Re: Relational "Space"

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John
> Kineman
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:06 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Relational "Space"
>
>
> Tim,
> I think you are misunderstanding Judith's comment. It is standard practise
> in science to do what she is describing. Its inference from observations,
> reasoning from the specific to the general. The general need not be
> directly observable. You know there are tons of examples. Forces, 27
> dimensions, animal motivations, mathematics itself as an explanation for
> anything. Observation is a very impoverished reality.
>

JohnK,

If there were some phenomena for which an equation involving 27 dimensions
of space worked very well (i.e., it predicted the behavior correctly unlike
any equation limited to 3 dimensions of space), I would consider that as
suggestive of there possibly being 27 "actual" dimensions of space. But I
would not call it proof. I would go so far as to calling it a "working
hypothesis", but "proof" to me sets a higher standard of confirmation than
such indirect inference. (Actually, it is the imputation of that indirect
inference *back* to the material world that I feel must be tentative.)

Regards,
Tim