I have already contributed a number of posts to this personal blog on the subject of String Theory.
Though most of the unease within the conventional physics community relates to the difficulties in empirically testing String Theory (for some considerable time to come) I have been concerned with a deeper problem!
For in terms of offering a coherent philosophical view of the nature of physical reality the present position is utterly impoverished.
Now this failure to properly recognise a key weakness, relates to the traditional bias of science i.e. that is geared merely to quantitative analysis - rather than qualitative synthesis - of reality.
Though it is certainly possible that ingenious ways of an indirect nature may be found to remedy the empirical testing deficit, little hope however exists of offering any coherent explanation as to what the theory is supposed to represent.
Now scientists may immediately retort that they are not in the business of qualitative (i.e. philosophical) speculation! But I would reply by saying that the very failure to incorporate a qualitative dimension has led to a growing problem of overall (i.e. holistic) incomprehensibility with respect to modern theories of physical reality.
This has raised therefore a very interesting paradox. As physicists move ever closer to what they hope will be the "Theory of Everything", they find themselves ever less capable of offering any intelligible explanation of what the TOE is supposed to represent.
This problem when properly understood highlights a divide in science (and equally mathematics) that properly should never have arisen i.e. the pursuit of a merely quantitative approach to meaning (without emphasis on its equally important qualitative aspect).
At the normal level of macro investigation of reality this problem is not apparent. Here scientific rational explanations of reality (based on linear logic) correspond readily with everyday qualitative intuitions with respect to such reality.
Because this is so, science conveniently ignores the important role of supporting intuition in all interpretation, misleadingly identifying physical behaviour with mere rational type explanation.
However as with the electromagnetic spectrum there are many other types of spiritual light besides that corresponding to natural light!
So for example, where authentic contemplative development unfolds, various bands of intuitive energy (with their own unique characteristics) unfold that do not correspond to conventional (i.e. linear) rational interpretation. However these bands do indeed correspond with higher-dimensional rational structures!
Such "higher" contemplative states (with their supporting higher dimensional rational structures) have a vital relevance for interpretation of physical reality.
Just as horizontal conplementarity exists at each level as between physical and psychological reality (i.e. where physical reality acts as a mirror of a corresponding manner of psychological interpretation) likewise vertical complementarity likewise operates. What this entails is that corresponding to every "higher" contemplative level of dimensional understanding exists a corresponding "lower" level of physical reality.
In other words as we delve deeper into the "lower" levels of sub-atomic matter, we need the corresponding "higher" levels of dimensional understanding for appropriate qualitative understanding.
So this immediately points to the difficulties that physics faces in providing for example a philosophically satisfying interpretation of quantum mechanics (which appears counter intuitive in terms of everyday understanding of macro reality).
Quite simply, normal macro reality corresponds intuitively with linear (1-dimensional) understanding. However quantum reality belongs to a "lower" level of sub-atomic reality where at a minimum 2-dimensional interpretation is appropriate.
So what does this mean? Well in linear terms, "objective" reality is viewed as independent of the "subjective" observer.
However in 2-dimensional interpretation both objective (external) and subjective (internal) poles are considered as complementary. So strictly speaking where quantum events are concerned what is observed as objective cannot be considered as independent of the observer.
Though this fact is recognised by physicists - though in practice largely ignored - the appropriate intuition for ready comprehension (with corresponding 2-dimensional rational explanation) does not fit in with the accepted conventional paradigm which is decidedly linear. Therefore, even though physicists are able to deal with the merely probable quantitative aspects of quantum behaviour to a remarkable degree of accuracy they are unable to provide an appropriate qualitative explanation (which explains in a satisfactory manner why such behaviour arises).
Now again many physicists might try and retort that they are not concerned with philosophical aspects of understanding. However such a position is extremely short-sighted and ultimately untenable for without appropriate holistic understanding of a qualitative nature, overall interpretation of theory becomes incomprehensible.
Indeed this is major problem at present with String Theory. Though undoubtedly there are good reasons for excitement regarding the mathematical relationships that have been discovered, no coherent explanation has been given by physicists as regards the very nature of the reality that they are attempting to interpret.
For example one major problem attaches to the nature of dimensions in which the strings supposedly operate. In various approaches this has required more than the customary 4-dimensions with 26, 10, and now 11 being used.
However once again this is calling for the kind of multi-dimensional interpretation that the qualitative approach can provide.
We have already seen that in the 2-dimensional approach, external and internal aspects of reality dynamically interact in a relative manner (corresponding to positive and negative polarities that are understood in a real conscious manner).
