4 replies to this topic

[Casanova]

What are the strings, snd superstrings, made out of?
In the last book I read, that question is meaningless, because the strings are the absolute basic thing, that all other things are made of.
A basic thing cannot be made of anything else because it is the basic thing itself; the absolute rock bottom.

I don't know. This "basic thing" claim has been made so many times in the physics literature.
As for TOE, nah; ... that is another claim that has been made, over, and over, again.
We must keep searching, but give us a break with all this; "the ultimate solution is just a few years away" baloney.

Edited by Casanova, 04 June 2003 - 05:06 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Please be careful with language "coloring" the truth. "Made" is an inappropriate word for what you are seeking. Substitute a whole plethora of words, like composed, consist, constructed, and they will all sort of fall short like Zeno's paradox. Why?

Because of what is "essential" when you use a word like "elemental".

Strings are the primary "organization" of Space/Time. This is a concept that does not reduce to a purely physical example. And you can't get around this by substituting a mass/energy equivalence. Why?

Energy is material, at least a tangible equivalent to matter: E=MC2

Strings have a componential or essential (still very poor words) relationship to BOTH Space and Time, but are not limited to our "experience" of time, and neither does it describe the “quality of strings” in a manner that can be reduced to only one.

I have commented on this before; English has no future. Meaning no future tense. We use purely “spatial” references to describe “movement” in time. This is all well and good from a pragmatic experience of how a clock works in relation to how one lives their life and marks the planet’s rotation by counting passages of objects through our sky. What it doesn’t do is tell you anything at all "qualitative" about time. It reduces the "experience" of linearity to a single dimensional "object".

English grammar is inadequate to the task. Creating a new lexicon with a new syntax for the physics required is actually not all that difficult (in fact is already mathematically done) except that when translated into “normal” English it will be perceived like “metaphysics” and this is not a desirable result for a pragmatic understanding.

Edited by Lazarus Long, 04 June 2003 - 10:26 AM.

[Casanova]

So the strings are pure language, then?

[Lazarus Long]

No, not necessarily but language is the filter that affects our ability to "perceive them” rationally. What I am referring to however would be something like a "life force".

Life force is NOT something that can be defined quantitatively and qualitatively because it simply doesn't exist anywhere along the electromagnetic spectrum. Hence the use of the word "force” is a misnomer but that said then: "what is life?"

Let's ask a different question, is "motive” a measure of "will” and is this the essential unit of sentience, life, and maybe even the "unifying field"?

I am not saying it is, I am saying that language has a number of built in traps related to "how we perceive" such that the use of math is practical for creating a more objective (universalized) perspective, but this doesn't make math the material either. But that is an intriguing concept in itself.

What distinguishes some forms of matter from others as being alive?

I suspect something like this is occurring at the level of space/time and saying "Life Force" is not identifiable, neither means that it doesn't exist, nor that "some things" aren't alive but it most certainly does force some inquiry into ideas that we take for granted and as primary to all we understand.

I will be trying to do this elsewhere more substantively but here is a thought I have been mulling of late: Does the polarity of charge create a natural basic algorithm that creates a quintessential binary logic that imparts a quality of basic organization to all matter that makes life possible?

If this were true then a lot of other questions are raised, actually many more than answered, but I do find the concept intriguing, because it describes a “conceptual unit” and a different kind of relativity that may in fact contain all we do measure and perceive within its own matrix of convoluted Super Strings composed not so much of basic matter but basic “ideas”.

I hope my musings are amusing )

[Casanova]

Does the polarity of charge create a natural basic algorithm that creates a quintessential binary logic that imparts a quality of basic organization to all matter that makes life possible?

Do mean something like, positive/negative?

Diane Duane wrote a Star Trek novel wherein an alien math had equations that turned into physical objects, or something like that.
In the Doctor Who episode, "Logopolis", some of the alien's mathematics is so strange, that it cannot be computed in a computer, because the math equations themselves, would alter the structure of the computers.
Sounds like magic.

There are some thinkers who feel that language is the fundemental consituent of all things, and mathematics is included as a language.
I heard one of them say, in a lecture, that "information" can be substitued for the term language, so that at rock bottom we are created from an "information field", and that the creator and maintainer of the field, is an "infomation creature".
But, that person is a big fan of magic mushrooms, so I take the idea with a grain of salt, but it is interesting.

Edited by Casanova, 12 June 2003 - 03:16 AM.