Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wolsty" data-source="post: 40914" data-attributes="member: 175166">The problem with lack of knowledge is that we don't know what it is that we don't know.&nbsp; However muc we may speculate, we can only make informed guesses based on what we already know.&nbsp; Before the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, who could have predicted mobile phones, radio, television etc?&nbsp; Before Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, who could have predicted satellites.&nbsp; Before Hubble, who could have predicted that the Universe is larger than our galaxy?&nbsp; I suspect it's an infinite regression: the more you know, the more information you have on which to build hypotheses.My thought for the day concerns dimensions.&nbsp; We can readily understand the concept of three spatial and one time dimension; even distorted spacetime is just about accessible with the aid of a bowling ball, a rubber sheet and a bit of imagination.&nbsp; I've seen some conjectures that 3 spatial dimensions is the optimum number required for life to exist; the arrow of time requires only one dimension (self evident).&nbsp; But&nbsp; mathematically, we can have as many dimensions as we wish, and M Theory requires the existence of 11, although none of us can envisage an 11-dimensional universe - at least I can't.So here's the question:&nbsp; are we unable to visualise a 4+ dimensional universe because we are inherently incapable of the feat?&nbsp; Or is it simply because we've had no experience of such a state?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wolsty, post: 40914, member: 175166"] The problem with lack of knowledge is that we don't know what it is that we don't know. However muc we may speculate, we can only make informed guesses based on what we already know. Before the discovery of the electromagnetic spectrum, who could have predicted mobile phones, radio, television etc? Before Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, who could have predicted satellites. Before Hubble, who could have predicted that the Universe is larger than our galaxy? I suspect it's an infinite regression: the more you know, the more information you have on which to build hypotheses. My thought for the day concerns dimensions. We can readily understand the concept of three spatial and one time dimension; even distorted spacetime is just about accessible with the aid of a bowling ball, a rubber sheet and a bit of imagination. I've seen some conjectures that 3 spatial dimensions is the optimum number required for life to exist; the arrow of time requires only one dimension (self evident). But mathematically, we can have as many dimensions as we wish, and M Theory requires the existence of 11, although none of us can envisage an 11-dimensional universe - at least I can't. So here's the question: are we unable to visualise a 4+ dimensional universe because we are inherently incapable of the feat? Or is it simply because we've had no experience of such a state? [/QUOTE]

Verification