"Imagine the branes are linked by uncounted trillions of slightly elastic strings. The strings join points in one brane to corresponding points in the other brane.

As the branes separate, the strings are pulled taut. When the branes reach the limit of the string length, they draw together again. The strings are waves.



Suppose we simplify. Instead of trillions of strings, we generalize to show just one wave between the two branes. Like an infinity symbol between two planes. This is the space-time wave.



A similar structure results if we had made a conceptual leap of considering the two branes as sheets of corrugated perspex. When the corrugations are aligned the same direction, the two sheets touch at all points. If we then turn one sheet through 90 degrees, the corrugations themselves will make the sheets move apart so that they only touch at one point. We can say they separate as a result of a rotation.

Enough conceptualizing. Time for a reality check with human anatomy --where we find that the eyes and the sides of the head are two planes separated by a wave.
Looks like we are on the right track. And there's more."



isn't this flawed beyond belief? (let me know if i'm missing something)

linking the interbrane string-waves with the infinity symbol on a structural level can't possibly be sound (and doubt it would be on a conceptual level - where this could be methodologically consistent, if at all). same with seeing a correlation with structural similarities in human anatomy. the only thing that this could suggest is that there are universal categories of human perception, preset stencils that shape possible experience, ie. the mind-body link that is referred to seems to simply demonstrate this epistemic construct. only that in this empirical instance, it's about as absurd as making an etymological link between "branes" and "brains", as he seems to almost hint at, beyond his proposed structural similarities (ie. seeing dichotomies everywhere).

"There is a clear equivalence between brains and "branes"."

contentwise: this person seems to have become aware of paradigmatic relativity, which is interesting. eager application to theoretical physics is sweet. the copernican revolution he refers to is basically the kantian version of heliocentricity, transcendental knowledge - unity of subject and object. he arbitrarily applies it to the positivist mess, data that was never generated in light of subjective reflection.

hermeneutically: if the political implications of subject-object metaphysics were apparent, then we wouldn't have to try to emancipate ourselves from the power of the object by these means. these are unreflected outgrowths of opressed minds. not scientific, nor revolutionary - artefakte aus einem falschen leben?

does provoke reflection of course, which is pleasing. good to see people are thinking on own feet. mental slavery still very apparent though.