Models: M-theory as indicative of meta-modelling potential?

Weather Metaphors as Whether Metaphors (Part #10)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

11 to 26 dimensions? This argument can be understood as about models and how reality is modelled -- especially the strategic reality of climate change at this time. The obvious difficulty arises from the multiplicity of systemically unrelated models, the elusive significance of any potential meta-model, and the challenging complexity of the models deemed to be the most adequate for purposes of explanation.

Beyond the complexity of the many models now elaborated -- including the TRAK approach to meta-modlelling (cited above) -- there is the ultimate meta-model of physics known as M-theory notably elaborated from 1995 by Edward Witten. This followed a period in which physicists looked to eleven-dimensional supergravity in the hope that it might provide an elusive superunified theory superceding the focus on supergravity. M-theory notably describes supermembranes and superfivebranes, subsuming string theories, with 11-dimensional supergravity as a lower limit (M. J. Duff (Ed.), The World in Eleven Dimensions: supergravity, supermembranes and M-theory, 1999). It claims to unify all consistent versions ofsuperstring theory.

String theory is of course beyond the comprehension of most, although all are encouraged to believe in its meaningfulness as an explanation regarding the reality in which they live. The various superstring theories take that explanation to a new level -- beyond which lies M-theory. Although a complete formulation of M-theory is not known, the theory should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes. It is purportedly approximated by 11-dimensional supergravity at lowenergies. M-theory is not complete, but the underlying structure of the mathematics has been established and is in agreement with all the string theories. Furthermore, it has passed many tests of internal mathematical consistency.

As described by Wikipedia, in everyday life, there are three familiar dimensions of space: height, width and depth. Einstein's general theory of relativity treats time as a dimension on par with the three spatial dimensions; in general relativity, space and time are not modeled as separate entities but are instead unified to a four-dimensionalspacetime. In spite of the fact that the universe is well described by four-dimensional spacetime, there are several reasons why physicists consider theories in more dimensions. In some cases, by modeling spacetime in a different number of dimensions, a theory becomes more mathematically tractable, and calculations can be performed by which general insights can be more readily gained. In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional, while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional. Bosonic string theory envisages 26 dimensions. There is consderable international investment in experimental reactors, as at CERN, in order to explore such understanding -- and therefore meriting speculative exploration in its own right (Dynamic Interrelationship of Symbols of Coherent Experiential Representation of Nonduality (DISCERN), 2008).

Requisite "dimensions" for global governance? If such are the advantages of M-theory -- with its requisite complexity -- it has to be asked what equivalent meta-models are explored with respect to global governance. Are equivalents to CERN, held to be engaging seriously with such complexity, to be recognized in large-scale simulations like the Living Earth Simulator Project (FuturICT)? How are their efforts to reconcile the multiplicity of theories of relevance to governance to be compared with the degree of reconciliation sought via M-theory? Especially intriguing are the insights expected from Watson -- the IBM artificial intelligence facility currently marketed? Its relevance with respect to issues of global governance and interfaith discourse, as may be speculatively explored (Superquestions for Supercomputers: avoiding terra flops from misguided dependence on teraflops? 2010).

A more vitally fundamental consideration is the issue of the comprehensibility of any such reframing, especially for those required to mandate global governance or to believe in the articulations of authority in managing their own survival in any increasingly challenging environment. If 11 or 26 dimensions are required for an adequate explanation of physical reality, what should any individual or group expect of an analogue of comparable adequacy? Why is it so readily assumed that physical reality is more complex than psychosocial reality?

How should "dimensions" then be understood in the reality of daily life -- about which physics claims such authoritative understanding in terms of 11-plus dimensions? There is of course the further factor that physics is far from having exhibited remarkable capacity to reconcile differences between the perspectives of its various competing schools of thought in practice. This might otherwise have been a valuable indication to those obliged to live in a world tragically marked by conflicting perspectives.

Elaborations of the set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (or the 15 Millennium Development Goals which preceded them), suggest a degree of credibility in an 11-plus dimensional reality -- but with little effort to articulate or comprehend their co-ordination.

Should any analogue to "M-theory" for governance be understood in terms of "millennium", "metaphor", "meta", or in more formal terms? (Sustaining Higher Orders of Policy Consensus through Metaphor: towards a new language of governance, 1992; Higher Orders of Inter-sectoral "Consensus": clarification of formal possibilities, 1991; Requisite Meta-reflection on Engagement in Systemic Change? Fiat, fatwa and world-making in a period of existential radicalisation, 2015).

Exposure to dimensional complexity requiring belief by the incompetent? If those esteemed by society to exhibit intellectual competence of the highest order choose to articulate models based on 4-plus dimensions, how are those lacking that competence to frame their engagement with higher orders of the reality within which they are assumed to move and have their being? (Engaging with Questions of Higher Order: cognitive vigilance required for higher degrees of twistedness, 2004).

Given the relatively limited numbers collectively acknowledged to have such competence, there is a remarkable tendency to dissension between those who do ( (Sean Carroll, The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics, 17 January 2013). At what stage is it appropriate for those of lesser competence to elaborate their own models -- in forms which enable comprehension which they find meaningful, however deprecated by their betters? The fundamental issue is then the credibility of those models to those who believe in them -- whatever the degree to which they may be deprecated as inappropriate, misguided or ill-informed, as notably charged by Alan Sokal (Fashionable Nonsense: postmodern intellectuals' abuse of science, 1999).

The argument can be taken further by associating it with the case for freedom of opinion, as articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How is an opinion to be distinguished from a model -- by those for whom it frames reality, possibly unquestionably? Of related relevance is the role of time, considered so fundamental by physics. The half-life of facts and models is relatively limited (Samuel Arbesman, The Half-life of Facts: why everything we know has an expiration date, 2012), Why then should the modelling role of opinions be deprecated for their sustainability over time, or the manner in which they may be challenged from other perspectives? Physics is remarkable for giving credibility to the existence of entities of unimaginably short duration.

Collective dependence on belief: The issue of required belief goes beyond that made by science, and is traditionally exemplified by religion. The conflicts between religions, and those within them, call into question the authority they variously claim, and their deprecation and condemnation of those who do not subscribe to any particular set. As with the failure of interdisciplinary discourse, that of interfaith discourse offers an indication of the reality within which many are called to survive meaningfully in a time of crisis and catastrophe.

This pattern of authoritarian mindsets is of course echoed in political discourse with respect to global governance, as is notably evident in the case of issues which cannot be effectively discussed or "put on the table" without risk to careers and credibility (Global Strategic Implications of the "Unsaid", 2003). In the case of climate change, this is most evident with respect to overpopulation, as discussed separately (United Nations Overpopulation Denial Conference: exploring the underside of climate change, 2009; Lipoproblems: Developing a Strategy Omitting a Key Problem the systemic challenge of climate change and resource issues, 2009)

Curiously the integrative insight of M-theory is framed as the epitome of a science which is totally unable to accept that others may have analogous modes of appreciation -- as with respect to homeopathy, astrology, or radical Islam (or radical Christianity). For science these are held to be "not even wrong". Typically that view would be reciprocated from alternative viewpoints.

Is the very existence of M-theory, and the significance accorded to it, indicative of the subtle nature of any meta-model with which people may well engage on their own terms -- whether consciously or unconsciously?

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Visuals] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]