2 Dimensions does not a (string) 'theory' Make.

[RascalPuff]

"No 2d model can represent a universe___Such models are quite illusory, are they not...? Everyone using 2d models tries to reduce them down to something real, when in fact, there's only 3d/4d models of the real universe... Once one interprets a true 2d model, it disappears___Illusion. Take the atomic structure out of a 3d model, and where is it?___Gone... All that truly exists is 3d/4d___Particles and motion..." - Lloyd

[neutralino]

I've answered this in the thread where the quote comes from.

[dleviwing]

When one ponders of 2D objects, they ponder upon the reflections of shadows.

[RascalPuff]

I've answered this in the thread where the quote comes from.

Neutralino's response to the above quote by Lloyd:
"Of course a 2 dimensional surface is not a model of the universe. However, the 3 dimensional surface of a 4 dimensional sphere is a conceivable model of the universe. This surface (called S^3 amongst mathematicians) is topologically equivalent to the surface of a 3-sphere, but we cannot picture what it would look like. Therefore, I used the lower dimensional model to try and emphasize the point that there are models of the universe that have no centre. I hope that this has emphasized it sufficiently."

Dear Neutralino:

There are no three dimensional 'surfaces' - only charges of EM that become more dense as the center of a '3-D' system (electron, for example) is approached.

Best regards,
- RP

[Profpat]

When one ponders of 2D objects, they ponder upon the reflections of shadows.

An excellent example of a 2D reality David.

Best,

Pat