensible, and were
unknown prior to the invention of certain machines. Nevertheless, they
are real.

I think you're confusing cotton candy with radiation:

All that existed before man existed. And all
that will exist after Man will exist. But nobody
made change for a dollar before Man, and no-
body will laugh at a good joke after Man (nor
at a bad one, smarty pants). --SDR

The same may hold true for spatial dimensions in excess of 3.

May I speak with your dog? I think it might be
more sensible...

Could I be more specific about what I mean?
Let's try:
NOTHING CAN BE LIMITED TO
"ANY" NUMBER OF DIMENSIONS.

If one abstracts the least single dimension from ANYTHING
it effectivey removes that something from reality. And then
you are talking fantasy (science-fiction).

Self-evidently, this must include ANY/ALL "dimension(s)"
which EXCLUDE ANY OTHER "dimension(s)."

PLEASE RE-READ this thread from the original post!

String theory is marvelous mathematics. But if ANY part of it
depends on the existence of Santy Claus, then it has NO
connection with reality PERIOD. And since string theory
can only balance its equations by piling on extraneous (e.g.
impossible) "dimensions" it is pure FICTION--"pure/absolute."

Additionally, there is an underlying
assumption that human senses can
completely discern all existing dimensions,
which is an unproven assumption.

This happens when you come in late into the
conversation: You are assuming that there are
such things as mathematical dimensions in
the universe apart from "our" three!

No, not quite. I am assuming that the possibility exists that there are
more than 3 spatial dimension.

And I am telling you there ain't nothin' that ain't made up
of all the innumerable (look up that word in a book called
The Dictionary) dimensions of our reality.

IF SOMETING LACKS EXISTENCE IN ANY
DIMENSION (or part thereof) IT CANNOT EXIST.
(And if something exists in one or more dimension
than those of our reality... then those so-called other
"dimensions" are superflous: PURE FANTASY.)

String Theory is pure mathematics ONLY. Get over it.
Rejoice, in fact. Now you won't have to waste your life
trying to figure out how string theory governs life!

? I have no strong opinion on whether such
dimensions are real.

Then prey tell, what be U doing in this conversation?

I concede that they are not presently sensible. I
hold open the possibility that, with unknown technology, they may become
sensible.

What about ghosts? And pixies? And gods? And
those beings that consist only of unglued eyes with ears
stuck to them...?

S D Rodrian
http://poems.sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://music.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com