The human brain sees the world as an 11-dimensional multiverse

originally posted by: Kashai

Its his day job.

Starts out "We believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our universe has 11 dimensions."

Beliefs are the foundations of religion, right? Not of science.

First, nothing is ever 100% proven in science but string theory is much worse than he portrays it, not only is it not "proven" but there's no experimental evidence for it. One could say general relativity is not "proven" but there is lots and lots of experimental evidence supporting it, which is how science is supposed to work.

Also, who is "we"? The physicist in the following video used to believe that string theory might bear some fruit or that there might be some experimental evidence supporting it or the 11 dimensions, but even back in 2009 he complained about how long he'd been strung along by string theorists without any real evidence, and now you can add 7 more years to his complaints about it, so he may have once been part of the "we", he no longer is (Video is only 2 minutes long):



Not even Wrong

The phrase "not even wrong" describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e., tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.
...
The phrase is often used to describe pseudoscience or bad science and is considered derogatory.

See the book on this subject written by mathematical physicist Peter Woit:

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory ...

When does physics depart the realm of testable hypothesis and come to resemble theology? Peter Woit argues that string theory isn't just going in the wrong direction, it's not even science. Not Even Wrong shows that what many physicists call superstring “theory” is not a theory at all. It makes no predictions, not even wrong ones, and this very lack of falsifiability is what has allowed the subject to survive and flourish. Peter Woit explains why the mathematical conditions for progress in physics are entirely absent from superstring theory today, offering the other side of the story.

So now you know how some other scientists feel about the "beliefs" of Michio Kaku, and they are not included in his "we".

In this video Lawrence Krauss (another physicist who is critical of string theory) warns string theorist Brian Green not to get Neil Tyson started, but Green gets him started...then Krauss says he was warned, after Tyson's outburst, telling us his real reaction to string theory's failure:



I also think applying the same rigor to brain research as to string theory will reveal that nobody has proven how many dimensions the brain operates in...they weren't even testing a real brain, it was a simulation which may operate quite differently from a real brain and in some people's opinion including mine, quite likely does.

a reply to: HawkeyeNation


life's last genetic twist evolved (hominids to)
grow-able parallel synaptic processing (homo sapiens)
instant manifestation of imagination
you know we started to sing/dance/paint

Every human has 10 trillion brain cells, powered by at least 1,000 trillion synapses upon awakening each day. (Einstein, when he imagined himself being a photon of light traversing the universe, was running 10 million trillion synaptic connections).
We are as powerful as any sentient being's in the universe could be.

The structures explained, that are created by our thoughts, are synaptic weaves that grow to satisfy our need. They have given the number of connections "a dimensional reference".

thought example
your wife calls
to inform your
cousin mary is
coming for a visit

1st connection
mary's a lush
2nd connection
mary has new boyfriend
etc etc
the synaptic structures
you build from data stored
do not have to be visualized
only used

this is the common use the word "dimension"

math has predicted a 10 dimensional manifold
3 realities X 3 dimensions plus the 10th space-time
living energy has 10 major harmonics
they weave the bonds of life

the math of space time contains entropy (aging)
which puts energy into the realm of the living
as the universe was born
so it lives so it will die
(thus the term living energy)

down to the crux/ the 11th dimension
it exists as the something (life)
which excludes the possibility of nothing
a perfection of geometry and symmetry

an infinity of bound energy pairs
no space/ no time/ no boundaries
just limitless potential
limitless cognition

if humans had not splintered faith
into a million religious splinters
all driven by human ego attributes
you might reference "god"
as the 11th dimension

please engage that magnificent tool
that rides your shoulders
and walk the path of light

Very fascinating, I always fought the human brain was more advanced then we knew of, not sure if it will be fully understood at this time, probably will in the future when our technology catches up to the same level.

a reply to: Kashai

Yes, space-time is curved. So can algebraic topology be but it doesn't necessarily have to be. In its simplest form it would very little from linear algebra. And because linear algebra is not transmutable (a x b does not equal b x a or even make it back to the starting position by doing the opposite function) means that a simplistic analogy to M-brane theory is so off the mark... well, you already know how I feel,

That is just basic math. Well a little advanced I guess and an area I have studied in. My buddy is a published mathematician in this field and he gave me an overview one night over a pint or two. Substitute partial diff eq and real numbers into the linear algebra stuff and that is what your dealing with from a math perspective.

The brain firing looks like a thunderstorm so that anyone trying to figure out how it all correlates is a valiant effort! I agree with you that this is fun to talk about but the OP's headline is wrong.

