I can understand what M could mean.If you imagine the universe as an algorithm, you also will notice that factors could be divided (for example the factor "love" could be split into love for a person or love for things, and the factor "probability" is determined by all factors playing a direct and indirect role in it*).As mathematics you all know what logical thinking and factor interaction is, I guess.What if, in place of dividing the factors into millions of sub-factors (what we are doing) we go up and search for the basic factors, such as for physics are matter, space, time, energy (which are later split up into magnetism, movement, ... .... ....)

Perharps M is one of those basic factors?

And why does the creator not want to tell what M is?Is it because the knowledge is too dangerous if it falls in the wrong hands?

*I have a theory on probability and the word "random", if you are interested I can explain it.

]]>I think that logic must become a science such as physics or chemistry, one that stands under direct "command" of math.

What are the counter-arguments against the superstring theory?And how did they come up to it?Or is it just a theory (if it is, I could state mine, it isn't much worse but me being a high school student wouldn't be taken too seriously)

Once they were three, space and time.......

]]>I think this is why people fall in love with mathematics ... it is not limited to "normal" reality, and so can discover new realities.

That is personally why I like discussions about the meaning of infinity, zero, real, etc.

BTW, I think the current "Superstring Theory" in Physics, (which attempts to explain gravity, electomagnetism and nuclear forces in one theory) needs spacetime to have 10 or 11 dimensions!

]]>A sheet of some kind of matter that is two-dimensional but has 2 sides separated from each other. Then imagine an entire galaxy of two-dimensional worlds with two-dimensional beings dwelling on it.Imagine the two-dimensional beings have reached civilisation, explored the "universe" around them, and are now thinking about the possibility of another dimension, or other dimensions in the same format (other dimensions could be the 3rd, 4th, 5th but other dimensions in the same format are still two-dimensional worlds but on another "plane" of existence.read on)

The conservative, empirical beings will claim it is not possible, proving their point with geometry.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the sheet, a similar plane of two-dimensional beings exist.They are putting on their theories, using "their" math to describe that no dimensions are existant except the known two.Both exist in the same dimension format, yet counter-proving each others existence with geometrical formulae.

This altogether means that the maths existant for given plane (this two-dimensional, our three-dimensional etc etc etc) could only determine what's "real" for their plane of existence.

Philosophically, this means that even the term "real" is relative, what's real for us is irreal for the poor two-dimensionals.Or not?Or can math be driven so far that it could prove existence of spaces in which it doesn't dwell?

As to continue our story.If there is such plane-breaking maths, one of the sides would discover a phasing machine that would make a hole in that sheet, and they would see an entirely new dimension (of the same format).If there isn't such maths, imagine an 3-dimensional probe accidentally crash-landing on the sheet, leaving a hole in it. The survivors of the crash would come in contact with the two-dimensionals living on it, and the sheet dwellers approaching that hole would be "phased" towards the other side of it.

My question is now: is our maths limited to only the allowance of our universe, or can we (like Einstein tried to do, I suppose) drive the maths so far that it would prove the existence of other planes or dimensions?

If not, what's irreal for us is completely real.There's a world where what's impossible here is possible.We are just a part of the swirling chaos of the hyperhypermathematical truths out there.Or not?