already one month ago, the newscientist featured gregory chaitin as "the omega man". this issue, dated 10 march 2001, had been fluttering around in my flat for a while and just now i remembered that i have been at a lecture by chaitin here in vienna last year.

at that time i feared that "i probably won't understand a word" of what chaitin talks about. actually, this was pretty close to the truth. but the philosophical implications of radomness in the area of number theory (which was once the most stable building of science so far) remain irresistible to me. it's so fascinating that there are numbers, real numbers (in the sense of existence), which are "infinitely long and utterly incalculable".

"there can never be a reliable 'theory of everything'", is one conclusion you can get from chaitins omega numbers. this reminds me of a tv programme about time i saw on the week-end. one of the featured vanguard physicians who are obsessed by the idea of the so-called "world formula", a mathematical model that explains the inner structure of an elementary particle as well as the whole universe (or in physical terminology: combine the standard model with gravitation by the so-called super string theory), well, one of these physicians presented a partial result of their quest: a formula (ie. not calculation) which filled a whole blackboard and, here comes the interesting part, does not include any reference to time.

the (mis-?)interpretation of this formula leads to funny consequences: since we try to overcome and outwit our chronic (hehe) lack of time by getting faster and ubiquitous, we try to solve a problem which obviously exists only in our reception and reflection of motion resp. change. if nature did not have a plan for that thing called time, are we not scheduling a phantom, then?

leaving the fourth dimension behind.