Dimention and Perception

[mooeypoo]

Dimention and Perception

 

I have thought about this topic while reading the discussion about "Aliens" in this forum, and I must say I can't believe you guys are not thinking of those aspects here.

If we'd be talking about General Physics, or theoretical partical movement and such, perhaps I would agree on most of the answers I've seen, but since this is a MetaPhysics forum, I think most of you people forgotten some very important aspects:

 

[*]The human race can only intercept and understand three basic dimentions: What does it mean? Well, it means that we don't even begin to understand waht's out there. Aliens or other life forms, or space itself, can be "moving" or "existing" in terms we can't even begin to grasp. The theory of dimentions mentions the TIME as the fourth dimention -- we can't understand it, we can't grasp it -- how can we say anything concerning it is impossible? We can't.

 

[*] Humans cannot imagine or think in terms they don't understand: Which automatically means we can't say "IMPOSSIBLE" on *anything* and especially anything concerning deep space. We have no idea. We haven't even visited Mars properly yet.

 

[*] Someone mentioned the "fact" that if life exists in space, they would probably look like us; Escuse me for being extremely blunt, and I really mean no offense by it, but: WHAT!? why? because we can't imagine anything else? We used to think that the deep-sea fish would look similar to shallow-sea fish only with thicker skin, which, they're not. We also used to think the world is flat. It wasn't a guess, it was a known FACT until one brilliant (agnostic) person challanged it.

 

If we witness the INCREDIBLE changes between human races on earth - the europeans are physically different than the native americans, the asians and the africans. The difference between those places are extremely small, and yet the humans living there have adapted to the environment in such a way that changed their physiology completely from one another - and in a duration that is concidered quite small in the evolutionary scale. The differences in environment between those human races are extremely small - differences in sun exposure, humidity, cold, and such. We're not even beginning to talk about differences in *pressure*, or *gasses in the atmosphere* or such things that should affect the change of an organizm in a much bigger scale.

 

So what you want to tell me, is although humans who live hundreds of kilometers from one another have changed so incredibely from one another, you can still claim that sentients or life that exists hundreds of millions of kilometers from us, in a COMPLETELY different environment will look like us?

[/list=a]

 

I think the bigger point I want to give to you, and of course, hear what you think of it, is that we CANNOT close our minds. We can't say "Impossible", we can't claim that what we know is definately true;

 

(Example: "Mathematics is the language of the universe. Any life form we'll meet will know math." Are you sure? Math is the way *we* explain or describe phenomenas in the universe, and many times that doesn't quite cut it aswell. Are you sure any life form would know what you're talking about with math? What if they've ascended over it? Or what if they have no *brains* to think? you can't know what's lying in the bottom of the ocean, how can you state what's out in the infinite universe??)

 

Don't forget:

500 years ago people knew the world is flat.

100 years ago people knew the light is a wave.

50 years ago people knew the smallest particle is the atom.

 

All those "Facts" were not concidered to be assumptions - they were well proven and treated as such. Until someone came and smashed them all at the nearest wall. In light speed.

 

Don't claim anything is impossible, don't close your mind to theories and ideas. Never say never. Try to see if a new theory fits the phenomenas in life, the surroundings, if it stands alone, if it sounds firm and solid.

 

But don't say no.

 

Someone, in the not-so-distant-future, will just make you feel like a complete idiot when he proves you wrong.

 

 

~mooeypoo

[Sayonara]

An interesting post (and I really like the signature ). I have some thoughts...

 

mooeypoo said in post #1 :

The human race can only intercept and understand three basic dimentions

We intercept at least four dimensions, since time is generally considered to be dimensional in nature. To be fair the question of what we can and cannot comprehend does rather depend on which part of the human race you are referring to, since there are plenty of physicists who can understand 16 separate conceptual dimensions.

 

Humans cannot imagine or think in terms they don't understand:

Are you sure about that? Certainly it is possible to consider a problem one does not understand, and to imagine possible solutions which may or may not bear any relation to the reality of the situation. Is this not thinking?

