Thursday, February 7, 2013
The Fourth Postulate and A Comment Lubos and Reductionism
A Comment Lubos and Reductionism
L. Edgar Otto 02-07-13
I was not going to post day, did music, paid bills... But I would like to reply in general to Lubos's bit philosophy at it seems to have some bearing on my recent reassessment of the foundations and thoughts on singularity. The fourth postulate of Euclid, if anyone every follows the argument, can also stand out on some of the issues that may develop new physics of what we think of at flatland.
Feynman has no great claim or fame of originality on the idea of a plane as a torus- so what underlying reason is there to push for this popular myth that we only need one religious or tribal view to define our reality- of course the bulk of science comes from Germany- I find it hard to see something truly original in Einstein compared with those who build the apparatus of such a working out of his world view. It may not be his fault as he cannot see things a certain way, however, Riemann is not understood or those who read him imagine he meant to say some things not clearly developed from his complex equations... If Riemann is seen wrong then why not the whole edifice to which if it leads to strings... well, it is overrated despite Lubos protesting the arrangement as if it proves things. Such a bias of a theory of everything, at best a learned hope, cannot achieve the needed unification of our physics. Nor will it allow us to find deeper technology short of stumbling on it with a lot of luck. We read Riemann wrong about the infinitesimal, simply, and in the various ideas he has of dimension. Yet he did not apply this to physics outside his mathematics. One cannot just turn the ladder of reason and matter on end then think one end is left behind and less important- that is the religious aspects of things- for in doing so it makes a god of that at the other end. Marx used that sort of method, maybe traces of it like the last bit of continuity found as the world expands in Lubos upbringing despite his reaction to such a past.
No one seems to understand the deeper dimensional insights of Riemann regarding space, it seems. It is probably better to be called a crackpot (and really there are some profound people who have been given that name by our humble correspondent) than to not even know one is full of nonsense and in fact is a crackpot with little redeeming work or originality to make up for it. The popularity of the crowd does not make the genius.
* * * * *
A little later I added to more formal pictures that with a little insight would show how I used these sorts of dimension concepts.
* * * * *