However in the 4-dimensional approach, not alone do internal and external interact but also whole and parts in the form of object phenomena and dimensions of space and time. So properly understood phenomena and associated dimensions are now real and imaginary with respect to each other!
If we take these 4 poles (representing both real and imaginary coordinates with positive and negative directions) we can permutate them in various ways. So each permutation now represents a unique configuration with respect to space and time.
The need for higher dimensions in String Theory essentially points to this fact.
At this level of reality it is meaningless to try and consider space and time as separate from the object phenomena they contain. So a dimension now represents a unique configuration with respect to possible arrangements of what are 4 independent dimensions in linear understanding.
So the key to proper appreciation of what is going on is the recognition that one must now employ a circular (as opposed to linear) notion of dimension.
And as we approach closer to the origin of life - because of the greater interdependence both of internal and external aspects and also object phenomena and related dimensions - appropriate understanding of reality, in qualitative terms, becomes ever more circular. Put another way the standard linear approach of Conventional Science becomes ever more inappropriate in providing a coherent overall explanation of the dynamic relationships involved. So what we are left with is attempted quantitative interpretation of relationships completely devoid of any proper holistic context.
So just as the Riemann Hypothesis lies at the leading edge of Mathematics where both quantitative and qualitative aspects intersect, likewise this is also true of String Theory. Having attempted for some time to decode the philosophical meaning of the various concepts used, I made the amazing discovery that every notion that is currently used in the quantitative sense can be given an equally important qualitative interpretation. So the real truth that String Theory is pointing to is the inevitable conclusion that our quantitative explanations of physical reality have no meaning independent of the qualitative interpretations that we use as viewing lenses. So the origin of life cannot be quantitatively understood (nor qualitatively understood) in isolation. Rather its mystery is revealed when quantitative and qualitative aspects of understanding are fully reconciled (which represents pure spiritual awareness). And this experience is inseparable from the contemplative mystical desire to discover the ultimate goal or destiny of the Universe!
So realisation of the origin and goal of the universe are revealed in the same spiritual experience as the present moment continually renewed. Only here is any remaining gap as between the knower and what is known finally dissolved where both realise their common identity (in spirit).
And it is not really surprising that both the Riemann Hypothesis (relating to the nature of prime numbers) and String Theory are so closely related in this manner. For the most fundamental particles - derived from what we might call strings - are in fact the prime constituents of all natural physical reality!
Though most of the unease within the conventional physics community relates to the difficulties in empirically testing String Theory (for some considerable time to come) I have been concerned with a deeper problem!
For in terms of offering a coherent philosophical view of the nature of physical reality the present position is utterly impoverished.
Now this failure to properly recognise a key weakness, relates to the traditional bias of science i.e. that is geared merely to quantitative analysis - rather than qualitative synthesis - of reality.
Though it is certainly possible that ingenious ways of an indirect nature may be found to remedy the empirical testing deficit, little hope however exists of offering any coherent explanation as to what the theory is supposed to represent.
Now scientists may immediately retort that they are not in the business of qualitative (i.e. philosophical) speculation! But I would reply by saying that the very failure to incorporate a qualitative dimension has led to a growing problem of overall (i.e. holistic) incomprehensibility with respect to modern theories of physical reality.
This has raised therefore a very interesting paradox. As physicists move ever closer to what they hope will be the "Theory of Everything", they find themselves ever less capable of offering any intelligible explanation of what the TOE is supposed to represent.
This problem when properly understood highlights a divide in science (and equally mathematics) that properly should never have arisen i.e. the pursuit of a merely quantitative approach to meaning (without emphasis on its equally important qualitative aspect).
At the normal level of macro investigation of reality this problem is not apparent. Here scientific rational explanations of reality (based on linear logic) correspond readily with everyday qualitative intuitions with respect to such reality.
Because this is so, science conveniently ignores the important role of supporting intuition in all interpretation, misleadingly identifying physical behaviour with mere rational type explanation.
However as with the electromagnetic spectrum there are many other types of spiritual light besides that corresponding to natural light!
So for example, where authentic contemplative development unfolds, various bands of intuitive energy (with their own unique characteristics) unfold that do not correspond to conventional (i.e. linear) rational interpretation. However these bands do indeed correspond with higher-dimensional rational structures!
Such "higher" contemplative states (with their supporting higher dimensional rational structures) have a vital relevance for interpretation of physical reality.
Just as horizontal conplementarity exists at each level as between physical and psychological reality (i.e. where physical reality acts as a mirror of a corresponding manner of psychological interpretation) likewise vertical complementarity likewise operates. What this entails is that corresponding to every "higher" contemplative level of dimensional understanding exists a corresponding "lower" level of physical reality.
