Friday, December 28, 2012

Common Criticisms part 1

A direct link to the above video can be found at

Henry of the popular youtube channel minutephysics has recently been making comments trying to get people to stop watching my channel, and since then we've seen hundreds of negative comments suddenly being posted by his followers on my videos. Since there are a great many other YouTube channels devoted to discussion of the ways that physics and philosophy, science and spirituality might have interesting connections, it leads me to ask one simple question: why?

This is the start of a series where we will look at ten reasons that have been posted recently by Henry and his followers on my YouTube Channel:

Reason #1: Because it's wrong.
Since I've always said this is "a new way of thinking about time and space", and that "this is not the explanation for string theory", this is the easiest claim for minutephysics to make. He doesn't agree with this new way of thinking, and as the self-declared spokesman for the world of physics he feels justified in saying my ideas are not worth discussing. But what does it mean to say something put forth not as a scientific theory, but as a creative way to visualize the ten spatial or space-like dimensions theorists have told us our reality is derived from, is "wrong"? If I show you an image of a bowling ball on a rubber sheet and say "this is a way of thinking about gravity", would your response be there are no bowling balls and rubber sheets in space, so that visualization is worthless? Sometimes a picture conveys an idea quite well without requiring people to understand the calculations that make the idea correct. And if I draw you some pictures that give you a way of visualizing ten spatial dimensions, each one orthogonal to the next, then I've introduced you to an idea you might want to learn more about. Isn't that a good thing?

Next: Reason #2: Because it's dangerous.


Anonymous said...

Don't let any other human being tell you "your ideas are not worth discussing". Bullshit. He is just a man, just like you, just like every other man; he is no god or omnipotent/omnipresent/all-knowing. He eats, pisses, craps, bleeds, breathes, feels, etc. just like any other man. I, for one, find your ideas highly intriguing and I find that persons attitude pathetic. Ideas are sacred; their correspondence to "truth" (which itself might very well merely be…an idea) is irrelevant as a function of ideas being sacred. There is no such thing as a "worthless idea". Never forget that, and do not waste too much time on arrogant pricks like that. Strive to evolve your ideas through your own physical/empirical (and rational) tests & experiences (both subjective and objective), not through the acceptance of said ideas by others.

Linda H said...

How the 10-dimensions visualization helps me

I have been pondering this, ever since I happened on to tenthdimension website and vlog. I have a slant on it, that may only be of interest to people who also feel somehow calmed by this visualiztion. That in turn may be a subset of people who, like me, are subject to panic attacks.

So, why do I feel helped?

It gives me more ability to hold opposing possibilities in my mind. I have noticed (being a long-time meditator) that I have several streams of thought going on at any given time. Sometimes these streams of thought are mutually exclusive or contradictory. This gives rise to anxiety.

For example, I might have one stream of thought composed of self-criticism, based on the possibility that some action of mine will turn out badly. At the same time, it is likely I will have another stream congratulating myself (or better, feeling gratitude,) about the possibility that the future will turn out well.

If I believe at this moment that one, and only one, of those possibilities can be true, I can get distraught about the negative possibility. If I clearly understand that neither of my imaginings of the future has ANY reality now, I can just let those hypothetical possibilities hang out, and guide me, without effort on my part. The geometry of higher dimensions (as they relate to this dimension,) and quantum theory tell me that. Another way to say it might be that those opposing possibilities exist as a probabilistic quantum wave. I can influence, but not control the future, by responding to the higher-dimensional information my senses can receive, when it is not drowned out by symbolic thoughts.

Also, seeing how I AM, is empowering. By that, I mean my temporary existence as this human time-line, is also permanent, in that time is itself eternity. Not just a disappearing ray, though it is that, too. My life can end at this moment, with no loss to me. And yet, as I continue, I receive gift after gift.

Well, I am about to start talking outside my hat, or may already have. In fact, I don't feel completely confident with my understanding of the 10-dim visualization, or with "what is truth?" in this system. So, I am wondering if what I have said here makes sense to you?

Rob Bryanton said...

Hi Anonymous, thanks for your kind words of support. And to Linda H: absolutely! Those are exactly the kinds of ideas that I feel my project helps to establish in people's minds - a feeling of the interconnectedness that underlies our reality, and how we are part of something much larger than the tiny little "now" of our space-time.

Thanks and fond wishes to both of you!


ewj said...

hi rob you are what you are - keep going. Because, however you are presenting with a loud confident voice ( a good voice however ) you will be endlessly criticised this is the outcome of being a celebrity status which you have created for yourself. Privately, I think you are a bit overcome with the idea of String and multiverse - i don't this this is correct and is a bucket with a serious hole in it. I am influenced by your enthusiasm but i cannot buy this product. Come to that Siskind, Hawking, Kaku tv man, Greene etc. There bark is up the wrong tree. Sring is math spin - because of intense frustration not being able to understand how the universe actually ticks. To see what is growing in the next door neighbours garden you have to climb the wall - other wise just fantasise forever the wonderful flowers and vegetables growing in it. That would be a pity to destroy this fantasy if once climbed the wall only to find a patch with absolutely '0'! Which indeed maybe the outcome. If you remove our easily understood Euclidean 3D what can you imagine then? Nothing or something? In my mind nothing except a space where time is Constant with no value everywhere. Then because or 3D has gone thanks to all matter dissappearing who is around to witness anything?? At that point the universe simply does not exist, although it might do! but who can account for it's picture and structure? If no life can see it how does it exist? Well in my thinking it will but only as a single framework of single dimension - i hate that description. Framework is much better. In this framework there is nothimg except the continuous production of the same thing forever. Then if by some unusual event it slows or increases its production rate to a value of 300,000kms then magic occurs and matter is able to form from the background momentum energy of its production. This is the primary dimension at work. It can simply switch off and switch on matter whenever it chooses and may well be reciprocal. If that is correct where does String theory fit in with this picture? If we don't exist what is the meaning of Anything???

RobotAcid said...

1: Can't find where these comments are or where they're coming from so your defence is completely out of context.

2: The point, line, fold proposition I actually use to convert arrays (a line a values in a computer) into planes, cubes, hypercubes and so on. Here's a post from years ago when I was working out the algorithm to interpret any n-dimensional space of values to a different n-dimensional space of values:

I eventually wrote an all-in solution to convert to any number of dimensions - but these methods are quite common in programming because we programmers like to refer to pixels in an image as a line of pixels (it's faster that way). To convert that line into a plane - we "fold" it using the modulo operator: %

But as I found this pattern continues. To extend that plane into more dimensions you stack and fold.

And to turn a hypercube into a line involves a similar route of stacking and folding and so on.

So the point, line fold theory actually has parallels in useful math. And it's nice to see different ways of imagining how dimensions stack up - because this helps visualise how to put the math together.

As you can see from the date of my forum post I put this algorithm together around the same time as the original Imagining the Tenth Dimension video aired. Not a harmful video or theory for a studying digital artist.

Rob Bryanton said...

Hi RobotAcid, thanks for the great comments! Regarding your first note, I show the minutephysics comment five seconds into the video, but you're right, I forgot that some people wouldn't watch the video. The minutephysics comment that started the firestorm of attacks on my YouTube channel is as follows:
"This video is such rubbish. It's ok up through about 2:00 and thenceforth becomes increasingly misleading, confused and wrong. It's very visually appealing, though, and very good at getting people to think that it's right! DON'T BE MISLED."
He posted another comment soon after saying no scientist would ever support the ideas I advance, I haven't bothered to quote that one anywhere yet.

Tenth Dimension Vlog playlist