dimensions

[Laudate_Dominum]

I know there are different theories regarding multiple universes (bubble theory, M-theory, etc,) and that there are different versions of string theory and other theories that postulate up to 26 dimensions in the universe and all that..

I'm not really very excited about such theories, but I do have a question for everyone.

I have heard that it is mathematically possible to postulate the existence of space-time continuums which are other than three space and one time as in the universe we experience.
Does anyone know anything about this? Is it really possible and/or likely that there may in fact be universes of say, two dimensional space and two dimensional time, or one dimension of space and three time?

[Laudate_Dominum]

I thought this was interesting.

[i]Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the [b]multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science[/b], the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.[/i] - Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:46 PM']I know there are different theories regarding multiple universes (bubble theory, M-theory, etc,) and that there are different versions of string theory and other theories that postulate up to 26 dimensions in the universe and all that..

I'm not really very excited about such theories, but I do have a question for everyone.

I have heard that it is mathematically possible to postulate the existence of space-time continuums which are other than three space and one time as in the universe we experience.
Does anyone know anything about this? Is it really possible and/or likely that there may in fact be universes of say, two dimensional space and two dimensional time, or one dimension of space and three time?
[right][snapback]717595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


yes it is possible but life could not really exist in 2 deminsional space at least not anything beyond a very very simple single cell.

4 or more spacial dimensions would casuse certian laws which work on square to work on the cube( or even a higher factor) which for a variety of reasons would not allow things like planerts to exist. so 3 spacial dimensions is pretty much required for life as we think of it.

[Socrates]

Your second post touched on what I was going to add.

I'm not a scientist, but it seems that hypotheses about other "universes" and "dimensions" are nothing but pure speculation, rather than something based on solid scientific evidence.

Atheists like to propose an infinite number of universes in order to explain how this one is orderly and conducive to life against mathematical odds. ("With an infinite number of universes, at least one of them's bound to work!")

Edited September 10, 2005 by Socrates

[FutureSoror]

Yeah, much of the string theory, m theory and such actually delve into philosophy-- and that's not science! There also is a difference between looking for facts to suit theories and postulating theories to explain facts.

[hierochloe]

One thing I would recommend to be on guard for is attempts to assign alterior motive to anything scientific. Science is using theories that rely on poly-dimensional concepts to explain the behavior of matter. However, these are just theories that are even more weakly supported than that of the infamous evolution of species. it's really too early to assign them any significant credibility. At this point, I believe the accepted standard model still only includes four dimensions. This is other stuff is bleeding edge.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='FutureSoror' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:09 PM']Yeah, much of the string theory, m theory and such actually delve into philosophy-- and that's not science!  There also is a difference between looking for facts to suit theories and postulating theories to explain facts.
[right][snapback]717620[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
science is a philosphy it is simply propaganda that it is not. There are all sorts of philosophical propositions to science. That said I think physics is finally reachinga point of maturity where it's philosophy is worth reading.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:11 PM']science is a  philosphy it is simply propaganda that it is not. There are all sorts of philosophical propositions to science. That said I think physics is finally reachinga point of maturity where it's philosophy is worth reading.
[right][snapback]717623[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I must disagree with this statement. Science and philosophy are different disciplines. (not that the two are completely unrelated). One can be a scientist and have any number of different philosphies.

Science (as commonly understood - the physical sciences) involves studying the mechanics of how physical things work.

Philosophy studies the meaning and ultimate nature of reality and covers things which are beyond the realm of physical science.

Traditionally, philosophy was understood as one of the sciences (which referred to any intellectual discipline) rather than vise-versa.

What is usually referred to as "science" today are the physical sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) None of these in itself constitutes a separate "philosophy."

[Socrates]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:10 PM']One thing I would recommend to be on guard for is attempts to assign alterior motive to anything scientific. Science is using theories that rely on poly-dimensional concepts to explain the behavior of matter. However, these are just theories that are even more weakly supported than that of the infamous evolution of species. it's really too early to assign them any significant credibility. At this point, I believe the accepted standard model still only includes four dimensions. This is other stuff is bleeding edge.
[right][snapback]717621[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't know enough about such theories to say anthything scientific about them, but my problem isn't really with the possibility of this universe having more than 4 "dimensions" (whatever that means), but with the idea that there's a vast mulitude or infinite of "other universes."

The "infinite univereses" commonly used by atheists as a way of allowing there to be no God, and is made quite independent of scientific evidence. It is pure speculation, nothing more.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:29 PM']I must disagree with this statement.  Science and philosophy are different disciplines.  (not that the two are completely unrelated). One can be a scientist and have any number of different philosphies.

