Possible Worlds: The Fifth Dimension

One of the great logical discoveries of the last 30 years is that of the 5th Dimension. This is still very little known outside logical/philosophical circles, though it is starting to have an influence on physical interpretations of quantum mechanics, the arts and history, and soon the internet.

Einstein made us all aware of the 4 dimensions of space time (3 dimensions for space and 1 for time). This lead to the further discoveries of quantum mechanics and its discovery of quantum indeterminacy, whereby it is impossible to know both the position and the speed of a quantum particle. This found its realisation in the creation of the Atomic bomb, with which we have all been living for the past 60 years, and which changed the political landscape for ever.

Einstein is well known to have said that "God does not play dice", a statement that is fundamentally opposed to the discoveries of quantum physics. And yet it seems both the theory of relativity and quantum physics are both needed today to describe the world. Neither quantum physics nor relativity give us a complete description of the world.

The 5th, and higher, dimensions, though they did not find their origins in an attempt to reconcile these two views, but from an analysis of language and of logic, do as I understand it, resolve this dilemma. (note: Before continuing to read what I have to say here, it would certainly be best to view the tenth dimension video which will make what I am saying here a lot easier to understand. I only discovered this video after posting this, but it completely confirms the points made here.)

So let us trace back quickly the evolution of this idea. At the end of the 19th century Frege, a German logician, set the foundations for mathematical logic. This logic comes in three parts:

• a syntax: how signs can be combined to form sentences. Starting from signs such as "Henry" "is in" and "Berlin" we can create sentences such as "Henry is in Berlin".
• a semantics: how these signs related to the world. "Henry" refers to me. "is in" is a relation that relates individual objects to spacial regions. "Berlin" is a specific spacial region. The sentence together refers, according to Frege to the True, ie it is true that "Henry is in Berlin" since the objects refered to by the elements in the sentence do in fact stand in the relation stated above. Ie: I am in Berlin (no quotes).
• The above led to the formal discovery of meaning, as something more than the relation between a word and its referent. This is demonstrated by a the following simple thought process. If the word's meaning were wholy contained in its referent, the thinking goes, then the sentence "Berlin is the capital of Germany" would have the same meaning as "Berlin is Berlin" since "Berlin" refers to a thing that is the same thing as "the capital of Germany". Yet it is clear that the information content of the first sentence is not the same as that of the second sentence. Frege deduced therefore that not only did words possess a referent, they also possessed a "sense".

I will skip quickly over 70 years of philosophical/logical thinking and jump straight to David Lewis, who in is book "Counterfactuals", set out and succeeded in giving a logical analysis of sentences such as "If kangaroos had no tails they would topple over". This type of sentence constitutes a very big problem for the simple Fregean logic, since the antecedent of the condition "Kangaroos have no tails" is false. In Fregean mathematical logic this leads inevitably to the conditional being evaluated to be true, an initially somewhat counterintuitive analysis of an "if ... then ..." conditional, but one that works in fact very well for mathematical statements and many others. Material conditionals as the Fregean conditionals are called are designed to transfer truth. We have the same in programming when we write `if (2==1) then System.out.println("ouch")`. Since the antecedent is false (two is never 1) the "ouch" is never printed out. No pain.

Ok so back to our kangaroos. Since kangaroos do in fact have tails, the sentence "If it were the case that kangaroos have no tails then it would be the case that kangaroos topple over" would be immediately true, were we to interpret the logical connective "If it were the case that ... then it would be the case that ..." as a material conditional. And yet I have had some very fun and instructive debates about what would or would not happen if kangaroos had no tails, the question not being settled in any way by recourse to any notion of material conditionals.

