| | while I sympathize with the objection to certain anti-determinist, anti-identity interpretations of quantum mechanics (if not to the equations and principles as such), this hostility to string theory has got to go. with the copenhagen/indeterminist interpretation of QM, there is actually a formal point against which to argue: ie, the proposal of an anti-identity, uncertain, contradiction filled universe. (and we must remember that there are more rational interpretations of quantum mechanics, and that this whole enterprise, while involving philosophic errors, is not pseudoscience, as some objectivists seem to believe)
All of this said, however, as far as I can tell, the only real objection anyone has served up against string theory is that its counterintuitive and bizarre. to my knowledge it does not invoke any formal refutation of causality, identity, or any other axiom. and being a wierd or counterintuitive theory is not enough to condemn it as pseudoscience if evidence and argument fits for it. the math REALLY DOES suggest 11 dimensional space crumpled into a calabi -yau formation, and that particles are little tiny strings. this is not some neokantian anti-rationalist conspiracy, nor does the fact that it is a radically different picture from what "common sense" teaches us mean anything -- what matters is formal logic, not "common sense". lest you argue that we see only three dimensions with our senses, allow me to remind you that, to our senses, the earth looks flat, but observations superior to our senses proved it to be round. to our senses, it looks like the earth holds still while the sun gyrates up and down. but better measurements than our senses proved that instead it is the sun which is (contextually) stationary while our earth is what moves. to common sense, time seems constant, but can be proven to be stretched or contracted dependant on one's velocity. the upshot of all of this is that A: a wierd theory is not necessarily anti identity, and B: our common intuitions about the world do not have a very good track record when compared to the litmus test of formal science. thusly, I see no problem with string theory as a plausible hypothesis unless one objects to the mathematics behind it. of course, it is not known to be true or untrue until experimentally analyzed, but as a plausible hypothesis or educated guess and I see no problem with it.
|
|
The term 'universe' is a mere collective designation for all the data of existence. While particular men, planets, celestial objects, even galaxies, have been born and have died throughout time, the stage for their being, three-dimensional Euclidean space, has remained in existence infinities back.