Science (as commonly understood - the physical sciences)  involves studying the mechanics of how physical things work.

Philosophy studies the meaning and ultimate nature of reality and covers things which are beyond the realm of physical science.

Traditionally, philosophy was understood as one of the sciences (which referred to any intellectual discipline) rather than vise-versa.

What is usually referred to as "science" today are the physical sciences (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.)  None of these in itself constitutes a separate "philosophy."
[right][snapback]717653[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Oh yes it does the scientific method upon which all modern "physical sciences are based on is itself its own philosophical system embracing its own epistemology and having its own philosophical presuppositions.

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 9 2005, 07:46 PM']I know there are different theories regarding multiple universes (bubble theory, M-theory, etc,) and that there are different versions of string theory and other theories that postulate up to 26 dimensions in the universe and all that..

I'm not really very excited about such theories, but I do have a question for everyone.

I have heard that it is mathematically possible to postulate the existence of space-time continuums which are other than three space and one time as in the universe we experience.
Does anyone know anything about this? Is it really possible and/or likely that there may in fact be universes of say, two dimensional space and two dimensional time, or one dimension of space and three time?
[right][snapback]717595[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The string/M-theories are an attempt to come up with a fundamental formula that generates the forces and particles we observe. So far, none have actually come very close to a viable formula, and they're riddled with so many problems that it may not turn out to be a useful branch at all. It did get a lot of attention and press for a while, though.

This (very, very complicated) mathematics, which occasionally seems to generate a few known observables, can be tweaked to predict all kinds of theoretical universes, sure. Time and space are just dimensions. Did you have a more specific application in mind?

In my experience there is no philosophy involved in this branch of physics, or with physics at all. Physics gets "philisophical" when pop-science writers who don't know any math try to explain math-based concepts. All the physicists I know [i]detest[/i] philosophy. Only a few nutty guys who want to sell books or get interviews ever talk about multiple universes or nonsense like that.

(Edited to sound less snotty. )

Edited September 10, 2005 by philothea

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:48 PM']The string/M-theories are an attempt to come up with a fundamental formula that generates the forces and particles we observe.  So far, none have actually come very close to a viable formula, and they're riddled with so many problems that it may not turn out to be a useful branch at all.  It did get a lot of attention and press for a while, though.

This (very, very complicated) mathematics, which occasionally seems to generate a few known observables, can be tweaked to predict all kinds of theoretical universes, sure.  Time and space are just dimensions.  Did you have a more specific application in mind?

In my experience there is no philosophy involved in this branch of physics, or with physics at all.  Physics gets "philisophical" when pop-science writers who don't know any math try to explain math-based concepts.  All the physicists I know [i]detest[/i] philosophy.  Only a few nutty guys who want to sell books or get interviews ever talk about multiple universes or nonsense like that.

(Edited to sound less snotty. )
[right][snapback]717667[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


physics IS a philosophy--- or more appropriately all of science is a philosophy. It is a philosophy which claims excusivity and tries to distance itself from philosophy in general but that doesn't change what it is.


Edit I have read some fairly scholarly stuff on multiple universes, but more by Quantum physics guys talking about uneversise expanding at right angles to the universe.

Edited September 10, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Colleen]

Actually, the study of natural things (science) is philosophy. At least according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 9 2005, 08:48 PM']In my experience there is no philosophy involved in this branch of physics, or with physics at all.  Physics gets "philisophical" when pop-science writers who don't know any math try to explain math-based concepts.  All the physicists I know [i]detest[/i] philosophy.  Only a few nutty guys who want to sell books or get interviews ever talk about multiple universes or nonsense like that.
[right][snapback]717667[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Quoted for truth. Don't let alterior motives affect your research of the subject matter.

The only way bleeding edge science ever qualifies as philosophy is in that it is very difficult if not completely impossible to physically test these theories, rendering them somewhat less than empirical and more logical conjecture.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 01:57 AM']Quoted for truth. Don't let alterior motives affect your research of the subject matter.

The only way bleeding edge science ever qualifies as philosophy is in that it is very difficult if not completely impossible to physically test these theories, rendering them somewhat less than empirical and more logical conjecture.
[right][snapback]717886[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I've read stuff by dudes such as Einstein, Karl Popper, Heisenberg, Bohr and others which indicates that they certainly saw Physics as being pretty darn philosophical. And I'd say the methods of science are grounded on philosophical principles. The idea that experiments and inductive or deductive proofs have any value rests upon epistemological and even metaphysical presuppositions. Even the most basic categories of science are essentially philosophical constructs.

