Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

PSI Blog 20211011 Are Extra-Euclidean dimensions falsifiable?

 

This week's book prize goes to Steve Puetz for his question on Extra-Euclidean dimensions:

 

“Hi Glenn,

 

Regarding a "Dimensionality" assumption - All matter and space within the universe has three dimensions (3D), generally referred to as length, width, and height. (It's opposite is non-3D, multidimensional.)

 

{This might be close, but I don't see where religions propose non-Euclidean dimensions. I think those are ad hocs, which I don't see as appropriate for fundamental assumptions.}

 

The problems that I foresee are twofold:

 

1) In fact, many theoretical physicists propose that the universe has 4, 6, 8, or 11 dimensions, etc. Just perform a Google web-search on "dimensions of the universe" and you will find 141 million items.

 

2) More importantly, none of the original 10 assumptions prohibit these non-3D theories, as far as I can tell. We need some way (either from the 10 assumptions, or a new assumption) to prohibit these theories, when embracing the neomechanical worldview.

 

Regards,

Steve”

 

[GB: The fundamental assumption that forbids extra-Euclidean dimensions is the First Assumption of Science, materialism (The external world exists after the observer does not). Its opposite is the First Assumption of Religion, immaterialism (Material things have no objective existence, strictly being products of consciousness). This dichotomy is so stark that most philosophers find ways to soften the blow. Another way of stating this irrevocable opposition is through the concepts of reality vs. ideality.

 

Reality vs. Ideality

 

Reality concerns the external world and ideality concerns the inner world. As Einstein characteristically said “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”[1] Realists assume only the external world exists, containing material things (i.e., XYZ portions of the universe), while idealists assume their dreams and imaginings exist. Thus, while materialists and realists are constrained by the three dimensions supported by observing or experimenting with everyday objects, immaterialists and idealists are not. They can have as many “dimensions” as their math or thoughts can manage. As long as these imaginings remain microcosmic, that is, present only in brains, they are not amenable to falsification. However, whenever these are communicated to the macrocosm (outside world) they are subject to falsification just like any other claim made about the external world. That is why scientific tests of prayers always result in falsification.[2] On the other hand, scientific idealizations can escape that fate because they may give some semblance to things that actually exist in the universe. For instance, ideally the Moon is spherical, while in reality it is an oblate spheroid just like Earth. The match between scientific idealization and reality is never perfect because the universe is infinite. Scientists expect slight variations like that, while the non-scientist imbued with the Ninth Assumption of Religion, absolutism (Identities exist, that is, any two things may have identical characteristics) might not.

 

Falsifiability and Myth

 

Here is an interesting blog entry by David Galston on falsifiability and religion:

 

http://www.questcentre.ca/blogs/view/falsifiability-and-religion

 

“Does falsifiability apply to religion? Philosophers of religion have loved this question, and have loved to answer this question with both a "yes" and a "no." On the yes side are those who will say that evolution does indeed prove creation is false. Or, in another way, the theory of creation is falsifiable and has been demonstrated to be false. We can verify that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old and this verification falsifies the claim that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago.”

 

“There is, however, a problem with claiming that creation like evolution is falsifiable. The problem is that on this level creation and evolution are both accepted as science. So, philosophers of religion will also answer our question with a “no.” Creation is not subject to falsification because it is a myth that belongs to a religious belief system. Creation-language is a separate language-game from scientific evolution. It’s not possible to apply the rules of science to a myth.”

 

Extra-Euclidean Dimensions as Symptoms of the Coming Demise of Regressive Physics

 

Similarly, extra-Euclidean dimensions, being purely imaginary, cannot be falsified because they are not properties of real objects. There have been attempts to bring those imaginings into the external world through “reification” or “objectification,” that is, by considering motion as matter. That was Einstein’s most important mistake.[3] Time is motion. Time is not an object; it is what objects do. It does not exist, it occurs. The "4th dimension" in GRT stems directly from Einstein's sleight of hand substituting "l" (length) for "t" (time) in SRT. That has nonetheless been acceptable to idealists not concerned with illegal category switching--as long as it confirms their long-standing imaginings. "String Theory," which involves up to 26 so-called "dimensions" has not been, nor will it ever be, supported by observation and experiment. Even regressive physicists such as Lee Smolin have doubts that it will ever result in objective predictions.[4]

The upshot: Extra-Euclidean dimensions are imaginary. Like gods, heaven, and hell, they are not testable parts of the external world. They are not falsifiable because they do not exist.]

---

[1] Viereck, G.S., 1929, What life means to Einstein: The Saturday Evening Post, October 26, p. 17, 110-117.

 

 

[2] Masters, K.S., Spielmans, G.I., and Goodson, J.T., 2006, Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, v. 32, no. 1, p. 21-26. [10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3]. See also: Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk].

 

[3] Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Einstein's most important philosophical error, in Volk, Greg, Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance: College Park, MD, Natural Philosophy Alliance, Mt. Airy, MD, v. 8, p. 64-68 [10.13140/RG.2.1.3436.0407].

 

[4] Smolin, Lee, 2007, The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, Mariner Books; Reprint edition, 420 p.