Extra Dimensions

[Mark 13:13]

"It was not until some weeks later that I realized there is no need to restrict oneself to 2 by 2 matrices. One could go on to 4 by 4 matrices, and the problem is then easily soluable. In retrospect, it seems strange that one can be so much held up over such an elementary point. The resulting wave equation for the electron turned out to be very successful. It led to correct values for the spin and the magnetic moment. This was quite unexpected. The work all followed from a study of pretty mathematics, without any thought being given to these physical properties of the electron."
P.A.M. Dirac

Ideas generated purely in dreams or imagination that didn't pan out tend to outnumber those that did by about infinity to one. Without something constraining the search, blind searching based on dreams or imagination is pointless.


In a spot during a recent rebroadcast of an episode of the science fiction series Fringe, it was claimed that there was an individual who, after receiving a blow to the head, became able to play and compose music, unlike before the injury. I don't know whether the claim itself is valid or just a viral promo, but they described the individual as experiencing the music synesthetically, that he "saw" a visual representation of the music in front of him (literally), and he simply followed along. Even if true, however, as in the case of the discovery of the benzene molecule, it was prior real world experience which gave rise to the fruitful imaginings. If these things weren't coming from prior real world experience, you might have a parallel, but the 'imaginings' of people without some prior real world experience tend to be universally sterile. (As are imaginings from drug induced experiences. Oddly enough, Dirac tended to eschew practical experiment in favor of his mathematical explorations; however to expect someone with only mathematical knowledge to generate systems relevant to physics by their intuition alone is far fetched. If someone with no prior experience of music suddenly could compose symphonies after a blow to the head, then you would have some interesting questions; however, I suspect that even then, the answer would lie in the person's prior experiences [and evolved traits] rather than sheer imagination.)

I like the cut of you jib madam...this guy though has given the mathematics world some problems as he gets surprisingly good results but his explanation for his success...wel let the man talk..

[quote=Wiki[/quote]]Ramanujan has been described as a person with a somewhat shy and quiet disposition, a dignified man with pleasant manners.[80] He lived a rather Spartan life while at Cambridge. Ramanujan's first Indian biographers describe him as rigorously orthodox. Ramanujan credited his acumen to his family Goddess, Namagiri of Namakkal. He looked to her for inspiration in his work,[81] and claimed to dream of blood drops that symbolised her male consort, Narasimha, after which he would receive visions of scrolls of complex mathematical content unfolding before his eyes.[82] He often said, "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it represents a thought of God."[83][84]

[pocaracas]

Couldn't resist!

[Cyberman]

Ah. Burden of proof is not a red herring. Tell us how many dimensions there really are, and if it's more than three or four, you'll see burden of proof back in a heartbeat.

Indeed. The burden of proof and who has it is only a problem to someone who has no proof and knows it. It's not some optional extra to be declined or accepted according to taste; it's a fundamentally intrinsic component to presenting a claim. Anyone who doesn't think that's fair had better take the matter up with the god they probably think wrote these kinds of laws of rationality in the first place.

[Mark 13:13]

Ah. Burden of proof is not a red herring. Tell us how many dimensions there really are, and if it's more than three or four, you'll see burden of proof back in a heartbeat.

Indeed. The burden of proof and who has it is only a problem to someone who has no proof and knows it. It's not some optional extra to be declined or accepted according to taste; it's a fundamentally intrinsic component to presenting a claim. Anyone who doesn't think that's fair had better take the matter up with the god they probably think wrote these kinds of laws of rationality in the first place.

you already know my position on burden of proof but as you like the topic I thought you might like this snippet i seen today..

"Alvin Plantinga once debated an atheist who commenced the debate, along the same lines as our friend above, by claiming that Plantinga bore the burden of proof of theism. Plantinga simply responded with, "No I don't." The atheist responded, "Yes you do," to which Plantinga again responded, "No I don't." After a while it became apparent that Plantinga's point was that atheism has no way of justifying its claim that theism bear the burden of proof - at least, it has no way of justifying it while staying within its philosophical framework. That an atheist considers the claims of a theist to be extraordinary is irrelevant. They are assuming a benchmark which they have no way of proving as valid."

http://newcovenant.blogspot.co.uk/2004/0...proof.html

I haven't the type of background to discuss the fine points of philosophy but I won't be filibustered out of giving my opinion by something my street sense tells me is just smoke and mirrors. [/i]

[Cyberman]

I couldn't care less what Alvin Plantinga may or may not have said to some anonymous cookie-cutter atheist. I reiterate: the burden of proof is a fundamental part of rational thinking and rational presentation. It's not some sort of garnish to be taken or left. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. Offhandedly micharacterising me as someone who "likes the topic" would be more offensive and less pathetic if it came from someone without imaginary friends.

[Mark 13:13]

I couldn't care less what Alvin Plantinga may or may not have said to some anonymous cookie-cutter atheist. I reiterate: the burden of proof is a fundamental part of rational thinking and rational presentation. It's not some sort of garnish to be taken or left. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. Offhandedly micharacterising me as someone who "likes the topic" would be more offensive and less pathetic if it came from someone without imaginary friends.

I reiterate its not.

[Cyberman]

That's fine. The scientific community would like a word with you though. Further, in order to hold that position honestly, you forfeit all right to ask for evidence from anyone who might, say, propose something against your holy book.

However, let's entertain the idea for a moment. You stand in the dock, accused of some crime for which you know for a fact you did not commit. Now prove you didn't do it.

[jonb]

Stimbo, you should know not to stand over a christian, while he's digging a hole for himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGk4AKOwJbc

[Cyberman]

It makes it easier to fill it in afterwards. And if there's one thing I can be said to worship, it's making as little work as I can possibly get away with.

[Cato]

I couldn't care less what Alvin Plantinga may or may not have said to some anonymous cookie-cutter atheist. I reiterate: the burden of proof is a fundamental part of rational thinking and rational presentation. It's not some sort of garnish to be taken or left. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. Offhandedly micharacterising me as someone who "likes the topic" would be more offensive and less pathetic if it came from someone without imaginary friends.

I reiterate its not.

The fact that you dismiss the concept of the burden of proof for positive claims indicates that your brain is nothing more than a vessel for weapons grade stupidity.

The fact that you keep repeating it makes you an insufferable cunt.