Between Baggott and Duff

Between Baggott and Duff
 L. Edgar Otto  June 19, 2013  One of many comments for the viXra log  the dialog for the section called Why I Like String Theory

Robert et al...

An interesting read and definitely a book to await with anticipation.  If we want to play the game we should not assume there is no third party in the picture but we can be cheerleaders in pointless theoretical debate and impossible experiments.

This is quite beside what predictions can be made from blowing smoke rings from Cuban cigars other than they may vibrate here and there in crystalline formations or break into lesser ones in the case of ink drops falling in water.

"By experiment and experience I mean the same thing..." says Peirce in his practical approach which fell out of favor by those arguing from the views of the Skeptical Inquirer.  His "Threesomeness" idea as to what is reasonably valid points out what is one man's premise is another man's conclusion and vise verse.  Feelings in the working out science may or may not be part of the method as valuable, not the redentialism of what discovery or invention belongs to what group or whom.  This view comes before string theory so gives an answer now for what seems to be without a good one... why there are different neutrino flavors and how many?

So as pure space the tablecloth fractal applies in a positive view at least just as well as pure symmetry where negative in variety  Such logic, a breach or not with other logic's in design such as quantum logic may or may not come back to classical models- but even there what is valid is a local and historical matter  to which the list does not match to more modern syllogism.  In this sense we are in a wider universe of discourse as our abilities and symbols evolve and we apply logic as a branch of philosophy to the foundations of nature deeper than assumptions of our small local regions or space or views of understanding.  Are we to deny four space as a real but somewhat hidden concept? Only few people deduce a 24th valid syllogism even when it violates all the set of rules.

I will set this debate out for now.  But if someone can figure out what I am saying they will understand my position:

Between Duff and Baggott -  a pox on both their houses!


PeSla

* * * * *

I might agree with Lubos here and with Robert physics is in a mess in regards to a closed stance and the general principles of which Lubos demands we learn in his humble correspondence (my cursing here is more from frustration than arrogance) and where while I can see his point and system I very much disagree it is the be all and end all of physics- I agree that this problem and state of things was hopeless for longer than the string physics of the last forty years... hmmm about the time Eddington in the Fundamental Theory should have ended this impass at a lesser level of physics in his Quantum Gravity.

note on Lubos on Wilson  said: All these insights were found independently of string theory and, effectively ;-), before string theory. And Ken Wilson wasn't even a string theorist at any point of his life. Still, pretty much all the people who talk about nonsensical things such as "competing theories", "loop quantum gravity", and so on misunderstand most of the insights about the renormalization group – even the general comments above. Their beliefs about the character and right interpretation of renormalization techniques are stuck somewhere in the 1940s (especially because of the patently obsolete opinion that the real challenge when it comes to UV divergences is to get rid of divergent integrals). In this sense, these "anti-string-theorists" misunderstand not only the physics of the last 40 years but also the physics of the last 70 years. They're just hopeless.




* * *

At last, an obscure paper that reads very clearly.  The mystery we feel in the clarity at awakening in sunlight rather than what may be hidden deep in dreams.  It contains simplified and basic grounding issues working between the mirror idea and outside the weakly imagined breath between them.  It is a step toward actual understanding of the nature of a more general idea of multidimensional matter on a higher level we imagine as manyworld and multiverse issues.  Beyond our sense of the pyramids of compression we build the tension scale as in skyscrapers by presumably more concrete higher dimensional as if consciousness like designers or principles.  We hold here the possibility of a wider new class of such machines to which the little towers are but the skeleton of the first of such unification's  and limit cycles much as the small simple diagrams of the four space remind us of th Eiffel Tower in slices of such constructions.  As you have singled this article out I am quite impressed as your sense of the reality in what appears a probe in the dark as a thought experiment at the frontiers of speculation.  Alas, true higher dimensional particles might be found in a more general but locally diverse hierarchy say as in the heart of quasars.


facebook comment to sabine hossenfelder june 19, 2013 on the paper

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1305.6311v2.pdf

* * * * *