As I see it there is a fundamental problem regarding the search in Physics for a TOE (notably String Theory and M-Theory) which remains largely ignored.

Quite simply, it is using the rational understanding that is appropriate for one level to interpret the nature of reality for a very different "lower" level (which is quite inappropriate). And this has led to considerable philosophical confusion and misrepresentation regarding the dynamic nature of its basic concepts.

So as we supposedly approach closer to the ultimate unveiling of this TOE, its basic concepts seem to be largely devoid of any adequate intuitive comprehension.
 

So let me point out just a few of these basic problems suggesting how they can perhaps be resolved though more appropriate dynamic understanding.

Now the basic constituents of matter (according to String theory) are made up of many tiny one-dimensional "strings". (With M-theory this has been generalised to membranes that can occur in higher dimensions) These strings can vibrate with each unique pattern of vibration resulting in the fundamental particles (which define physical reality).

The interactions between strings are then described in somewhat mechanical fashion where they can split up and combine in various ways with other strings.

However the basic problem here is that classical notions of understanding, which approximate accuracy at our macro level of reality, are used to convey the nature of a "lower'" reality that operates on very different dynamic principles.

For instance the very recognition of an object phenomenon in classical terms assumes an environment of space and time (for its location).

However strings, as the most fundamental constituents of matter, are supposed to already include these in some (unexplained) fashion. However without the pre-existence of space and time, there is no means of locating and thereby phenomenally identifying strings (even in theoretical terms).

So the notion of a one-dimensional object capable - even in principle - of phenomenal identification is something of a nonsense as conventional observation of an "object" requires three space dimensions.

It is then explained that strings exist in a higher dimensional reality than our macro reality. Some earlier versions of string theory were only consistent in 26 dimensions. Then it was 10 dimensions. Most recent interpretations use 11 dimensions (10 space and one time). However this notion of "higher" dimensions again seems counter intuitive in terms of classical type understanding. Also inelegant attempts to explain away "surplus" dimensions as "curled up" and undetectable seem to me very unsatisfactory.

So how would these basic problems be resolved through a more integral dynamic understanding?

Firstly I would strongly assert that String Theory is not dealing with reality at its most fundamental level. In holistic mathematical terms this most fundamental level is the empty ground which equally represents the most basic bi-directional symmetries in terms of forces, dimensions and phenomena. This is explained in terms of the ultimate complementarity of diagonal, vertical and horizontal polarities which equally represents a pure void of creative physical potential. (See Note 24 of previous Chapter).

As we shall see this most fundamental level corresponds with the commencement of L3 (i.e. lower level 3) in my approach. Here no differentiation (and thereby no integration) has yet taken place in relation to the three basic polarities.
So therefore (fundamental) form has not been yet differentiated from emptiness (in diagonal terms).
Likewise wholes have not yet been separated from parts i.e. dimensions from material phenomena (in vertical terms).
Finally interior and exterior aspects have not yet been differentiated (interior consciousness from manifest external identity).

String theory (and M-theory) relate to the next level. Here in the most fundamental sense form has been separated from emptiness (with the birth of physical forces). In other words the diagonal polarities have begun to separate. However dimensions are not yet clearly distinct from material phenomena (in vertical terms). Even less differentiation has yet taken placein relation to exterior and interior aspects (in horizontal terms).

So the notion of "identifiable" individual strings makes little sense (as this requires the separation of whole and part identities).
However in some ways the notions used by physicists do point to a more satisfactory dynamic manner of explanation. The idea of strings and loops strongly suggests linear and circular notions. So in dynamic terms "strings" represent an - as yet - confused form of phenomenal identity where the capacity for independence as "separate" matter particles (linear) and interdependence in a shared dimensional framework (circular) are still very much intertwined.

So we can thereby appreciate that these - as yet unidentifiable - phenomena have the potential capacity for developing as separate particles (linear) within a shared dimensional framework (circular).

Thus the one-dimensional definition of strings does not point to an actual phenomenal description of (separate) strings but rather a potential capacity - just beginning to actualise - for independent (differentiated) existence.
However in a dynamic approach, the interdependent non-dimensional aspect of strings would also be emphasised. So there is a collective universal (circular) identity to string reality (not yet differentiated). And at this level the independent (material) and interdependent (dimensional) aspects cannot be clearly distinguished.

So strings would not be defined in solely "real" terms. They would also be defined as "imaginary". Putting it another way, string reality entails the interaction of an - as yet - undifferentiated state of dimensional reality with an equally undifferentiated structure (as matter). And these state and structure aspects are - relatively - "real" and "imaginary" with respect to each other.

Finally a very simple - and compelling explanation - can be given for the existence of "higher" dimensions at this level.

At this level of exietence the four dimensions have not - as yet - clearly separated.

Therefore we can only speak of dimensions in dynamic terms as a configuration of the emerging (and not clearly identifiable) separate dimensions. And because these four "prime" dimensions can be arranged in various ways then considerably higher numbers of configurations are possible.

In fact there are 24 configurations (permutations) possible from four dimensions (with each arrangement representing a distinct "mix" of the four "prime" dimensions).
Indeed one important version of string theory was based on 24 "dimensions" (with - in the context of the theory - two extra added).
The later version was based on 8 (again with two added).

Now many years ago I suspected a close connection here with Jungian theories of personality. Jung used 8 types and I subsequently demonstrated that this has an extended version in terms of 24 types.

So each personality type can be looked on as a unique way in which a person configures their experience of space and time. So each type uses the same 4 dimensions but configures them in a different manner.

Indeed we could look at the well-known Enneagram in the same manner giving 9 unique space-time configurations (which with the addition of the customary 2 extra dimensions = 11).

Therefore the important point - which makes perfect sense in dynamic terms - is that the "dimensions" of String Theory do not relate to the original four dimensions (as existing separately) but rather to differing configurations of these same four - as yet entangled - dimensions.

Thus attempting to appreciate "Strings" in a proper dynamic context (where they are still conditioned by confused bi-directional interactions), we can begin to provide a more intuitively satisfying holistic understanding of their nature.