2 ms·
The problem with this analysis is that it is basing its anthropic conclusion on anthropic physical theory. In other words, it compares what would happen if the
by transfire 12y ago
The problem with this analysis is that it is basing its anthropic conclusion on anthropic physical theory. In other words, it compares what would happen if the number of dimensions changed using theories devised for a 3+1 universe. Obviously if the dimensions changed, the theories have to change. And in an alternate universe with a different number of dimensions the theories would not be the same.
- aetherson 12y agoWell, that's always the problem with anthropic arguments. But "electrons can not maintain orbitals" sounds pretty damning. Could we imagine that there is some other kind of stable state that allows progression up from fundamental particles to complex macroscopic objects big enough to be some kind of observer? Yeeessss.... but that would be more convincing if we had some idea of what fundamental-particle relationship that would be.
- nhaehnle 12y agoI agree. I like this topic, but I have to say that there are better, more fundamental arguments in favour of 3 space dimensions. For example, two space dimensions only allow planar graphs, which seems pretty limiting for the development of complex structures. On the other hand, as you increase the number of spatial dimensions, the curse of dimensionality becomes more important and space in general becomes "emptier". Also, knots are only interesting in 3 dimensions. Arguing about time dimensions is harder, because time is tied more strongly to our subjective experience of consciousness, which is something that we really don't understand yet.