Yes Neil...when M-branes address consciousness itself, we will be on the way to a 'theory of everything'. In the meantime, I will meditate, work in integralism and perhaps get some tickets to that conference!
On Aug 27, 1:48 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Ten dimensions, and we finally reach the fabled land of string > theory. String theory is for the moment the only real game in town > when it comes to attempts to bundle up quantum mechanics and general > relativity into a "theory of everything". It holds that all particles > that make up matter or transmit forces arise from the vibration of > tiny strings. Those strings are one-dimensional. The space they wiggle > about in is not. In fact, it has 10 dimensions: nine of space, and one > of time. The theory doesn't work with any fewer: mathematical > anomalies crop up that translate into violent fluctuations in the > fabric of space-time at scales smaller than the Planck length of 10-35 > metres. 10 is not necessarily the magic number. Indeed, one now > unfashionable early variant of string theory had 26 dimensions. There > are five broadly defined brands of 10D string theory that compete to > explain the universe, with no indication as to which, if any, is the > right one. But these disparate theories can be unified into one > overarching theory, known as M-theory. M-theory has 11 dimensions. In > here, we might call all this 'Harrington's String Bag'. > > It is assumed that the extra dimensions of M-theory must in some way > be squashed down to a size that we can't see. The bad news is that > there is an almost unlimited number of ways in which this can be done. > How to single out the one way that produces our universe remains a > problem. Some say we'll work out the trick eventually, but others are > into the "multiverse" the notion that all possible universes do > actually exist. The universe we know is as it is because it just > happens to be the one we are living in. > > None of this seems to give us much grok of how we should be trying to > live. It probably does tells us that Star Trek style science fiction > has little science and is a very old genre of soap opera. We just > don't have the biology to be zipping around the galaxies, let alone > the technical expertise to flout the laws of physics as we'd know > them if we had the education (which would entail close engagement in > its practice). > > Biology (increasingly maths-based) does now allow us to 'create > life'. We can model DNA quite literally and create real bits of the > stuff from chemicals. We know fatty acids are 'out there' in space, > and pre-date the formation of Earth. We know that they form proto- > cells when mixed with water, and that we can create components of > cells like ribosomes using our man-created DNA. We will soon create > cells from what we considered not to have life. Such life may well > allow us to extend our biology and sensing. We are already speeding > up processes to produce oil and other stuff we have previously only > been able to use because it was created without us over aeons. > > My sense is that we are distracted by this technology because we don't > understand it and have a society in which knowledge is very much part > of competitions that are out of hand. There is no modern life because > we can't imagine what this would be and try to live it because we are > hampered by very old ideas and traditions as badly as Darwin was in > beginning to advance something beyond myth. I would say 'capitalism' > is the current myth we need to 'explode', but that we need to do this > from what we know now, recognising it is a religion and that > alternative religions, or alternatives adopted as religions (including > science as religion) have already failed. The need is for sustainable > peace in the recognition that we can't make peace whilst our > understandings of the temptations of power remain low priority in > public scrutiny. We are distracted from this dialogue by almost > everything from science and entertainment because of a madness - > sometimes described as the 'paranoid-schizoid' position (economics as > 'Dr. Strangelove's Game'). > > I hope we will be able to find a new form of honesty, but we need to > develop this in the knowledge that we are often roused to organisation > by madness and myth that quickly distract us from evidence. We need > genuine transparency, but this 'urge' is not enough as we approach a > time at which any Tom, Dick or Harriet terrorist could use knowledge > to reek devastation, and a few men with guns can screw everything. > Our politics needs overhaul and we are continually distracted from > this. The need to to structure freedom - but on its own this is just > another slogan. My guess is that we run scared from this, always > thinking peace exposes us to groups who retain power strategies or > scrotes. I suspect this is biological in form. There are times when > even I miss my gun. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
