Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Science fiction writers, as well as, scientists – cosmologists, astrophysicists, theoretical physicists (e.g., Michio Kaku, Hugh Ross et al) – often discuss dimensions and movements through dimensions and time; such movements provide good entertainment. If one observes such programs, listen to such lectures and/or read some of these author’s books – particularly scientists like Kaku and Ross – one cannot, but wonder what they mean by the term dimension1? The concept of dimension has meaning for humans when expressed as: “an extension in space,” and although “time” – as a fourth dimension – is not an extension in space, it is understandable in terms of movement/change…

1 It is not their claims regarding mathematics which are essentially analytical propositions; it is regarding their assertions regarding the ontological inferences which they draw from the theorem; Kaku argues rather as a syncretic theist, or a materialistic theist, or even as an unconscious Thomist (Kaku’s god-concept – like Einstein’s – is a bit like that of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in that his knowledge of God is restricted, rationally ascetic and a description of what God is not… Kaku, however, seems possessed of giddiness foreign to the very sober Thomas Aquinas); while Ross – too – argues theism, albeit as a Christian theist, but both – regarding as they write about dimensions – do so through equivocal terminology (i.e., their use of term “dimension” is confused i.e., they treat the term as both an extension in space, as they argue the term as definitively not length, width or depth)…

Note that once one has covered the 4 extended dimensions of length, width, depth and time and then moves on to dimension #5, one is actually beyond physics (i.e., by definition one has broached the contours of metaphysics; note also that thus string-theorem – also known as the M theorem – is actually a metaphysical theorem; irrespective of whether posited by physicists or otherwise…) i.e., concerned with that which may not be measured by any instrument – other than the human mind through mathematics – but certainly, at that point, humans come to a limit of understanding.

Trending: The Definitive List of things Democrats have Done to America

The acceptance of string-theorem predominantly (although there are other reasons, for its appeal, as well) rests upon its ability to subsume the 4 equations, which describe the four known physical forces which govern the Universe. That the string-theorem allows such a subsumption (i.e., that the equations which describe the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces may be derived from the string equation…) is exemplary of what the philosopher, the mathematician, and the physicist mean by understanding. For “understanding” for the philosopher, the mathematician and the physicist means: “to embody or include a number of seemingly unrelated ideas, principles or equations within a single idea, principle or equation.” It is this encompassing aspect of string-theorem through which it has gained its appeal (initially posited in the 1970s), but its popularity didn’t grow until and through the 1980s…

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

As Kaku writes about dimensions — seemingly unaware that as he discusses and represents the 5th, 6th, 7th,…, Xth dimensions, that he discusses them as if they are physical dimensions (i.e., extensions in space) — he writes knowingly (dare I say giddily?) of these dimensions as if they are like those we experience… So Kaku makes these dimensions infinitesimally small2, but located somewhere else – somewhere else in space and time (Note that science fiction writers do likewise…? What came first, the scientist or the science-fiction writer?). What we have here is a bit confusing, and is to be expected when the physical scientist argues from a metaphysical theorem. Note that modern science consistently argues about things which are measurable; those things which are measurable are meaningful… Question: what is the instrument by which one measures that which is not physical?

2 He writes that these dimensions have shrunken (Question: If one were to shrink a quality e.g., the color red, is red still red? Answer: Yes! The concept of red does not contain the notion of extension…); thus, logically implying that they formerly were large… Thus, again – by logical implication – indicating that these metaphysical dimensions were formerly somehow extension in space…? But, they cannot be extensions, unless they are length, width, or depth; that would contradict them being meta-dimensions…

Specifically, Kaku writes:

“The superstring theory, therefore, explains the Big Bang as a by-product of a much more violent transition, the cracking of the ten-dimensional into two pieces.”

“You do not have to worry, however, that one as you are walking down the street you will “fall” into another other-dimensional universe as if in a science fiction novel. According to the superstring theory, the other multidimensional universe has shrunk to such an incredibly small size (about 100 billion, billion times smaller than the nucleus of an atom) that it can never be reached by humans.” The quote is from page 12 of Beyond Einstein; by Michio Kaku.

If one reads the second paragraph (immediately above in italics), Kaku writes: “…the other multidimensional universe has shrunk to such an incredibly small size…” The very fact which Kaku speaks to size, he speaks of extension, which is 4-space… And of course Kaku has a Ph.D. in Physics and is a professor of Theoretical Physics, but he “seems” to be confused about what dimensions are, or about what may knowingly be said regarding dimensions beyond 4-space. Is Kaku relying on his reader’s ignorance and thoughtlessness (i.e., is he counting on his readers to nod in agreement, or is Kaku just a dullard who happens to be pretty good at mathematics?), and positing nonsense so as to sell books? Or is Kaku unwittingly demonstrating Einstein’s dictum, viz: “The physical scientist makes a poor philosopher?” A philosopher would want Kaku to clear up this confusion… In that confusion, Kaku has company (e.g. Ross, see below); many physical scientists that antedate Kaku in speaking/writing of meta-dimensions and nearly everyone today – to include many fiction writers – seem to have adopted an understanding like that delineated by Kaku; common today are those that speak and write with a familiarity not possible for creatures whose experiences are bound/limited to 4-space unless they unconsciously hold those meta-dimensions are just like those which they experience…