 

Someone mentioned the "fact" that if life exists in space, they would probably look like us ... why? because we can't imagine anything else?

No, not because we "can't" imagine something more elaborate, but because the most likely physical, biochemical and physiological processes are known. You have paraphrased the discussion from the other thread so much that it sounds ridiculous - it actually was not that simply declared and that was not the intended message.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1520 For those who wish to read the thread. The pertinent part is here:

 

"... although I said that there would be "similar organisms", do not take this to mean that you would find tigers, dolphins and men on your alien planet. It is true that there are certain attributes that provide an advantage, such as camoflauge stripes, a streamlined body or an opposable thumb. However, these can be expressed in innumerable combination and with such vastly wide-ranging properties that two animals sharing the same basic principle in an adaptation can be fantastically different beasts.

 

I do have to question "The answer to your comments on evolution being similiar on another planet is absolutely not", because if we are talking about life on other worlds we have to assume some small degree of convergence at some point purely due to the numbers involved. Most of population biology and ecology is maths. Yes, evolution is a lot more likely to take a disimilar path than a similar one, but there's a good chance (due to carbon chemistry and the 'limits of reasonable adaptivity') that the distribution of adaptations and life form compositions across the galaxy fall along a curve, and we don't yet know where we appear on that curve.

Who knows - maybe we are the freakiest mutazoids in the universe?"

 

The vast majority of life will probably fall into some category that we would find familiar. This is based on the narrow range of conditions in which life has been found so far, and the slim range of chemical configurations that might possibly allow life processes to be carried out. Life is not a simple matter of just "being there", there is a system of chemical reactions driving it all and the rules of this system are fixed.

 

The fact is that alien life does not have to be as bizarre and different as it can be. Evolutionary processes may reinvent the wheel a few times but this does not mean that every time an attribute arises the universe decides to try a whole new way of doing things. The functional purpose of life is to (i) route energy in an efficient way and (ii) continue. There are only so many ways to effectively accomplish both at the same time, and by the very nature of life itself Occam's Razor applies to biology far more viciously than in most other areas.

 

The idea of strange beings made of energy or metal is an attractive one, but there are limits to what can actually happen so far as we understand the universe.

Take the "metal life forms" thread for example: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=769

The advocates of metal life forms don't have enough knowledge of chemistry or physics to understand why their ideas are flawed. HOWEVER there is a very slim chance that the physics and chemistry applied in the thread is wrong, and the Aluminoids are in fact a species living happily on Neptune.

Since there is so much evidence however that our knowledge of the basic physics and chemistry principles is sound, and no evidence whatsoever that any metallic lifeform exists anywhere, there's no reason to assume that such an outside chance needs to be considered. Calling this chance "impossible" is merely a euphemism for "it's so unlikely that most of physics and chemistry is wrong that I will not waste time trying to prove metal life exists. I'll worry about it when the Aluminoid ships start landing".

 

If we witness the INCREDIBLE changes between human races on earth - the europeans are physically different than the native americans, the asians and the africans. The difference between those places are extremely small, and yet the humans living there have adapted to the environment in such a way that changed their physiology completely from one another.

That is simply not true - there is virtually no difference in physiology. The differences are mainly limited to attributes such as average height and melanocyte activity/distribution. The only real anatomical adaptations we see in humans are the thick adipose layer and distinctive shape of races who live the entire year in frozen wastelands, and this is due to a truly extreme difference in both environment and diet.

 

So what you want to tell me, is although humans who live hundreds of kilometers from one another have changed so incredibely from one another, you can still claim that sentients or life that exists hundreds of millions of kilometers from us, in a COMPLETELY different environment will look like us?

The fact that there is superficial variation in a species does not alter the fact that there are finite ways to get around certain problems, such as cellular respiration and what have you. All of the processes that occur in an organism are the result of an energy trade-off of some kind, and these trade-offs can be predicted to account for the majority of cases.