Having introduced this problem David Lewis then goes on to give an brilliant analysis of such sentences. To do this he introduces the notion of a possible world.
A possible world he says, is a world just like this actual one, the one I am writing this in and the one you are reading this in. Except that it is different in some factual aspect. So there is a possible world where I am writing this from another café in Berlin. Of course you're not going to have two worlds that differ from another world by just one fact. Usually there is a difference in the past events that led up to this. So in the world where I am writing this from a another café, is a world where I walked some different path, asked a different bar maid for a beer, am sitting at a different table, and perhaps would have, as a result written this text somewhat differently, and perhaps my future will be very different too in this other world as a result of making a fateful encounter in that café that I don't make in this one. Anyway, these worlds are like this one in that if we go with Einsteinian physics and accept that this world is 4 dimensional space-time continuum, then the other world too can be a 4 dimensional space time continuum. Yet these two worlds are at no physical distance from each other. You can't travel from one to the other. Light does not travel between the two. Each world is a factually complete 4 dimensional world (there could be worlds with more dimensions, but let us leave this for now).
Now it had already been shown by another very famous logician Kripke, that the notion of possible worlds was enough to explain the concepts of metaphysical necessity and possibility - two notions that had seriously gotten into disrepute in the early 20th century - and not only that, he showed that these metaphysical notions were very useful in solving some difficult philosophical problems. A sentence he argued is necessarily true, if it is true in all possible worlds. So for example mathematical truths are necessarily true, since they are true in all possible worlds. A sentence in possibly true, if there is at least one possible world in which it is true. For example it is possible that you win the lottery is to say that there is a possible world in which you do. Depending on how you define the identity of a person across possible worlds, you will then come to different conclusions as to whether it is possible that you have a different mother and father. Kripke took personal identity to be given by the union of a particular sperm and egg. As such it follows that that it was impossible that you have different parents.
David Lewis though adds something very important to Kripke's notion of possible worlds. He gives them an ordering of similarity. Some worlds are more similar to ours than others. This is not a linear ordering, meaning that two worlds could be equally similar to ours. The world where you did not read this article is a lot more similar to this one that the world in which pigs fly (through their own volition of course). With this ordering David Lewis is then able to analyse our sentence about kangaroos as: In the closest possible worlds in which kangaroos have no tails they topple over. He then analyses sentence such as "If Kangaroos have no tails they could topple over" as having the weaker meaning of: in the closest possible worlds in which kangaroos have no tails, there is one of them at least in which kangaroos do in fact topple over. All of this is given formal mathematical backing, and is very much worth reading.
This analysis of counterfacuals proved to be immensely helpful in further helping us analyse causality, knowledge, meaning, necessity, actuality, probability, time, mind and many other notions that had previously eluded philosophers. I will come back to these other notions in future posts. The point being that if a theory is to be judged by the quality of the explanations it leads to, David Lewis' philosophy has been extremely successful.

For a technically minded person though, resolving philosophical puzzles may not seem to be concrete enough, which is why I mention a little longer the relation to quantum physics. In one of his papers David Lewis also gives an analysis of quantum indeterminacy by allowing the actual world to be not just one world but a set of indeterminately similar worlds. I can't remember the precise details off hand, and my books are in some box some where in France, but this is probably equivalent though viewed from the outside, to possible worlds interpretations of quantum physics. I say it is viewed from the outside, because as I understand, possible worlds interpretation of quantum physics imagine that new possible worlds are created each time a quantum choice is made, whereas David Lewis would say they all exist, it is just that the choice that is made forces a particular set of worlds to be the actual ones. In a way, quantum indeterminacy is what we would call choosing which world we live in. If we follow Roger Penrose's thinking in The emperor's new mind, that the brain is using quantum effects, then we could see more precicely how, when we decide to do one thing or another, we are choosing which possible world we are going to live in. We are in a sense travelling through possible worlds by the choices we make.

To summarize, the 5th dimension springs out of an analysis of language, the key topic of the 20th century research. Every great discovery has its physical realisation, to follow the thinking Jean Gebser. If the discovery of space and our situation in space led to the discovery of the Americas, if relativity theory and quantum theory led to the atomic bomb, so logic led to computing, and the theory of language is being instantiated by the internet, the web, and the just enfolding Semantic Web. Possible worlds theory is being concretized in games, which allow a player to save a game, try different possibilities, come back to a past state and try again. Even films have started illustrating this topic. Run Laura, Run a German film that came out five years ago, goes through the same story of an attempted bank robbery by showing how small changes in someone's decision can make huge changes to the ending of the film. Recently the French comedy Jean Philippe which imagines a fan of the famous French singer Johnny Hallyday waking up after an accident in a slightly altered parallel world where his star never quite made it, and puts all his energy into convincing him to try again.

To the seven classical arts

• Music
• Dancing
• Poetry
• Painting
• Sculpture
• Architecture
• Theater
The twentieth century clearly added the following
• Film/comic strips
• Computer Games
where film makes the space time dimension of things clear, since it is a sequence of rapidly sequential images. At the same time, until recently the inevitable endings of film reinforced a deterministic thinking. Computer games open up the fifth dimension with the option of playing out different scenarios, and involving the spectator in the game. Virtual worlds and computer games make the feelings one has of possible worlds much more realistic.

David Lewis also considers, and endorses making the similarity relation between possible worlds continuous, so that between any two possible worlds there is always a third possible world that is more similar to the first than the second. This is in part what the indeterminacy of the actual world is about, since as in mathematics any number n + delta d (an infintely small numer) is indistinguisheable from n. What we have then is a space-time-possibilia continuum.

