Khôr’nagan

I have absolutely no idea what you just said. :shrug:

Well, that's what I meant. Did I imply that the universe would collapse? If I did then I apologize, because I meant the knowledge gained by observing ther universe. That's also what I thought you meant. Perhaps I was mistaken, though my thoughts still stand as I said (or at least meant) them.

The "mere technicality" wasn't about the dimensions. (by the way, * I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 2-d. Sorry. should have been * I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 0-d. Sorry.... A typo) The "mere technicality" to which I was referring was a person saying that it is a fact that they percieve something a certain way, because that doesn't mean that it is that way, and it's just a tachnicality in my argument. Of course it's no "mere technicality" in everyday life, because with science, the "mere technicality" is (what we percieve to be) fact. That's what science is. "There is no fact so astonishing that scientists will not stand ready to abandon it if the evidence goes against it." - Chet Raymo. Facts in science are constantly proven and disproven, and are always abandoned when new knowledge goes against them. If someone discovered that there was no such thing as an atom (ridiculous, of course) and was able to prove it for certain, the entire structure of science and modern world would colapse to the very lowest of its foundations. One card at the bottom, and it all goes to hell. Any time a card fails, everything it supports fails with it. And, though not all science would collapse, a massive section would, should a card at the bottom fail. More than anything in the world, science is not sturdy enough, not well-founded enough that it cannot fail. Although, its structure is still strong, and would take a huge blow to fail. Therefore, your analogy that the observable universe as being a "house of cards" is more correct than anything I have ever heard it compared to. It is, in my opinion, the perfect analogy. *Claps*

They are only mere technicalities. When you get down to the simplest frames, saying that you percieve something in such a way is only a technicality when referring to my overall point. Such things are inevitably present in the most complicated of things, yet they are insubstantial and it is pointless to dwell on them.

Okay, dang. I just wrote, like... a page of for my response, and I accidently clicked "Back". Now it's all gone. Now that just stinks. I've been on that for over an hour. Okay, quick summary of what it would have been: * I wasn't thinking straight about the 1-d thing, and confused it with 2-d. Sorry. * The human senses are all perception * All knowledge, which is accumulated through the senses, is entirely human perception * What you see as blue could be red to someone else * If you say "hello" someone else might hear "crato", and if they say "craso", you might hear "hello". * There is no fact that is 100% certain. There is always something else, always. * There is no way to know what you know and what you think you know. You could know everything exactly how it is, or you could no nothing as it really is. Of course, you could know some things that are and some things that aren't (true) * Everything from the point of view of a human is human perception. You may be seeing something completely different than what really is. Everything is determined, in the human mind, by the way it percieves the outside envirement. If you are deaf, than you don't know what sound is, and, if everyone in the world was deaf, we might not even know that sound exists. We know things solely and completely through our perceptions, and things that we don't percieve, we cannot even know exist at all. Then again, you can't know that anything exists, since our perception can be decieved. * Technically, you can say as fact that "I know for a fact that I percieve that object's color as blue.", and you'd be right. But that is a mere technicallity, and could be disproven as well (by the fact that you don't know what the color blue is for sure, and that you cannot even know for sure that your mind is telling you the truth... The object might not be there at all, and your mind is decieving you.) Therefore, please do not post with mere technicallities in an effort to nitpick. I would think that people on this kind of forum would be more mature than that, and I would not like to be proved wrong (about you people being mature). Because that would be a degradation to your character, and to the quality of people going into the world and being considered the "Experts." So please, just don't post nitpicky things. Please respond seriously, and do not waste my time.

What the heck are you talking about? A 1-dimensional plane has no lines... 1-D exists only as a single point, without any real dimensions. Your statement makes no sense.

Well, first of all, I think both Star-struck and Sayonara3 are correct. Time is, according to countless experts (including Stephen Hawkings, who's movies I have watched since I was 7), an existing continuum, occupying a dimention. It is resonable to assume that space-time is credible, because all these experts wouldn't say so for nothing, (and, besides... I actually undertand it). However, scientists have, in the past, been very, very wrong. For countless years people beleived that heavier things fell faster than lighter things. Granted, that was before this huge age of technology, but that doesn't mean there is infalibility. For, simply because time might not be a continuum, doesn't mean there isn't still a constinuum. Just not a time one. With our limited knowledge, the Human race is unable to comprehend certain things. For all we know, there are more colors than the rainbow, beyond what we know.And it is no use denying it, because the fact of the matter is, Humans have a hard time imagining what they've never seen. It takes the greatest minds to do that, and they are those like Einstein, Hawkings, etc. Although once presented with the data other humans can comprehend it, normal humans cannot see beyond their own imagination (which is surprisingly smaller than anyone could believe). Humans only have the ability to take what they see. They cannot possibly imagine the color red if they've been colorblind all their life. It's just not possible. The cosmos are something normally beyond human comprehension. We have, however, been able to observe them, and thus take what we see to comprehention. This comprehention only goes so far, however, and even the best Human cannot comprehend it all. It would be in ignorance to go against this, even as it is in ignorance I say it. For their is no true knowledge, no true fact. We know only what our brains interperet, and there are countless times more things that the Human brain can't interperet than what it can. Therefore, we do not know whether time exists or is merely a measurement. We do not know whether their are alternate dimensions or not. We know only a small piece of the puzzle, but even that piece contains colors and shapes intertwined in the image that our minds cannot process, cannot pick up, and thus we cannot seethem. We have a distorted image of a distorted fraction of a puzzle with infinite pieces. No one can say that, in truth, an object that humans percieve as blue is actually blue. They can only say that they percieve it as being blue, but there is no way for us to prove whether it is or isn't. Color is a human perception. Time is a human perception. Sound is a human perception. Feeling is a human perception. Thought is a human perception. Therefore, knowledge (as we know it) is but a human perception, to us fact, but not (neccessarily) in truth. Accepting this is the first step to understanding that which we cannot understand. Only the truth will set us free. Agree or disagree, accept or deny. It will not change the facts: That there are no facts, and the only truth is beyond our comprehension.

Hay, I'm new to SF (as of about 10 minutes ago). And, it just so happens that I've got to write a page on a specific pseudoscience for homework. Kind of funny the way that works. I actually find pseudosciences extremely amusing, especially when people actually believe them (the ridiculus ones, like ufo's, some alternate cancer treatments, etc.). Personally, I'm all up for cingularities... And this is probably the only place (this site) that I can actually say 'cingularities' and have people understand what I'm saying. Usually I have to say 'Black Holes, Worm Holes, etc.' So, anyway... I think I'll just waddle on over to the physics area...