Aleksandr Maltsev
Dear Purple Yak,
thanks for responding!!
Concerning the n-dimensionality of the world, I have often seen many similar arguments like yours based on symmetry principles from some higher-dimensional groups that split into smaller-dimensional subgroups. While I can understand that from the mathematical point of view, I have yet to understand the physical reasons why this should be the case. What is the observational evidence in favour of more dimensions and, from the theoretical point, what is the fundamental necessity to extend our descriptions of the world into more dimensions? In my essay, I tried to briefly address this point in our model building. Occam's razor is purely based on representational simplicity and any other criterion for model ranking as e.g. imposed in Bayesian data evaluations is also restricted to the realm of mathematics. Hence, in my eyes, physical plausibility is missing in all of these evaluations and introducing such concepts to improve our model ranking, I wonder, how would n-dimensional descriptions be ranked compared to 4d ones? How to we treat the fact that there are no stable Kepler orbits for our planets in higher dimensions but we see at least good approximations to stable orbits in our solar system?
Concerning the duality, yes, I fully agree, if the cosmos is a zero-sum-game, we still observe a lot of dynamics and structure going on! 🙂
...and isn't this concept of a resting space, called a fundamental observer, actually the root of many problems in modern cosmology?! Take, for instance, our current cosmological concordance model and all the tensions that arise and may hint at a more complex model than just a homogeneous and isotropic background cosmology.
Concerning the causal relationship, I agree that there is more than just bottom-up creation, but top-down causation also plays a significant role. Yet, my impression is that the latter is only "unconsciously" and "implicitly" incorporated in our theories and models and we should make it much more explicit to gain deeper understanding.
Horror in physics? I am a bit scared that we are much more inclined to look at very "crazy" almost mysterious ideas in order to explain our observations, dark matter and dark energy being some of them. This approach has led us to great knowledge gain and shows our highly imaginative mind (exceeding AI by large amounts, in my eyes and making our way of abductive reasoning unique). However, we should not forget about the more "boring" and down-to-earth explanations that can also be found and seem to be equally viable as explanations than the seemingly more attractive mysterious ones. In that sense, we may put an end to frightening dark stuff and forces by demystifying them, e.g. as boundary conditions or effective field theories. But, as in every good horror movie, I think most of us enjoy the thrill of goosebumps running down their backs much more than losing that magic by understanding the trick... 😉
Bests,
Beige Bandicoot.