The math works though. I wonder if geniuses have more dimensions in their thinking over us plebes. Maybe ignorant_ape's 23 dimensions is onto something!

I'm not an authority in the subject. I'm more of a discreet math type but I understand enough to see what is wrong and what is right.

Let's keep the conversation going!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Not really disagreeing with either you or Arbitrageur.

But I feel that lack of information as you both have offered could have more to do with the extent to which this project has developed. !.3 billion for a such an effort where there obvious discrepancies could imply something that is on track to being declassified.

MRI technology can be used to see the process's involved in thought. The original article and subsequent appears to suggest that based upon analysis there is not enough information to compensate for the actual process's that thoughtentails. The conclusion formed is that these experiments could then result in identifying process's to thought that are beyond the MRI's ability to comprehend. We know from relativity that there must at least be four dimensionsand probably 5 again at the very least.

An issue with Super symmetry is have we found Empirical evidence...

Out of those five predictions made in her paper (and that of her team) entitled "Cosmological Avatars of the Landscape I: Bracketing the SUSY Breaking Scale" (read it here:arxiv.org...)

4 have been verified. Here they are as follows:

1. One of her predictions said that no evidence of supersymmetry (one of the hallmarks of string theory,which postulates the existence of a corresponding "super-particle" for all elementary particles that havean integer-valued spin) would be found at the Large Hadron Collider. No evidence was acquired that gavesupersymmetry leeway. (we did find the Higgs boson!)

2. She was also one of the first scientists that believed dark flow (an eerie observation that shows distantclusters being "pulled at" from some great force that is outside the vicinity of our local universe) was nottied to the great attractor, but something different...something pulling at our universe from anotheruniverse would suffice. In essence, perhaps another universe tugging at our own?

3. Instead of finding that the temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation arerandom, a preferential pattern should be obvious. Upon inspection, we saw that instead of beingcompletely at random, these "lumps," which are slightly warmer or slightly cooler than the surrounding

www.scribd.com...

We are considering the potential of consciousness in an environment where reality as observable seems more like an aspect.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

"First, nothing is ever 100% proven".

It is 100% proven that we are having this conversation or do you wish to defer otherwise?

It is simply wrong for Peter Woit and other sceptics of superstring theory to argue that it does not predict anything. It was the amazing prediction by Gary Schwarz and Michael Green in 1984 that the dimension of the gauge symmetry group that generated interactions in 10-d space-time that are free of quantum anomalies had to be 496 (implying either E8xE8 or SO(32)) that ushered in the superstring revolution in particle physics. It has since then made several other important theoretical predictions. What Woit is sloppily arguing is that superstring has not predicted anything quantitative that can be immediately tested in an experimental way. But that does not makes it different from any other GUT or TOE. The theory is highly mathematical and its development takes time. I have little respect for physicists who are impatient with its progress. No one who is able to understand its amazing, mathematical beauty can fail to believe that it will be part of the TOE (M-theory) that will emerge. In fact, I have mathematical proof that it does, indeed, have this status, and I will publish it in due course. As for LHC failing to find evidence for supersymmetry, there is a simple explanation for this: the Standard Model is wrong because quarks are not fundamental, as it assumes, but composite bound states of three spin-1/2 subquarks to which supersymmetry applies. It is subquarks that have supersymmetric partners, not quarks, and it is straightforward to prove that the Pauli Exclusion Principle does not permit squarks to exist if quarks are composed of three more basic particles.

a reply to: Kashai

The math is fine. No problem there. 11 dimensions, fine. I'm cool with that. But only that far. Extending the concept to theoretical physics (or philosophy as a member would say) is not a feasible concept.

Besides the computer model, the human brain is extremely complex in what it can figure out. Which in turn means some parts are very simple and can be fooled or controlled. Like hypnosis or the plecebo effect, I mean. But the whole thing is not even close to being known.

I've spent years doing research in what was called AI and then called "cognitive science". I wanted to teach a computer to hallucinate!! That was what I was into at the time. I have kudos for today's research but it is incomplete. The brain seems open ended. This research is a great step forward but still just a step.

And this is fun s# to talk about anyways!! Don't let me rain on your parade.

PS - Sorry micpsi for talking over your post.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

i feel like when the word dimension is used here, we are talking about two different things. like synaptic dimensions are not the same as spatial dimensions or whatever. we dont even have words for dimensions 5 through 11. we have theoretical equations that are a bugger to test because all of our tests happen in the first three dimensions. studying the shadow of a pin indeed.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I do not mean to bust your proverbial bubble but...

