[Marxism] Fwd: Why String Theory Still Offers Hope We Can Unify Physics | Science | Smithsonian

Shane Mage shmage at pipeline.com
Wed Dec 24 07:27:07 MST 2014


On Dec 24, 2014, at 7:53 AM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
>
>
> (You'll note the reference to the title of the new Stephen Hawking  
> biopic. What the biopic lacks is exactly the intellectual substance  
> of this fascinating article that actually makes string theory  
> understandable.)
>
If you "understand" this gibberish, please explain it:
"...String theory’s equations require that the universe has extra  
dimensions beyond the three of everyday experience—left/right, back/ 
forth and up/down..." Here "everyday experience" is grossly falsified-- 
we (ie., every sentient being) experience the universe in FOUR, not  
three, dimensions: left/right, back/forth, up/down, BEFORE/AFTER.   
Marxists (and Keynesians, and other realistic approaches to economics)  
ridicule neoclassical economics for leaving time out of its equations.  
How much less intelligible is a "theoretical physics" in which time is  
not an absolutely fundamental dimension of the experienced universe?

"String theorists pounced on an idea first developed in the early  
years of the 20th century. Back then, theorists realized that there  
might be two kinds of spatial dimensions: those that are large and  
extended, which we directly experience, and others that are tiny and  
tightly wound, too small for even our most refined equipment to  
reveal."             And here language is twisted in a way that makes  
itself into absolutely incomprehensible gibberish: dimensions are  
nothing but the metric of extensive measurement--we estimate up/down  
along one axis of our measurement matrix, before/after along another,  
etc.  To speak of a "dimension" as being "large" or "tiny," let alone  
"extended" or "twisted" presupposes yet other dimensions transcending  
all possible experience in terms of which those "larger" and "tiny"  
dimensions have been "measured." Compared to this it makes perfect  
sense that "God is both One and Three."

And then what could make less sense than to say "dimensions which we  
directly experience" when nobody--no sentient being--has ever  
"directly experienced" a dimension? What is experienced, what alone  
can be experienced, is a process of constantly changing things  
presented to us as a complex that our perceptual apparatus organizes,  
as guide to living practice, within that four-dimensional structure of  
experienced reality.

Shane Mage


This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.

Herakleitos of Ephesos









More information about the Marxism mailing list