Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about string theory and its implications for my metaphysical system. Then, during a walk, I started pondering what I call “the problem of three space dimensions”: we live in surprisingly few dimensions given that, in principle, their number could be any positive integer. My immediate thought was that perhaps we exist in a Universe with trillions of dimensions, but all except three cancel out, leaving us unable to perceive them. It briefly seemed plausible—clearly, I overdosed on string theory.
On a more serious note, even if we assume some version of string theory is correct and we inhabit a spacetime with twenty-six dimensions, that’s still not a very large number. Then again, it’s unclear whether string theory is true, so let’s set it aside for now.
If you believe there’s a single mathematical framework underlying our Universe, you can use the anthropic principle to explain why we observe only three spatial dimensions. First, why not fewer? Because in one or two dimensions, you can’t get the complexity required for intelligent life. Second, why not more? Because with four or more space dimensions, planets won’t orbit stars in stable, cyclical paths, so there’s no suitable “pocket” for life to evolve.
Thus, if every universe in a hypothetical multiverse is designed with the same mathematical rules—and if for every positive integer there’s a universe with that many dimensions—intelligent observers can only arise where there are three. It’s a simple and elegant explanation. (A similar argument applies to having just one time dimension: multiple time dimensions would make predicting the future far more complicated, thwarting the development of a cognitive niche. For more detail, see Max Tegmark’s “On the Dimensionality of Spacetime.”)
So anthropic reasoning leads me to think there’s only one mathematical framework in the metareality. The troubling question is: Why? Why would “substance” limit itself to a single framework? My only answer is that substance is inherently sophisticated. It doesn’t create every possible world as Logical Pantheism suggests; rather, it has its own nature, and what it creates must reflect that nature. There’s only one framework not because it’s superior or chosen, but because it emerges from substance’s underlying character.
I love this answer because it meshes with my system, where one central assumption is that our Universe is harmonious: its tremendous complexity arises from a simple, elegant order—one laden with symmetries, internal consistency, and ingenuity. I don’t think that’s controversial: Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, Witten, and others said much the same.
One might try to explain this harmony via the law of large numbers in a multiverse—if there are infinitely many universes, some will be harmonious, and we just happen to be in one. That logic works once, for fine-tuning (we “won” the cosmic lottery), but it falls apart when you also try to explain harmony the same way. Life doesn’t strictly require harmony; you’d expect far more fine-tuned yet messy universes than fine-tuned and harmonious ones. So, if you invoke the cosmic lottery to explain both, you’re saying we “won” twice, which is implausible.
Unable to explain harmony anthropically, I posited that substance must be sophisticated and that everything it spawns shares this trait. Our Universe’s harmony follows naturally—it's a reflection of its creator’s nature. Einstein believed something similar, famously saying: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.”
Today, I realized this idea also elegantly resolves “the problem of three space dimensions.” It’s satisfying to see things start to click together.
Sponsored by: Wiadomości giełdowe GPW