Ok so having said this, and having started my explanation by pointing out to Frege's discovery of sense, I'll fill in a sketch of David Lewis's theory of language. For David Lewis the meaning of a sentence is the set of possible worlds in which it is true. So the reason "Berlin is the capital of Germany" is different in meaning from "Berlin is Berlin", is that we can very well imagine a possible world in which the capital of Germany is not Berlin (in fact it only recently became Berlin again). Meaning is thus given a extensional semantics, which has an intentional feel (since we can only imagine these possiblia).

Notes

Yesterday, Sunday 3rd September 2006, must have been dimension day. Because at the same time I wrote this Nova Spivack wrote about I'm Addicted to StumbleUpon where he points to the amazing Guided visualisation of 10 dimensional space which makes exactly the point I describe here, namely that the 5th dimension is that of possible worlds. I highly recommend watching that video.

In fact looking at the video above, it is clear that possible worlds in David Lewis's sense englobe the 5th to the 10th dimension. As I understand now, thinking of the 5th dimension only give you a subset of all possible worlds. You need higher dimensions to get the possible worlds that have different starting points from our own (and so presumably different laws of physics, etc). From that video it is now clear, that the possible worlds interpretation of quantum physics is a lot more serious than I had hitherto conceived. It is the core of it (as far as string theory is concerned, if the video is a good introduction to it).

What a beautifully clear summary of logic and meaning!

If you haven't already read them, you might be interested in the following two books:

"The Varieties of Reference" (Gareth Evans),

"Knowledge and its Limits" (Timothy Williamson).

Both are groundbreaking and well-written. Evans' book, from the early 80s, deals with some of the puzzles around meaning and reference (for instance, how can one assign meaning to propositions about fictional entities). Williamson's book is much more recent, and is an attempt to move beyond the now rather stale "knowledge = justified true belief plus x" project...

Posted by Robin Wilton on September 04, 2006 at 05:45 AM CEST #

Yes. I did in fact read "The Varieties of Reference", ten years ago, as well as Gareth Evans' explanations of fiction in his collected essays. Those are indeed very good books. I need to read "The Varieties of Reference" again, as reference is the core of the Semantic Web.

Thanks for pointing out "Knowledge and it's Limits". I'll add that to my reading list. My last reading on knowledge (which is probably a little old) was Robert Nozick's definition:
Subject S knows the proposition p iff

• p ("p" is true)
• S believes that p
• if p were not the case then S would not believe that p
• if p were the case then S would believe that p
ie to know something is to track the truth of it counterfactually. (I can't precisely remember the reasoning behind existence the fourth clause up there, but I think it is meant to deal with chance knowledge).

So to give an example, take any claim to knowledge. Say I claim that I know that my code fulfills the requirements.
Clearly if someone can show me that it does not, then my claim to knowledge has to be retracted.
Secondly if someone believes that I am joking or being ironic, then they would not put an further value on my statement - they would not act on it (say by deploying it).
Thirdly depending on the use that is going to be made of this code, someone may be interested in the depth of my knowledge. And the question there would be to consider if he thought that if my code did not work, I would still believe that it did. Well that's where unit tests come it, and the assiduity with which I write them and maintain them. So if I am a very assiduous unit tester, then the closest possible worlds in which the code did not fulfill the requirements, would be one where I would never claim that it did fulfill them. Whereas if I were a cowboy programmer, the closest possible world in which the code did not fulfill the specs, would be any number of possible worlds which could have happened, where for example some third party unbeknownst to me, did not fix bugs while I was asleep.

Since we cannot always judge if p is true, we look at character assessments of people and their experience, to judge whether the third or fourth clauses are correct.

As I remember Nozick then continued his paper going into more details on methods to track the truth (e.g.. unit testing), and Christopher Peacock wrote a paper that dismantled that part of Nozick's theory.

btw. I have just added a link to a video that explains amazingly clearly the 5th to the 10th dimension, and how they relate to possible worlds.

Posted by Henry Story on September 04, 2006 at 06:55 AM CEST #

My Theory: Light does not travel between two worlds but the darkened abyss does. Then, when the path is cleared, li8ght might b3e visible again. Be three, three be, Eight Light, Light Eight. Path cleared = interchangeable energy. A funneling and traveling through a worm hole to get to an already existing energy force, therapy manipulating time and energy and vibration. Energy = Light, Light = Energy but Energy is also the existing Energy without light. Abyss and nonlight, nonlinear also equals energy. Linear is lying in the same, straight line. And, since nonlinear is not, then through nonlinear energy (which could mean that worm holes do exist to transfer such energy) that time traveling from one reality world to another is relatively possible. But, since choices make our reality and there are an infinite number of possibilities and choices, then an unlimited number of realities are existing simultaneously. Some are similar, others are very different. Just look at the diagram you depicted above. The man is a doctor, construction worker, chef, wheelchair bound, a politician and possibly an infinite number of other careers. However, the only similarity is that this man is still himself. This came into affect during the conception, creation and division of such cells leading to an activation of momentary energy existing in momentary vibration of such energy. However, a world where this man doesn’t exist is a world where someone else still does. Perhaps, it is then reasonably to suggest that other worlds are existing that are very much different to this one because there are worlds in which we as the individual does not.

