Re: The Nature of God- String Theory

"When the calculation is done, the universe's dimensionality is
not four as one may expect (three axes of space and one of time).
Bosonic string theories are 26-dimensional, while superstring
and M-theories turn out to involve 10 or 11 dimensions. ...


Actually, this has been a big topic in my blog lately, i.e. four dimensionality,
and the different ways the '4D' meme has played out since the turn of the last
century, and up through our own time. String Theory is a relative latecomer to
this game, but there's always room for another namespace.

Here's some cross-posted writing from Synergeo, from some minutes ago (fixed
some typos for this "Quaker edition"):

===

Received: from [66.218.66.74] by t1.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Aug 2006
23:23:02 -0000
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:23:01 -0000
To: synergeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
From: "Kirby Urner" <kirby.urner@...>
Subject: Re: Mathematics Genius


--- In synergeo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Alan Michelson" <amichelson2002@...>
wrote:

4-fold doesn't contain 5-fold; this is why you can't build 5-fold
using 4-fold Synestructics
<http://www.georgehart.com/virtual-polyhedra/synestructics.html> .

I don't think you should confuse "fold talk" with "D talk".

The former is about rotational symmetry i.e. all the angular twists
and turns you might employ with no outward detection, unless you (the
observer) have every edge individually IDed, in which case you'll see
it's a veritable swap-meet going on (otherwise, it's just static, maybe
a little fuzzy-looking).

"D talk", in contrast, is more about how many numbers in your
addressing scheme, except Cantor started undermining that, pointing
out discrete 2D arrays could be linearly addressed (could be just as
well 1D) and so on, so various stipulations and injunctions about
continuity and sets needed to be made (i.e. they patched it, somewhat
at the expense of keeping it discrete (which they never like to do
anyway (the analog still eclipses the digital in many contemporary
calculi))).

And so in HighSchoolMath (a namespace) we say "space is 3D because
every coordinate is a 3-tuple e.g. (1,-3.2,-17.1)." If you add a
fourth coordinate, but keep doing all the same vector ops, you're in
Polytope World, ala Coxeter. But if conserving energy is a big
concern, i.e. you've got some physics going, that fourth coordinate
might be time-like instead, in which case welcome to Minkowski Space.

Fuller was present at the birth of "D talk" in the early 1900s. Per
my many essays on this topic. Back then, "4D" was still very much up
for grabs as to what it would mean, and various artists and mystics
were experimenting with novel uses (P.D. Ouspensky for example).
Fuller wrote '4D TimeLock' and rushed PDO a copy.

It's only later in the century that we get this picture of a fork in
the road, with the n-D polytope people taking one road, and the
Relativity people taking another. Each had a "4D" but the meanings
were different. All this was before "string theory" came on the
scene, and tangled things up a lot more.

In the meantime, Bucky was still evolving a 3rd namespace, which made
its debut in the mid-to-late 1970s, as a part of a cultural
Renaissance, featuring the Apollo Project center stage. To help grok
his "4D" we might foray through "quadrays" which use only
positive 4-tuples for space, reserving negatives for a whole other
co-space (left vs. right handed, one might call 'em).

However, Bucky was considered too counterculture for most
career-minded specialists to dare bet on, and so after he died his
whole school reverted to Dark Horse status, still on various radars,
but mostly outside of mainstream academia (cite bibliographies).

In the meantime, the open source movement took off, and its tools
improved our ability to transmit Fuller School memes independently of
bigger budget university departments. More with less became ever more
the reality, such that we were able to develop our curriculum both
collaboratively and globally. By now, we have lots of assets in
inventory, ready to roll, *and* the freedom of not owing much to the
Ivory Towerites (i.e. we don't need their permission to roll out our
wares).

Kirby
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bracketed types
    ... keywords of the intrinsic types of VB, the namespace containing the custom type is imported, and you want to ... Dim s As [String] ' Binds to the custom 'String' class. ... Using brackets in VB.NET helps with this and also to address conflicts with inherited keywords, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)
  • Re: XmlSerializer
    ... XmlSerializerNamespaces emptyNamespace = new XmlSerializerNamespaces; ... //Serialize the array, using the empty namespace ... > public class FormField { ... > public FormField(string Name, string Value) { ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.xml)
  • Rolling back transactions
    ... I am implementing some "roll back" code into an existing application. ... intial code I was using in the sub procedure - where the SQL insert was ... Sub InsertBatchNote(intCustID As Long, NoteMess As String, NoteDate As ... Dim StrNoteMess As String ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)
  • Re: XslTransform is not matching node when source XML contains an xmlns attribute
    ... >> in my XSLT. ... > element) are in the namespace with namespace URI ... > If you try to decode a byte stream like a memory stream to a string then ... > string yourself if all you want is a string, ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.xml)
  • Re: Bracketed types
    ... keywords of the intrinsic types of VB, the namespace containing the custom type is imported, and you want to use the type without qualifying it by its namespace: ... Dim s As [String] ' Binds to the custom 'String' class. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.vb)