Excerpt of a Scientific Philosophical Discussion at 2 AM

Hey, why not. A friend (whose name has been altered) and I had recently learned through wikipedia that some scientific theories proposed that there were 10 or 11 dimensions, which got us a-thinking about misc. physics and math philosophy questions. It was kind of fun and enlightening, and here's an excerpt for your reading pleasure/brain food.

-------

[2:00:18 AM] Rose: but doesn't it freak you out that in the end all math is just a bunch of symbols we've agreed are real?
[2:01:07 AM] Banov: but math totally is real! right?
[2:01:21 AM] Rose: i mean to humans
[2:01:41 AM] Rose: but maybe it's only true in our minds? whatever that means.
[2:02:22 AM] Banov: I want to say that math
[2:02:30 AM] Banov: can't be just in our heads
[2:02:42 AM] Banov: rather it's our way of defining what we observe
[2:03:07 AM] Banov: like if I have a bottle of orange cream soda on my desk and put a second one there, I have 2
[2:03:12 AM] Banov: 1 + 1 = 2
[2:04:00 AM] Rose: yes but once you get into higher mathematics... and even zero!
[2:04:20 AM] Rose: like what's a cream soda divided by no cream sodas? No one knows
[2:04:27 AM] Banov: well
[2:04:43 AM] Banov: it approaches infinity on a graph…
[2:05:23 AM] Banov: it basically is infinity. but there's nothing to actually divide by so really the entire problem, and its solution, can't exist
[2:05:33 AM] Banov: (…is basically how I explain it to myself)
[2:06:02 AM] Rose: my point is even our own math proves that everything's relative
[2:06:15 AM] Rose: and these are only the phenomena we can personally experience
[2:06:40 AM] Rose: like there are dimensions we can't experience...
[2:07:19 AM] Rose: how can math that was created for four dimensions work for more than that without becoming horribly inaccurate or strained?
[2:08:24 AM] Banov: ah, you're totally right
[2:08:51 AM] Banov: well I think there are 2 ways of looking at it
[2:09:18 AM] Banov: I mean the theories and equations that we've come to accept DO accurately define and predict the things we can observe
[2:09:27 AM] Banov: and that's what they were made for
[2:09:59 AM | Edited 2:12:51 AM] Banov: so in the eyes of a dude who just wants a simple definition to explain the relationship of x and y, it's all true and acceptable
[2:10:25 AM | Edited 2:13:06 AM] Banov: but what you and i are talking about is what happens when we look at other dimensions beyond what we can observe
[2:11:01 AM] Banov: x and y might be influenced by an infinite number of other indefinable unobservable factors and only APPEAR to be related 3-dimensionally to us
[2:11:52 AM] Banov: so the theories we've made to define them, while accurate, might not be "absolutely" true as they don't account for every possible factor
[2:12:30 AM] Banov: and they probably never will. so when hawking says we'll never reach an absolute understanding of everything, he's probably right : d
[2:12:35 AM] Banov: probably.
[2:13:35 AM] Rose: yes. I guess it comes down to like if truth isn't finite or absolute, how can it be true?
[2:13:44 AM] Rose: and nothing is absolute, so nothing is true
[2:13:55 AM] Rose: and therefore nothing's wrong
[2:14:06 AM] Rose: it's a weird mental asymptote
[2:15:34 AM] Banov: I have gained an all new understanding of this jar of salsa