"Besides the computer model, the human brain is extremely complex in what it can figure out. Which in turn means some parts are very simple and can be fooled or controlled"

Could it be so complex that an MRI is insufficient to figure it out?

That would be the point the Blue Brain project is working on apparently.

What does complexity have to do with, 'being fooled"?

a reply to: Kashai

There are parts! That is what the math was about. Parts and pieces being quantitated and looking at the big picture. This was done against a computer model with real brain data.

As stated earlier, the computer model may not be robust enough. My personal feelings are it is not even close to human cognition but that is me.

The "being fooled" portion is researchers not understanding how the brain operates. The brain filters out a bunch of meaningless (so it assumes) input to make data processing easier. That facility of how that works is unknown. It is that assumption that blinds researchers. In some ways the brain is simple but in other ways it is not. Neither is well understood.

My 2 pennies. We are here to discuss after all...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"First, nothing is ever 100% proven".

It is 100% proven that we are having this conversation or do you wish to defer otherwise?

Way to take a quote out of context and change its meaning. Adding the next two words changes the context significantly, as does adding the rest of the paragraph.

a reply to: micpsi
You're entitled to your opinion, Peter Woit is entitled to his. You seem to be saying "there's evidence but it's non-quantitative" which if true doesn't exactly invalidate his opinion. Maybe after you publish your paper he'll read it and re-consider.

Also if anyone read the article it mentions 7 dimensions in the brain simulation and as many as 11, so the 11 isn't a fixed number.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Are you suggesting we are parts?

So you do not research consciousness but you are certain researchers who do. Do not understand how the brain operates?

How are you doing that?

a reply to: Arbitrageur


Actually you said "nothing is 100% certain" and I gave an example of what is 100% certain.

It seemed the thing to do at the time.

To be blunt and despite ego's what we know about ourselves today does not in an of itself constitute an absolute.

Rhetoric otherwise is irrelevant!

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

"There are parts!"

So are you saying nature answers to you and its not the other way around?

a reply to: Kashai

No. The brain is able to be seen in parts. What the math chick did was look at it as a whole. And the article writter confused things by making an illogical leap. That's all I've saying.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Actually its very common to relate the brain holistically.


I feel that the casual nature of these commentaries bespeaks to my earlier point.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF


Actually its very common to relate the brain holistically.


I feel that the casual nature of these commentaries bespeaks to my earlier point.

we need a visual aid to help convey the logistics of these findings. plain words arent going to be very helpful when you have to write a novel just to cover the basics.

Yeah. Theoretical Neurophysics......

The brains of humans and animals arguably are among the most complex systems in nature.  Understanding their operation crucially depends on the ability to analyze the cooperative dynamics of spatially distributed multi-component systems:  Even the most elementary sensory stimulus engages large ensembles of interacting nerve cells distributed throughout the brain.  The processing power of biological neuronal circuits exactly results from their collective dynamics.  In addition, complex nervous systems utilize processes of dynamical self-organization to generate and maintain their processing architecture.  The amount of information in a mammalian genome is by far insufficient to specify the wiring of biological neuronal networks in microscopic detail.  Functionally useful processing architectures are thus dynamically generated by self-organization on the level of neuronal circuits.  Ultimately, even an individual nerve cell is a complex dynamical system.  Virtually all single neuron computations critically depend on the dynamical interaction of a multitude of subcellular components such as ion channels and other interacting biological nano-structures.  It is due to this ubiquity of collective behaviors that neuroscience provides a rich source of attractive research questions for the theoretical physics of complex systems.

www.chaos.gwdg.de...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Arbitrageur


Actually you said "nothing is 100% certain" and I gave an example of what is 100% certain.

Your first quote had the right words, but it was trimmed to remove the following words to take it out of context, so it didn't convey the meaning of my original statement due to the trimming.

This time you didn't even get the words right.

If you really can't understand the meaning of what I said originally, try watching the first minute of this video to get the meaning of what I said. One example he gives is Newton's laws, which we thought were proven right for hundreds of years, until they were proven wrong in some previously untested circumstances.



Hence it's an example that hundreds of years of data "proving a theory right" doesn't prove it's right.

My statement had a very specific context which you don't seem to get since you are trying to distort it into something else. It had nothing to do whether two people are talking or writing, it was about science and testing scientific claims.

I would add that the subject brain research on simulators and string theory have nowhere near the supporting evidence that Newton's laws had for those centuries, they both seem to me like hypotheses with researchers looking for evidence to support them, so the topic of a scientific claim approaching certainty seems especially irrelevant here.