CERN Insider: "There are 17 dimensions."
(www.youtube.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (16)
sorted by:
Exactly. It's all theoretical scientific and mathematical b.s. We cannot see into ,nor can we physically traverse any so-called "reality" other than this one. All of this talk about alternate dimensions and/or realities have only been supposedly proven on paper. And, at the quantum level, our current understanding of physics breaks down, so it stands to reason that at a much grander scale, physics would break down, too.
That is, of course, if we're only using our own current levels of technology. Now, if we were ever to get to the truth about some of these UFO sightings and interactions, then maybe we could physically shift into other potential realities, but it's never been proven that we actually have, so it's still all theoretical.
I'd like to believe the claims, and want to believe them, and am somewhat inclined to believe them (mainly because I'm a Christian and believe in God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the afterlife, which to me is just another reality/dimension for us to experience), but I am also pragmatic enough to want proof of claims regarding anything other than that. Meaning, my current understanding is that we only have the physical realm and the spiritual and nothing more or less than that.
So, unless we ever actually do see proof of these claims of extra dimensions or realities, it's all just a bunch of b.s.
You are on point.
The problem is; as soon as physicists use a model that uses N spatial dimensions and M temporal dimensions and it explains more of some kind of observations, then a lot of people, and the media, will claim "WE LIVE IN N+M DIMENSIONS!", but physicists would not claim this with that much certainty.
All the physicists I know are very aware that they are just modeling things mathematically and a model is only as good as its predictions. Some of these models make wildly accurate predictions. Scarily accurate. But only until you look closer at a smaller (or very much larger scale). This is exactly what Karl Popper said science is; Any theory that can not be dis-proven is not a scientific theory.
There are a lot of those. Some are unscientific solely based upon the fact that "N=1"; How can we ever measure the effect of CO2 reduction if we can not repeat the experiment without CO2 reduction?
Also, if you look at the question : "Why?" you are actually asking two questions depending on interpretation. Why? can mean "By what cause?" or it could also mean "To what end?"
I would pose that the first meaning is what science tries to do. The second meaning is what religion tries to do. The two do not overlap in that sense, imho, expect for the very first cause. If you assume there is no way for something to arise from nothing, then the first cause concerns religion as well.