Tag Archives: metaphysics
An interview with Michio Kaku:
PG: You are a proponent of string theory, which envisages an 11- or 13-fold dimensional universe. How do you envisage these extra dimensions?
MK: We live in a three-dimensional world. Length, width, height, and we also have the fourth dimension, which is time. But anyone who talks about higher dimensions is sometimes called a crackpot. Now, when I was a child, I used to go to the Japanese tea garden in San Francisco where there are fish swimming in a shallow pond. And I imagined being a fish myself. And if I was a fish, I could travel forward, backward, left, and right, but the concept of “up” made no sense because the pond is the universe.
So I imagined there was a scientist there who would say, “Bah, humbug. There are no other dimensions other than forward, backward, left, and right. There’s no such thing as up. What you see is what is. If you cannot measure it, it doesn’t exist. So then I imagined as a child reaching down and grabbing the fish, lifting the scientist into the world of up, hyperspace, the third dimension. What would he see?
He would see a world where beings move without fins, a new law of physics. Beings breathing without water, a new law of biology. Then I would put the fish back into the pond, what stories he would tell. A universe beyond the universe.
Well, today many physicists believe that we are the fish. We spend all our lives in three dimensions, going forward, backward, left and right, up and down. And anyone who talks about another, unseen dimension is considered a crackpot. Well, not anymore. This summer, the largest machine that science ever built, the Large Hadron Collider, 27 miles in circumference, costing eight billion euros (about ten billion dollars), will be turned on. And we hope to get evidence of the eleventh dimension. One of time, ten of space.
We work in an area called string theory, which used to be a bunch of outcasts in the physics community. But now, we’re center stage. We have gotten the major faculty positions at Harvard, Princeton, Yale; all the young crowd coming up are string theorists. My generation suffered enormously because people thought, “Oh my god, this is Star Trek, beam me up to the higher dimensions,” they said.
The young people, however, have the benefits of realizing that we are now the center of gravity. What happened? What happened was we physicists began to smash atoms, and we have a pretty good understanding of the theory of particles. It’s called the Standard Model. Except it is the ugliest theory known to science. Why should mother nature at a fundamental level create this ugly theory called the standard model? It has 36 quarks, it has eight gluons, it has three W bosons, it has a whole bunch of electrons, a whole bunch of neutrons, it just goes on and on and on.
The Music of Creation
Why should this be nature’s supreme theory? It’s like getting an aardvark, a platypus, and a whale, start shaping them together and calling this nature’s finest evolutionary creation, the byproduct of millions of years of evolution of the earth. I would like to believe that these 36 quarks, eight gluons, three W bosons are nothing but the lowest octave of a vibrating string.
Now, these strings are special. They are not ordinary strings. These strings, when they vibrate, create the musical notes which correspond to the particles we see in the universe. We can explain why we have leptons, muons, hadrons, photons, neutrinos, the zoo of subatomic particles; it’s nothing but the lowest vibration of the string. The normal aspect of the string is that they only vibrate in ten or eleven dimensions. They vibrate in ten dimensions. When you add membranes or beach balls, they can vibrate in eleven dimensions. So we think that’s what the Big Bang was. The Big Bang was an instability in eleven-dimensional hyperspace.
Einstein wanted to read the mind of God. That was his goal in life. He wanted an equation one-inch long that would allow him to read God’s thoughts. That’s what dominated his thinking. For the first time now, we have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God is: cosmic music resonating through eleven-dimensional hyperspace. That is, we think, the mind of God.
The trouble is, you have to subscribe to FATE Magazine to read the rest of the interview, but it might be worth the money. Michio Kaku is one of the least ‘mainstream’ of the mainstream physicists.
Hey, small victories are better than none!
Pareidolia of the Gods?
Perhaps the most incredible space photos ever put on view are enfolded in a great mystery known as “pareidolia.” A category of optical illusions, pareidolia is an uncertain impression perceived as something clear and distinct. The astronomer Carl Sagan thought that seeing faces in clouds is an evolutionary trait. “Confirmation bias” refers to the tendency to notice what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore what disagrees with them…
Some psychologists promote pareidolia under clinical conditions to evaluate their patients. The most well known example is the Rorschach inkblot test. The Baltimore Sun in recent times reported: “Pareidolia is common enough, and predates the space program by a millennium or two. We’ve all seen the Man in the Moon, or faces and images of ships and elephants in cloud formations.”
Space photos pose a fuzzy hurdle for scientists now programming computers to observe images and to recognize objects. If a computer were taught to make out the symbolic abstractions of modern art, how would it perceive the contents of deep space photos? Some might argue that teaching machines to see “arty abstractions” is simply a waste of time. Yet we surely expect our GPS-fitted cars of the future to identify ordinary road sign symbols, which are likewise graphic abstractions.
Do human beings have this inborn need to look for ‘gods’ in the heavens in order to feel better about their place in the Universe?
Another hat tip to the Anomalist
We kick off Anniversary Week with subjects I haven’t posted about in quite a while, the MJ-12 documents and crop circles (I don’t think we’ve discussed crop circles before).Enjoy folks! 8)
I must say that I am quite disappointed in Robert Hastings recent bird dropping and MJ-12 articles. Robert has done some fine work on the connection between nuclear installations and UFOs. But his recent opus seems to me to be painted with much too broad a brush with too many nasty personal attacks on people (Doty, Collins, Moore, Tim Cooper) and far too little investigation and discussion about the Majestic 12 documents themselves. I saw no mention at all of “TOP SECRET/MAJIC” my 1997 book updated with a 5000 word afterword in 2005. The entire focus is on MJ-12 documents, the reasons some must be labeled as phony and others as genuine. I see no mention of my several detailed MUFON Symposium Papers about MJ-12 or such items as my detailed review of Kevin Randle’s “Case MJ-12” on my website http://www.stantonfriedman.com .
He says little about archive research. He touts Brad Sparks’ MUFON paper attacking the documents, but not my detailed rebuttal. As anybody who reads my publications would know, I long ago noted that I couldn’t accept any of the Tim Cooper documents. I carefully showed that at least 7 were emulations i.e. retyped slightly changed real documents that had been in print. I had found the originals. I noted flat out wrong statements in others. I have touted the Eisenhower Briefing Document, The Truman Forestall Memo and the Cutler Twining memo as genuine I believe I have successfully rebutted all the arguments against these in my publications. Jan Aldrich is certainly knowledgeable about army procedures and documents, but made the false claim (as did others) that the documents had to have had TOP SECRET CONTROL numbers. Not so.. I quoted archivists from the Eisenhower and Marshall libraries …
Friedman goes on to mention some sources about certain MJ-12 papers, but not all because even he admits some are questionable.
Friedman is from the “nuts and bolts” side of the UFO debate, meaning that we are being visited by advanced aliens in material spacecraft.
In recent years, some have postulated that the phenomenon is more “metaphysical” in nature rather than physical, i.e., Jacques Vallee.
Do crop circles interest you?
If they do, listen to this latest interview on the Paracast by Gene Steinberg and David Biedny as they question Ed and Kris Sherwood about the nature of the phenomenon. Good stuff.