It is really evident in studying ideas and science from a historical perspective. It was philosophical developments that made the work of say, Newton possible. His science was built off of the foundation of the Occidental philosophical tradition and would be groundless apart from medieval developments in epistemology, metaphysics and logic (as well as physics, optics, etc.. which were considered to be inside the scope of philosophy).

[philothea]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']I've read stuff by dudes such as Einstein, Karl Popper, Heisenberg, Bohr and others which indicates that they certainly saw Physics as being pretty darn philosophical.
[/quote]
Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense. Turns out that isn't true. There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on. I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']And I'd say the methods of science are grounded on philosophical principles. The idea that experiments and inductive or deductive proofs have any value rests upon epistemological and even metaphysical presuppositions. Even the most basic categories of science are essentially philosophical constructs.
[right][snapback]717889[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes, of course. But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy. I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:27 AM']Sure, but those are all from an earlier age, perhaps when physicists thought that the underpinnings of reality would make some sort of logical-to-the-human-mind sense.  Turns out that isn't true.  There aren't many physicists left who think it's worthwhile to try comprehend what is "really" going on.  I can think of a couple (Kaku and Penrose) and they're both... a bit wacky. 
[/quote]
The irony is that this is in fact a philosophical conclusion. It is simply a new, and distinctly post-modern epistemological presupposition.

[quote name='philothea' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:27 AM']Yes, of course.  But that's not the normal understanding of philosophy.  I am sorry if I sounded critical, I was only trying to share some of my experience.
[right][snapback]717899[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The compartmentalization and redefining of philosophy is another philosophical development. You really can't escape philosophy. The philosophical questions are essentially at the heart of man's strivings to make sense of reality.

[hierochloe]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:04 AM']I've read stuff by dudes such as Einstein, Karl Popper, Heisenberg, Bohr and others which indicates that they certainly saw Physics as being pretty darn philosophical. And I'd say the methods of science are grounded on philosophical principles. The idea that experiments and inductive or deductive proofs have any value rests upon epistemological and even metaphysical presuppositions. Even the most basic categories of science are essentially philosophical constructs.

It is really evident in studying ideas and science from a historical perspective. It was philosophical developments that made the work of say, Newton possible. His science was built off of the foundation of the Occidental philosophical tradition and would be groundless apart from medieval developments in epistemology, metaphysics and logic (as well as physics, optics, etc.. which were considered to be inside the scope of philosophy).
[right][snapback]717889[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would agree that in Newton's era that was even commonplace. The field of science was not well defined as seperate from the supernatural. However, I disagree that more current theories have their origins quite so deeply rooted in that way.

Nevertheless, I do agree that bleeding edge science does borrow from many sources, even the philosophical at times. The difference is that these theories indeed gain [b]no[/b] credibility among science from their philosophical roots (and therefor are not grounded there) but rather from the supporting empirical evidence - and that's exactly what makes it science as opposed to philosophy.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:39 AM']I would agree that in Newton's era that was even commonplace. The field of science was not well defined as seperate from the supernatural. However, I disagree that more current theories have their origins quite so deeply rooted in that way.
[/quote]
Are you implying that the object of philosophy is the supernatural?

[quote name='hierochloe' date='Sep 10 2005, 02:39 AM']Nevertheless, I do agree that bleeding edge science does borrow from many sources, even the philosophical at times. The difference is that these theories indeed gain [b]no[/b] credibility among science from their philosophical roots (and therefor are not grounded there) but rather from the supporting empirical evidence - and that's exactly what makes it science as opposed to philosophy.
[right][snapback]717902[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Science does not borrow from philosophy, it rests upon it, is informed by it, and at times is synonymous with it.
Foundational ideas such as causality, energy, potency, matter, the rules of logic and argument, time, being, etc.. are imports from philosophy and are still, strictly speaking, in the realm of philosophy. The limits of knowledge, the principles behind the scientific method itself, the presupposition that the universe, and in fact being has (or has not) an intelligibility that we can grasp, etc.. are all philosophical conclusions.. In fact I would say that the majority of [i]a priori[/i] principles that ground the operations of scientific endeavor are properly speaking philosophical in nature.

[qfnol31]

And yay for Francis Bacon.

I think I have just become more sarcastic than Don John.

Up until Francis Bacon wrote in the 17th century, all scientific fields were considered under philosophy. It is only a modernist thought process that puts them separate, and I don't even want to go there because that is completely messed up.