Hardly a burden I would say. But would you not agree that similarly it is your burden to have to explain Glenn's explanations about the objects ? And even if Glenn cannot explain them (to your likings) this does not mean that Petersen is therefor right. It is up to Petersen to explain some interesting observations:
1. The distribution of snails match the distribution of snails in the area.
2. Why only in Loess ?
3. Why can hurricanes and lightning storms not be explained by physics ?
4. And what evidence/predictions exist for the 4th dimentsion ?
After all below you explain that we only perceive 3 dimensions, so this 4th dimension remains untouchable and unobservable and unpredictable. Not much of science is left here. All we have is 'I don't know but XXXX did it'. For XXXX one can fill in "tooth fairy', ' God', '4th dimension' and all will explain the observations equally well and equally haphazardly and equally unobservable, unpredictable and untouchable.
Joseph: << I find no fault with anything that you quote from Barrow and Tipler or
from Courant and Hilbert. I would only suggest that you have
misconstrued the meaning. I suggest that an accurate paraphrase of
their statements would be that if we did occupy a world of more than
three dimensions we would still be able to survey only three dimensions
by the use of light or sound because these carriers are constrained to
three dimensions.>>
Quite a problem isn't it ?
Joseph: << In fact, in his epilogue Petersen concludes that the human soul
extends into that fourth dimension so our actual domain is in truth one
in at least four dimensions. >>
Another unobservable and 'deus ex machina' explanation ? Petersen at most 'speculates' that 'a human soul' extends into 'a fourth dimension'.
Jospeh: <<However, in agreement with Barrow and Tipler, we perceive only three dimensions of that realm by means of sensory perception because, presumably, those perceptions are ultimately
electromagnetic (three dimensional) in nature. >>
Which has made the 4th dimension an explanation as good/as bad as 'XXX did it'. We don't gain any more insight, invoke 'magical' explanations for things that we cannot explain or do not want explained by conventional science.
I'd say that the word 'insights' should be replaced by 'speculations about the unobservable'.