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