In other words as we delve deeper into the "lower" levels of sub-atomic matter, we need the corresponding "higher" levels of dimensional understanding for appropriate qualitative understanding.
So this immediately points to the difficulties that physics faces in providing for example a philosophically satisfying interpretation of quantum mechanics (which appears counter intuitive in terms of everyday understanding of macro reality).
Quite simply, normal macro reality corresponds intuitively with linear (1-dimensional) understanding. However quantum reality belongs to a "lower" level of sub-atomic reality where at a minimum 2-dimensional interpretation is appropriate.
So what does this mean? Well in linear terms, "objective" reality is viewed as independent of the "subjective" observer.
However in 2-dimensional interpretation both objective (external) and subjective (internal) poles are considered as complementary. So strictly speaking where quantum events are concerned what is observed as objective cannot be considered as independent of the observer.
Though this fact is recognised by physicists - though in practice largely ignored - the appropriate intuition for ready comprehension (with corresponding 2-dimensional rational explanation) does not fit in with the accepted conventional paradigm which is decidedly linear. Therefore, even though physicists are able to deal with the merely probable quantitative aspects of quantum behaviour to a remarkable degree of accuracy they are unable to provide an appropriate qualitative explanation (which explains in a satisfactory manner why such behaviour arises).
Now again many physicists might try and retort that they are not concerned with philosophical aspects of understanding. However such a position is extremely short-sighted and ultimately untenable for without appropriate holistic understanding of a qualitative nature, overall interpretation of theory becomes incomprehensible.
Indeed this is major problem at present with String Theory. Though undoubtedly there are good reasons for excitement regarding the mathematical relationships that have been discovered, no coherent explanation has been given by physicists as regards the very nature of the reality that they are attempting to interpret.
For example one major problem attaches to the nature of dimensions in which the strings supposedly operate. In various approaches this has required more than the customary 4-dimensions with 26, 10, and now 11 being used.
However once again this is calling for the kind of multi-dimensional interpretation that the qualitative approach can provide.
We have already seen that in the 2-dimensional approach, external and internal aspects of reality dynamically interact in a relative manner (corresponding to positive and negative polarities that are understood in a real conscious manner).
However in the 4-dimensional approach, not alone do internal and external interact but also whole and parts in the form of object phenomena and dimensions of space and time. So properly understood phenomena and associated dimensions are now real and imaginary with respect to each other!
If we take these 4 poles (representing both real and imaginary coordinates with positive and negative directions) we can permutate them in various ways. So each permutation now represents a unique configuration with respect to space and time.
The need for higher dimensions in String Theory essentially points to this fact.
At this level of reality it is meaningless to try and consider space and time as separate from the object phenomena they contain. So a dimension now represents a unique configuration with respect to possible arrangements of what are 4 independent dimensions in linear understanding.
So the key to proper appreciation of what is going on is the recognition that one must now employ a circular (as opposed to linear) notion of dimension.
And as we approach closer to the origin of life - because of the greater interdependence both of internal and external aspects and also object phenomena and related dimensions - appropriate understanding of reality, in qualitative terms, becomes ever more circular. Put another way the standard linear approach of Conventional Science becomes ever more inappropriate in providing a coherent overall explanation of the dynamic relationships involved. So what we are left with is attempted quantitative interpretation of relationships completely devoid of any proper holistic context.
So just as the Riemann Hypothesis lies at the leading edge of Mathematics where both quantitative and qualitative aspects intersect, likewise this is also true of String Theory. Having attempted for some time to decode the philosophical meaning of the various concepts used, I made the amazing discovery that every notion that is currently used in the quantitative sense can be given an equally important qualitative interpretation. So the real truth that String Theory is pointing to is the inevitable conclusion that our quantitative explanations of physical reality have no meaning independent of the qualitative interpretations that we use as viewing lenses. So the origin of life cannot be quantitatively understood (nor qualitatively understood) in isolation. Rather its mystery is revealed when quantitative and qualitative aspects of understanding are fully reconciled (which represents pure spiritual awareness). And this experience is inseparable from the contemplative mystical desire to discover the ultimate goal or destiny of the Universe!
So realisation of the origin and goal of the universe are revealed in the same spiritual experience as the present moment continually renewed. Only here is any remaining gap as between the knower and what is known finally dissolved where both realise their common identity (in spirit).
And it is not really surprising that both the Riemann Hypothesis (relating to the nature of prime numbers) and String Theory are so closely related in this manner. For the most fundamental particles - derived from what we might call strings - are in fact the prime constituents of all natural physical reality!
Comments
Post a Comment