 

I think the bigger point I want to give to you, and of course, hear what you think of it, is that we CANNOT close our minds. We can't say "Impossible", we can't claim that what we know is definately true;

Agreed. But try to understand that arguing life elsewhere is likely to be similar to life on Earth, in form or function, does not mean that one has to rule out any other type of life. It's more the case that in biology, you mainly say what you see.

As you imply, it is a very big universe, so making absolute statements can be a very bad idea depending on how much thought goes into them.

 

Example: "Mathematics is the language of the universe. Any life form we'll meet will know math." Are you sure?

If they're sentient, most likely they will have figured out the mathematical process. If Qangor has 3 rocks, and Xlaxxop gives him 5 more, he'll have 8 rocks in total. It doesn't matter what planet the exchange takes place on - the result will always be the same. 8, 5 and 3 themselves are simply symbols in a language. The grammar of that language is what's important.

 

500 years ago people knew the world is flat.

100 years ago people knew the light is a wave.

50 years ago people knew the smallest particle is the atom.

This is something that all scientists would do well to bear in mind.

But consider that it is precisely because of this progress that we are able to make more accurate predictions today. The fact is that now we have a keen understanding of exotic subatomic processes. We can travel into space. We have observation facilities in orbit, and we are voyaging to other worlds - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3297651.stm

The more we learn, the less likely it becomes that all of it is incorrect.

 

All those "Facts" were not concidered to be assumptions - they were well proven and treated as such. Until someone came and smashed them all at the nearest wall. In light speed.

The suggestion that someone came from nowhere and smashed a universally accepted truth on a whim is ridiculous. Clearly there has always been room for disagreement - that is how science has progressed for the better part of 500 years.

You may want to dispute this, but before doing so I'd suggest that as an example case study you research the periodicals and journals that were around for, say, the 10 years before subatomic particles were discovered. There's nothing like a bit of research to demonstrate the necessity of research

 

Don't claim anything is impossible, don't close your mind to theories and ideas. Never say never. Try to see if a new theory fits the phenomenas in life, the surroundings, if it stands alone, if it sounds firm and solid.

But don't say no.

Someone, in the not-so-distant-future, will just make you feel like a complete idiot when he proves you wrong.

Those are worthy aims, but it is not practical to claim that nothing is impossible. There are some things we can predict with absolute certainty. Like the cores of stars not being made of ice cream, for example.

[Skye]

I'll just add that science is based on assuming new ideas are false until a situation can be shown in which the previous beliefs are false and the new ideas hold out.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, Wow.

 

First off, I think I was misunderstood. My fault probably, I didn't explain myself very well concerning the dimention perception - which is my most IMPORTANT piont, everything else lies on it, so I'm gonna try again, please take into account that english is not my native language

We intercept at least four dimensions, since time is generally considered to be dimensional in nature. To be fair the question of what we can and cannot comprehend does rather depend on which part of the human race you are referring to, since there are plenty of physicists who can understand 16 separate conceptual dimensions.

No no no. Okay.

I might ahve used a wrong term here, but this is not whatI meant. You might *know* of more dimentions - but you don't intercept them... err.. you don't "Live in them". Meaning: You are AFFECTED by time, but your brain and consciousness cannot GRASP *really* time. Just like beatles live in a 2D world (they don't have perception of 3D world) but they are affected by gravity and curves that exist in the 3rd dimention - we are affected by TIME, but we don't really have perception of time.

 

This can be "proven" in many ways, if you didn't get my point lemme know, I'll put the longer "proof" here.

 

Oh.. yeah I'm using a lot of " here, not because i dont mean the words, but because i dont want to get tied to statements. Bear with me

 

Humans cannot imagine or think in terms they don't understand

 

Again I didn't make my point correctly.

What I mean was that we can't think outside of our own perception - which is an obvious statement, naturally, and still - it means we talk, think and make our pionts in human language.

Alien "language" or way of thinking may - and probably is - different. Different not only in WORDS and TERMS but in *way* of explanations, way of seeing or grasping things.

