Jatopian wrote:
While I agree with you, Matt, I would point out that this is a highly fallacious way to try and disprove something. To borrow an example from Banjooie, I am not terribly skilled at making delicious cakes, but I can taste cakes and tell quite accurately whether they are delicious, despite my difficulty in doing better.
Admittedly, part of my frustration here is that I see absolutely no value whatsoever in empty criticism - there's absolutely no indication
what about the video is incorrect, and this verdict is delivered in as smug a way as possible. To extend the metaphor too far, it is like dismissing a cake as being terrible for the benefit of someone who cannot taste the cake but figures that if you eat enough cake maybe you'll start to appreciate it. So it's really not like cake at all.
Regarding smug: There seems to be about three different people who are trying to fill the snark hole that Banj left when really that hole can stay unfilled, or be filled with whipped cream or something. It's disrespectful (which I suspect is the point) and entirely unnecessary.
Regarding string theory: there's an old joke that two scientists are talking and one says to the other: "
I've just had this crazy idea that might connect gravity to electromagnetism! Imagine if, instead of a point, everything was actually a tiny string."
"
Huh. What would that imply?"
"
I have no idea."
I doubt this video is seriously attempting to explain dimensions as they relate to string theory.
Regarding choice as a dimension: I think that's the anthropic principle leaking through in the explanation, but perhaps the argument is that probabilities map to movement in the fifth dimension? So a percentage of the dimension is one outcome, and another percentage is another.
____________________________
What do you call an elephant at the North Pole?
Click here to view the secret text
×Lost.
[Last edited by Mattcrampy at 09-17-2007 03:50 PM]