Posted by tabogieight@hotmail.com on October 13, 2006 at 11:39 AM CEST #

Hello Im liam i am so interested in this topic! doin a speech at skewl and i chose about dimensions and all that. iand i wud like to more thankz

Posted by Liam on June 18, 2007 at 12:48 AM CEST #

If the amount of 5th dimension possibilities is infinite, then in theory, it is possible to have the same exact universe yet one atom off in a parallel universe...yet in the 6th, it is possible to have an infinite amount of 5th dimensions within it, is it not?, Is this the case or does the rule only apply to the 10th dimension when finding out that the 7th dimension is a point with infinite possibilities due to dimensions 4-6 allowing chance, and decisions made by humans in parallel universes to effect one another? Or am i just completely wrong?

Posted by John Tucker on November 22, 2007 at 11:07 PM CET #

> If the amount of 5th dimension possibilities is infinite, then in theory, it is possible to have the same exact universe yet one atom off in a parallel universe..

I suppose for the details on that one would have to look at string theory.

David Lewis points out that it may be a lot more difficult to think of possible worlds (coherent 4 dimensional entitites) where the only difference between them is the position of just one atom than to say so. This is because the change in position of just one atom will bring about a chain of consequences that will itself have a number of consequences. Also one has to explain how that atom came to be in that different position. So there should also be some story about the past. If one accepts random changes then one will not have to go back so far. It is not logically impossible to get universes with such small changes, most obviously of course would be a universe with 1 atom and one with none, if it makes sense at all to speak of a universe with 1 atom (it may seem so only because we don't have a good grasp of what a universe is, or an atom, and because we are relying on some intuition about our common sense world such as a glass containing and not containing water).

The notion of 5th to 10 dimension is a way for string theory to try to give a physical meaning to the closeness relation between worlds, it seems.

Posted by Henry Story on November 23, 2007 at 04:45 AM CET #

Henry, I am blown away by your blog, can't believe I haven't stumbled across this post before now. I have just posted an entry at the tenth dimension forum singing your praises. I have also posted your blog in the Interesting Links section of my Imagining the Tenth Dimension blog.

Your work ties so very nicely into the ideas I have explored with this project - genes, memes, and spimes as patterns of information, groundbreaking projects like the Semantic Web... if you type the words "information equals reality" into google you will find some of my discussions about these ideas.
"Hypercubes and Plato's Cave" or "E8 and the Semantic Web" (this last one needs the quotes for it to come out near the top of your search results) are also entries that play with ideas very related to what I'm seeing as I page through your excellent blog.

Bravo, Henry!

Rob Bryanton

Posted by Rob Bryanton on May 01, 2008 at 05:29 AM CEST #

I believe that Roger Penrose has a theory that states that our 'minds' are separate to the electrical activity in our physical brains, and upon death we are somehow downloaded into an area of tubules which somehow store in quantum format our 'soul' or 'mind'. This enables us to for example float around ourselves when we are unconcious or effectively 'dead' during brain operations, and describe things that we could not possibly know. However, I am unconvinced by his analysis. I believe that the human mind, all minds of certain abilities - that have emotion and intelligence - perceive their world through the fifth dimension. It seems that electromagnetism has some very odd behaviour (energy travels around wires, there are particles that tunnel etc all pointing to a 5th unseen dimension.) We are entirely made of electromagnetism and our brains are the ultimate expression of it being wet electricity. We survive death in this way, and go on to escape our universe transporting ourselves to a higher reality, away from this veil of tears to universe where we join as One, a being we call God perhaps, a God created from the existence of our own universe, and a God that needs those who have great intelligence to solve the riddle of the universe, so we can all live forever. This is the only self-consistent theory of why God is interested in us, and why he rarely interferes with our existence(s). I do not claim this as a scientific theory, but rather a feeling about our existence, and our 5th dimensional qualities.

Posted by J Clarkson on April 24, 2009 at 06:22 PM CEST #

Comments are closed for this entry.

bblfish

Archives
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun « October 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Today