This, brings us to Dr. Hugh Ross – a Christian astrophysicist attempting to make Christianity plausible through a particular understanding of a metaphysical theory of physics (Note: String theorem is sort of a “theory of everything;” one should additionally note that there are inherent problems with theories of everything, even apart from Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem…)… The expansion of the universe, following a disequilibrium occurring in “that which was before,” is not a creatio ex nihilo (i.e., a creation out of nothing), thus Ross’s attempt to use such a theorem – even though a metaphysical theorem – cannot bridge the gap between being (existence) and non-being (non-existence); science – specifically physics/cosmology – cannot address scientifically that which cannot be measured.

While Ross writes:

“At the very heart of string theory is the proposal that the cosmos experienced a dimensional “split” at 10-43 seconds (a ten millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second) after the creation event began. At that instant, the ten-dimensional expanding universe split in two: a six-dimensional piece that permanently ceased expanding and never produced matter, and a four-dimensional piece that became our dimensions of length, width, height and time…” The quote is from page 39 of Beyond the Cosmos; by Hugh Ross

When Ross writes: “a six-dimensional piece that permanently ceased expanding and never produced matter…” we note that if it “ceased expanding” this – by logical implication – indicates it was expanding? So Ross too is conflating the understanding of dimensions as an extension, with dimensions which cannot be extended in space. What does/can it mean for that which is not extended in space to expand? What “matter” (that which occupies 4-space and is subject to change i.e., subject to laws-of-physics) could the meta-dimension (other 6-dimensional) expansion possibly produce if that expansion had continued? Note that Ross conflates/confuses mathematics with physical properties; reification (i.e., the act of treating a concept as physical reality) is something the physical scientist seems prone to do (Again, making Einstein’s point regarding what type of philosopher the physical scientist makes).The question regarding “matter” vis-à-vis dimensions (5D – 10D) only has meaning if you hold those 6 dimensions to be like the 4 dimensions of our physical universe. The question is interesting, but is also mindful of the point Chesterton – in an essay: Mr. H. G. Wells And The Giants, Chapter 5 in Heretics – posed to show the absurdity of confusing ideas in relations, which may not relate, and may in no way be made to relate…Chesterton writes:

“…Mr. Wells must surely realize the first and simplest of the paradoxes that sit by the spring of truth. He must surely see that the fact of two things being different implies that they are similar. The hare and the tortoise may differ in the quality of swiftness, but they must agree in the quality of motion. The swiftest hare cannot be swifter than an isosceles triangle or the idea of pinkness…”

Returning to Ross: Note that “space” – in a sense – was being “created” through the very expansion which was manifest from the Big-Bang, and the Bang followed an event which caused disequilibrium… One may find pondering what caused this disequilibrium in that which was before there was any physical reality to be beyond pondering; it certainly is beyond measure and is not the province of science… And what it was that became unstable? Note also that the disequilibrium which took place before there was time, for the equilibrium – by definition cannot change without becoming disequilibrium, and “time” is awareness of change/motion. So the equilibrium – which was before, or proceeding, the disequilibrium – was equilibrium before there were space and time…

These “thinkers” seem to validate Aristotle’s claim regarding all knowledge is sense dependant (“Nothing in the mind that was not previously in the senses” Aristotle), and they validate that claim by their seeming obliviousness regarding their speech, and writing regarding dimensions beyond 4…

We do not posit an explanation to account for the meta-dimensions which string-theorem posits, but we do note that explanations regarding the known forces governing 4-space are understood as fields (energy fields which emanate from and bind the interaction of objects in space); these fields circumscribe the dimensional existence we experience. We also note that physics generally gives a quantified accounting of that which is and note that qualities (e.g., final-causality i.e., intention/purpose; also essence this would be formal-causality i.e., what a thing is in potency, which points towards its completion i.e., its final-cause) are held as subjective, because they are not quantifiable, and cannot be physically measured. May it be that – we do not argue such, we merely suggest – that in addition to electromagnetic, gravitational, strong & weak nuclear fields that that which is (i.e., existence), may be circumscribed and permeated with fields which account for these qualities, and that amongst such qualities are moral fields and spiritual fields, and if such is the case then it would seem to follow that human conduct affects reality for good3 – note the healing power of prayer and miraculous healings – and for ill4. We go no further than this suggestion…

3 It seems the more people involved and the greater intensity, and unity of their prayer, may produce greater results; may such be experimentally measured or are such things measurable? Also note that such events/occurrences get little notice – because they do not lend themselves to scientific i.e., measurable, investigation and the desired repeatability…

4 Also, note when humans adopt wide-spread hedonisms – as our presently has – civilizations generally fall-to-pieces…

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and are not not necessarily either shared or endorsed by



Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?

Send this to a friend