Matti Pitkanen (email@example.com)
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 09:19:10 +0300 (EET DST)
On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 WDEshleman@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/23/99 6:35:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > > Or as you would say it: a 1-dimensional surface in
> > > a 2-dimensional space in a 4-dimensional space in
> > > an 8-dimensional space in a 16-dimensional space, etc.
> > >
> > One might think hierarchy of this kind.
> > The construction of configuration space geometry however
> > relies crucially on 4-dimensionality of basic dynamical
> > objects (4-surfaces) and on the fact that the geometry
> > of imbedding space is *non-dynamical* and possesses the high
> > symmetries it does. The generalization you propose would
> > require totally new approach to the quantization of the
> > theory. It is difficult to say whether this kind of
> > theory exists without spending 20 years or so trying to
> > construct it!(;-)
> 1) Volume is explained as a 1-D function of the cube of R.
> 2) Elliptical orbits are explained as 2-D functions of R and theta.
> 3) Positions in space are 3-D functions of R, theta, phi.
> 4) You say, that standard cosmology and spinor structure are
> explained as being revealed in a 4-D surface
> What I see is a 3-D world possessing 1-D, 2-D, and 4-D
> And you say that the 4-D structures that we see are in an
> 8-D space; that this is your objective or real object. My
> speculation is that your object is really a subjective or
> incomplete object since it is in part based on properties
> that are subjective in themselves. That 8-Ds is sufficient
> to be your objective object, I have no doubt, but I feel that
> additional concepts are involved that we may never detect.
You are right in that the testing of theory cannot be based
on direct sensory experience: we will never be able to 'see'
4-dimensional surfaces in 8-dimensional space.
The evidence is indirect. The spectrum of elementary particle
quantum numbers, correct predictions for elementary particle
masses including mass scales (in particular the mystery number
10^19 of physics), special predictions of effects involving classical
Z^0 and classical color fields, many sheeted spacetime concept, etc..
It is matter of belief whether to take this seriously or not.
In any case, the basic philosophy of quantum TGD is eliminative:
this means that entire quantum physics (apart from quantum jump)
is reduced to infinite-dimensional configuration space geometry
with spinor structure. The success of this philosophy
convinces me even more than indidividual applications.
> But these concepts still form a part of the whole and must
> be accounted for by some infinite form in order to be
> entirely objective. Your prediction of 20 years to generalize
> TGD in this manner might be true, but I may possess today
> the coordinate transformation factors of this still unrealized
> geometry. My belief is that your already having described
> a portion of the object makes you the only person in this
> world who would even have a shot at it (within my lifetime).
> The concept of the "Problem of Induction" leaves a bad
> taste in many mouths, and is in part probably a reason
> not to attempt such an obviously inductive solution. :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:30 JST