 

Another thing:

That is simply not true - there is virtually no difference in physiology. The differences are mainly limited to attributes such as average height and melanocyte activity/distribution. The only real anatomical adaptations we see in humans are the thick adipose layer and distinctive shape of races who live the entire year in frozen wastelands, and this is due to a truly extreme difference in both environment and diet.

 

I have to admit that when I re-read my own words I was quite annoyed with myself. I sounded really biggotted and racist. That was NOT the meaning. I'm sorry. Now, you're wrong why? Okay, when saying HUGE DIFFERENCES I didn't mean like human and fish -- i mean WITHIN the human race, you get differences like average height, skin color, skin width, eye-built and such and all that you are getting from the SAME life form (HUMANS) in *similar* conditions.

 

My point was that if you get SUCH differences in appearance and skin and eyes and all ON EARTH -- think what you'd get if you changed the atmosphere pressure by 1 degree. Or 500. Or if you have humidity levels 500 times more than earth. Or if the heat is 3000 times higher.

 

And I'm talking about *minotr* changes if we think of an infinite universe.

 

Now, another thing humans can't grasp is the meaning of INFINITE.

 

Infinite universe means infinite options, no matter which way you turn and toss this. Don't forget we're into Pseudoscience and Metaphysics - not "regular" physics.

 

I'd suggest WARMLY the book (pleaaaase don't take the MOVIE as an example, it sucked) SPHERE by michael crichton, or the book The Andromeda Strain also by Michael Crichton.

Both books talk about exactly what I meant by "open your mind" - Even biology is only EARTH biology. IE: The fact that all earthly viruses cannot stand intense heat doesn't mean that an outer-space virus can't.

 

SPHERE, by the way, has EVERYTHING to do with the perception of dimentions.

 

The point I'm trying to make - again, and hopefully better this time - is that we are SMALL not only in terms of the universe and the size of it - but also in ways of thinking and perception.

You don't understand and grasp the DIMENTION of TIME, you are affected by it. You might have theories on how it works and how to explain it - but you don't grasp it theway you grasp gravity or the other 3 dimentions.

 

Now, as for your very interresting statement about the "cores of stars not being made of ice cream" - Yes, well.

 

If this was a COMPLETELY phylosophical debate - you're wrong. You can't say they aren't, you don't know, and although it's highly unlikely - you can't say no.

But THAT specific argument is indeed STUPID. So I won't get into it

I'm not saying you should drop all the axiomas you had 'till now and go around knowing you're stupid and ignorant, don't trust anything 'cause you're just a small piece of an infinite universe.

 

You should, however, KNOW that the possibility you're WRONG exists no matter WHAT you say.

 

By the way - I can prove quite simply and easily that the computer you're typing on is NOT material, so is the table and your hands and actually the entire world is not matter. And it won't be a phylosophical proof, it's COMPLETELY physical. So? Doesn't mean you're gonna crash into walls from now on because they're "Not Matter" -- it just means that when you try to develop new ideas and new theories, you have to chose your initial assumptions CAREFULY.

 

Saying that aliens live or act by the same basic principles of the earthly known biology is just bogus. You CANT know that. In fact -- odds are taht they AREN'T. That you have an "entity" which you can't even understand or grasp sitting/standing/walking/grumpshluffing anywhere in your room and going :banana: and you can't see it, you can't feel it, you can't grasp the idea of its language or behaviour or existance.

 

Whether it matters or not - well i think it does, if you think of the bigger picture - but i also think that this is probably for another discussion.

 

~mooeypoo

[Sayonara]

I understrand what you're saying and there is definitely a very real appeal to the idea that no idea can be discounted as impossible. Buty the universe is not infinite insofar as we measure it by the matter and/or the energy that it contains.

 

Perhaps there are other universes where those possibilities that do not exist in our own can be fulfilled, but in all likelihood we will never know of them and in practical terms they therefore do not exist to us

 

As far as the differences in biology go, I have to stress again the difference in the way biologists describe life, and the way other people describe life:

The biologist says "these organisms are similar". The lay-person laughs because these odd creatures don't look anything like each other, but that's not what the biologist meant. He was describing the processes that governed the organisms, not their appearance.

