Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar  Fredrick, have the string theorist not proven mathematically that additional dimensions do exist? In the mirror image it is difficult to prove mathematically that infinite images exist. |
No, they have not proven that. Though the correct explanation may possibly be part of why this is all so convoluted. Both math and language are descriptions of reality, they are not the same as reality. As such, they provide us more options than reality provides us. In language, for instance, I can say "I ate my cake five times." That is a perfectly correct sentence, but in reality it doesn't work that way, because I can eat my cake only once (No, Austin, I am not going to have it come out and eat it again, etc).
Austin did provide an example in which the infinite tunnel is visible, though I will claim the properties are diminished due to the specific set-up (but it is nevertheless a visible view of infinity). The ultimate trick up my sleave is that mirrors themselves are not the same as their mirroring property, the mirroring is only a circumstantial aspect to the thin layer of silver (if that is still what they are using nowadays to make mirrors) that causes the reflection. Just like infinity can exist in mathematics to an exquisite amount of numbers behind the comma, in reality most people will have walked away if only 0.004 part of the cake is left and they can only take half a bite out of that, and then a half out of that, and then... Infinity is a mathematical property, but in real life it is often rather insignificant (except as part of the larger set-up of our universe, for we have seemingly an infinite path in time ahead of us - we'll probably run out of
us before we run out of time). In the pentaist world of dimensions a distinction is made between the two real mirrors (plus their properties to mirror), and the infinite delivery of just mirroring properties (i.e. not based on the mirrors themselves, but only on the properties of the mirrors).
String theorists are actually describing something really observed, and not fake within the concept of dimensions, but the idea that they are describing something separate and additional to what is covered by good old funny 3D (or in pentaist theory: 2D+) is not correct. What they discovered are not dimensions, but specific aspects of the regular dimensions, and as such this set provides the acknowledgment of itself, much like the 3rd dimension in 3D is encompassed in the whole, but only when starting out with directions (instead of what I call the real dimensions). String theorists looked into the two mirrors and did not see a depth of one level of mirroring, but a depth of two levels and more. In the end, it's still just two mirrors. In 3D, they already go beyond describing the two mirrors, for the third mirror is added as being equal to the two real mirrors instead of seeing it as just the reflection of the real thing. Then, in string theory, comparing one level of mirroring (reflection) as being fundamentally different from a second level of mirroring (reflection of reflections) is incorrect, fascinating as it may be.