On 27 Aug, 16:16, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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!
>
My theory addresses consciousness...but that doesn't mean people
will like the explanation.
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