 

Nobody claimed that "aliens live or act by the same basic principles of the earthly known biology". What I suggested is that the limits imposed by all the varied chemical reactions that are possible directly impose constraints on what can and can't occur, and by the very nature of life will try to take the path of least resistance. This makes the majority of biological processes predictable. It is a mistake to suggest that theoretical biology is any less methodical than theoretical maths or physics.

 

I liked "Sphere", despite the criticism it gets. It was an intriguing approach to the ecological aspects of both communication and predator evasion. Michael Crichton is going downhill though :-S

[iglak]

i just wanna point out this one thing...

mooeypoo said in post #4 :

Now, another thing humans can't grasp is the meaning of INFINITE.

actually, humans are quite capable of understanding infinite in it's entirety, it just that over 80% of the population can't understand it.

and about 30-50% of the population can't understand the meaning of 0.

and about 50-70% of the population can't understand the meaning of any number above or equal to 2.

 

fake discussion with insurance agency:

"Nothing started the fire, the machine just messed up."

"So, it's the mechanic's fault?"

"No, the machine was wearing out over time, and we didn't compensate."

"So, it was your fault?"

"No, the person who used the machine also didn't follow all of the rules we had."

"Ahh, so it was the worker's fault."

"No! there was also a lot of flammable waste from the maching that hadn't been cleaned up."

"So it was the janitor's fault?"

"NO! it was no one's fault!"

"I don't get it, who started the fire?"

"NO, NO ONE STARTED THE FIRE!"

"Perhaps you don't understand, something HAD to have started the fire, it couldn't just spontaneously combust. Now, who was it?"

"GOD @&*# IT!! IT WAS NO ONE'S FAULT! it was a combination of tens of different factors that caused the fire!"

"calm down sir, i'm just asking a simple question, who started the fire?"

... it just goes further downhill from there....

 

 

this is actually quite similar to the discussion my dad had with my insurer when i broke my arm on school property.

[JaKiri]

mooeypoo said in post #4 :

No no no. Okay.

I might ahve used a wrong term here, but this is not whatI meant. You might *know* of more dimentions - but you don't intercept them... err.. you don't "Live in them". Meaning: You are AFFECTED by time, but your brain and consciousness cannot GRASP *really* time. Just like beatles live in a 2D world (they don't have perception of 3D world) but they are affected by gravity and curves that exist in the 3rd dimention - we are affected by TIME, but we don't really have perception of time.

 

This can be "proven" in many ways, if you didn't get my point lemme know, I'll put the longer "proof" here.

 

I've 'seen*' a 4 dimensional object. Methinks this shows that you are wrong.

 

 

*perspective in 3D

[mooeypoo]

How can you see a 4Dimentional object, if the 4th dimention is (most probably) time?

[mooeypoo]

btw, Sayonara -

 

About Sphere - well the movie was okay but since i REALLY liked the book, i have to say it sucked, since it didn't bring most of the really beautiful aspects of the theories like the book did. if you haven't read it, i really suggest you do, it ROCKS.

 

About the sphere and dimentions and all - in the book its being explained a bit further but think about it this way:

A *form of life* came to earth - we can't understand it, our perception can't allow us to understand it fully so how will we SEE it physically?

 

Through the "most" 3D object we know:

a SPHERE.

 

Which is why the life form on that book (or movie) was a sphere and not a rectangle.

 

This is EXACTLY what i mean. That think existed beyond time, space and human understanding - but we SAW it as a sphere.

 

If.. that made sense.

[Sayonara]

That really doesn't come across in the movie at all, does it?

 

I will seek out the book

[blike]

This is a good topic, it could have gone under general science..

[mooeypoo]

Yeah but since I am using phylosophy to say.. well that nothing is certain INCLUDING physical "facts" - i thought it fits this forum more.

 

If you think otherwise it can be moved, i guess.

[Sayonara]

Everyone hold on tight... we're moving....

 

Wheeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

[mooeypoo]

Wow. Appearantly you CAN move at incredible speeds through space.

or.. cyberspace.

