[davidgow77]

Interesting.... I cannot claim to have an in depth understanding of the issues from a mathematical point of view, but I do believe that the route taken by Greene et al is simply not credible.... abstract mathematics must be related in some way to physics, but string theory represents a departure from the standard way that philosophical theories are developed.... namely that a model or paradigm is developed, and then maths is used as a tool for developing a proof (a la Einstein and General Relativity). String Theory is stating that things must be a certain way because that is what maths dictates or suggests, ignoring the considerably significant issue that we just do not have a complete understanding of mathematics.

I suppose you could say that string theory is an evidence based philosophy, rather than a thought experiment. The problem is that sooner or later the evidence will have to substantially change in order to explain certain phenomena. This renders string theory particularly vulnerable to becoming completely obsolete the next time a discovery is made that is as significant as general relativity.

And I'm still absolutely convinced that string theory is more about the workings of the human mind and the way we interpret space and matter, than the workings of the universe.

DG