..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Mark Kohut]

My original kutely kryptic post was to communicate what I learned from Kant.
 
We cannot think of space, nor time, in any other way but in the way we have to define them. We cannot IMAGINE space without a conecpt of space. A priori he termed them....(although he did say space was also synthetic---known by our experience of it to know it is what it is)
....they are not materialistically contingent.

From: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
To: P-list List <pynchon-l at waste.org> 
Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: ..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

  Hard to know if there is a point in  trying to explain myself, but essentially 2d space has no more correspondence to anything real in my experience than trying to imagine 5 or more dimensions. 2D is purely an imaginary mathematical construct and outmoded geometry. It is very useful in building, designing, art, etc, but trying to think of a Euclidean plane as an actual dimension in and of itself is an exercise in futility.To the degree to which planes do exist, they are curved. A plane is a symbol, a tool of the imagination.Thinking that our actual spatial experience is an expansion of this imaginary dimension seems a bad starting point for imagining more real "dimensions"in the knowable universe.  The fact that something can be expressed mathematically is no proof that there is a corresponding reality in the universe .  Mathematical speculation is accepted on experimental test. And even when they prove useful,  the mathematical formulas we use
 are a  language and not the thing itself. Does nature use pi to blow a bubble or make a moon or is a simpler efficiency at work with no exact rational value? Even the word dimension is a metaphor. One can equally think of  space-time as a unified dimension.  
My question to the professor was both sincere and valid. I knew from the syllabus that we would be talking about other spatial / conceptual dimensions  and found the flatland story flat-footed and truly disappointing.  You cannot communicate  a useful model for expanding your conceptual framework by starting with an invalid description of space. The Eulclidean universe is long gone and its explanatory power is limited by its lack of correspondence to what is known and unknown about space, time , gravity, light, electromagnetic fields and quantum relations. I understand these things only very crudely but see no value in trying to replace complexity with pablum. I guess I was quite alone in these feelings and questions , or at least none of the P-listers thus far understand or relate to my questions.  So be it. 



I think it quite probable that dimensions not fully covered by  our current models are most likely to be found in the arena of communication/transmission of information and the encoding or storage of information/wisdom, rather than by trying to use maths to add spatial dimensions. Physicists still don't understand the phenomenon of quantum entanglement whereby electrons appear to affect each other instantaneously over long distances. The mechanism or explanation of this mirroring communication remains unresolved.  At the end of his life Einstein was asking what is an electron. He never reconciled the wave and particle aspects of light. 


"What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances)." I. Schroedinger

>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Friday, February 3, 2012, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I once tried to explain to a physics professor trying to "help" us
>>>>>> imagine extra dimensions that his use of a transition from 2 D space to 3D space was not helpful
>>>>>> to me because the concept of 2D space was  more of a journey away from
>>>>>> reality/experience/known perceptual frameworks than the concept of a 5
>>>>>> dimensional matrix.  Does anyone else find this schematic of explanation
>>>>>> tiresome and ridiculous.

How about simply unhelpful?  The challenge of imagining other dimensions of space is truly daunting. But reducing the number of "dimensions"  and then imagining what one would "see" in 2D space is bogus. what would an eye be in 2D, what would light be? How does anything change here without time.  And is there anywhere outside of geometric theory where there can be only 2 dimensions? In verifiable experience, geometry  has only ever taken place in the life of 3D humans living in time . 
>>>>>> First, it isn't as though the universe started as
>>>>>> an expansion of Euclidean geometry,  second, it all presupposes motionless
>>>>>> points in motionless space

but everything in this universe is moving and as fas as we can tell expanding..
>>>>>>  and generally imaginary things that don't act
>>>>>> like real things, and 3rd it's all very chicken and eggy: what is the
>>>>>> meaning of a point or singularity or one dimensionality without a larger
>>>>>> dimensional conceptual framework?

In the big bang theory there is no dimensional middle step  (that I have ever heard of)  between the singularity and spacetime. There are also other ideas about cosmology. I
> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> what I would like to do is a nice natural-language exposition bu?.
>>>>>>> frankly I'm not up to it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> There was a fellow named Monty who used to show up here once in
>>>>>>> awhile
>>>>>>> who surely could, and I bet Dave Monroe could if he wanted to.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I can tell you what your question makes me think:
>>>>>>> a) projective geometry (which figures in Pynchon, of course, with the
>>>>>>> eigenvalues) - when you look at a diagram of 3-dimensional space the
>>>>>>> diagram is flat, but if it's cunningly wrought it gives a sense of
>>>>>>> depth.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> b) when you look at a diagram of the bowling balls on the plastic
>>>>>>> sheets representing gravitation, that artist has abandoned the quest
>>>>>>> for that particular illusion in favor of showing an illusion of the
>>>>>>> gravitational effect on a space which is represented as a plane
>>>>>>> although it really has at least one more dimension than that!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> c) and of course the diagram is limited in size whereas space itself,
>>>>>>> as Douglas Adams said, is actually really really big
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> d) the other part of your question, about the orbits and all, is
>>>>>>> something I too wish I had a feel for.  I think it would be a matter
>>>>>>> of doing the chapter questions in a good astronomy text and
>>>>>>> preferably
>>>>>>> also talking extensively (and by talking, I mean listening)
>>>>>>> w/somebody
>>>>>>> who knows it really well...
>>>>>>> like, right now, I have a pretty good feel for where I am in local
>>>>>>> space, but almost none for my position and velocity in a larger
>>>>>>> cosmic
>>>>>>> framework...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Bled Welder wrote:
>>>>>>>> I suppose I could go onto a science-l whatever, but that sounds like
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> hassle and you people seem to might be able to answer this question
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> bugs me: okay getting beyond the thing that Einstein was wrong,
>>>>>>>> it'll be
>>>>>>>> happening any day now, what is space?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> More specifickly, whenever I see examples of it, space is on a flat
>>>>>>>> plane,
>>>>>>>> then objects do their little push into the "fabric" of it --and
>>>>>>>> case!
>>>>>>>> everything is on the same frikkin plane.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Is everything on the same frikkin plane, indenting?  I don't even
>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>> the Moon circles on the same plane as Earth does the sun.  Are all
>>>>>>>> planets
>>>>>>>> in the same orbital format?  You know what I mean here?      b
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120206/051de413/attachment.html>