 

[Sayonara]

I think some people fell off on the way over.

 

* checks the ground beneath the thread *

[aman]

An easy way to intuitively visualize an extra dimension is to see a flat screen TV which is 3 D because it has electronics and a wall behind it. Imagine you put your hand in the screen and pull out your hand and a beer. Your hand enters the screen but doesn't protrude out the back of the TV in our dimension. The volume of the room is greater since you can go from the room into the TV and return. It's kinda like a bubble or hemmeroid in space time.

Just aman

[Neurocomp2003]

QUESTIONS(hypothetical)

if scientists do solve the universe into fundamental equations and the like, that is the behaviour of particle interaction. What would be left for us to do??

Would we keep jamming as many particles together to try and disprove our final theory or would be go to the next scale(molecular scale) and jamm things together to see what chaotic and complex systems we could make?

[Dave]

mooeypoo said in post #8 :

How can you see a 4Dimentional object, if the 4th dimention is (most probably) time?

 

Well mathematically speaking, we can just invent as many dimensions as we want. They don't necessarily have to represent any physical property.

 

If you want some kind of 4D shape (for example, a hypercube of which I've seen a 3D representation) then all you need are 4 axes which are perpendicular to eachother.

[mooeypoo]

Neurocomp2003:

 

I believe we will *never*solve everything - we will ALWAYS have unanswered questions and flaws in logic - but hypothetically -- when we do solve everything, we will just be able to create our own mini universe and play with it.

 

Who knows, maybe God was bored too...

[mooeypoo]

dave: I don't think you got my point though. I'm not saying we can't explain other dimentions, i am saying we can't intercept them in our consciousness - that's why we need to REPRESENT them in a 3Dimentional form.

 

Until we CAN intercept more dimention - we can't be 100% sure we know what else is out there using higher forms of perception. Perhaps *knowing, seeing, intercepting* the 4th Dimention (not just undersatnding it, but actually living in it!) will show us that there are other and BETTER ways to explain the universe than math.

 

Who knows.

[Rasori]

I don't get this whole "Math is the language of the universe" or whatever crap.

 

Sure, 5 + 3 = 8, even when it comes to Fraalij and XXranonx's rocks, but to them they may have 2 ^ 1252 (Awer for all we know.

 

I mean, get a grip, OUR math language is HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be the same as anyone elses.

 

BTW, dave, think I could get a link to that? I'm sure you could find that picture somewhere on the internet, I'll try to google it myself I wanna see this '4d' object.

 

Also, out of curiousity, why is it that we humans insist on searching for life? For all we know, we landed on it when we landed on the moon (this is my way of saying that or definition of life isn't necessarily correct).

 

All of this post is meant only as an 'if you people actually care' kinda thing.

[YT2095]

for a start we are searching for OUR definition of life, no one EVER said otherwise.

 

secondly Math is a universal language, 3+5=8 no matter where you go! the only difference maybe that the number "3" may be writen differently "11" for example is a perfectly valid representation of "3" in Binary. 3+5=8 could just as easily be expressed as 0011+0101=1000, that`s merely a language and writing difference. the pricipals remain as a constant hovever.

 

what the smeg is "Fraalij and XXranonx's rocks" ???

[Rasori]

I didn't feel like going back and getting the names you used

 

But, what I'm saying is that if we try to make contact with our language of math, we are probably telling them we want to go to war or something, should they actually understand us.

[YT2095]

how so?

 

I can demonstrate mathematical principals to ANYONE regardless of the lang they speak. all you would need would be little stones or marbles or buttons etc,,,

I put 3 marbles make a "+" sign and then 5 marbles, make an "=" sign then add 8 marbles. any inteligent race with a concept of logic will make sense of this, sure, they may not use "+" or "=" sign as we do, but the principal is a constant, ergo "mathematics is a Universal language"

[Rasori]

The principal, yes, but our probes that are supposed to try to make contact don't demonstrate it (as far as I know).

 

I'm gonna shut up now, I didn't do enough research on the subject to actually understand it.