throng's "space and existence" theory

[the tree]

Im surprised no-one has thought about why geometry works. It just does.

Are you kidding me? Euclid's Elements was written in ~300BC, and people haven't stopped since.

Why the universe is 3D. Why space exists. Why time exists.

I'm told that The Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davis discusses this quite succinctly.

That is what I have made a representation of, but it sounds incredible, so I am not heeded.

Perhaps you would learn a lot if you practised some humility.

Mathematitions demand extraordinary complexity and I certainly have zero credibility in the feild, spiritual folk hate logic and philosophers only like debunking.

As a mathematician, a spiritual person and a person who occasionally enjoys philosophy, I can tell you that these statements are not only untrue but also pretty offensive.

[mooeypoo]

Im surprised no-one has thought about why geometry works. It just does.

 

Of course people think how geometry works, people invented geometry. Your statement is pretty much like saying you don't understand why hotdogs taste like meat and being surprised they just do.

 

We invented geometry as a way to explain things around us. We made it up so it works out. Obviously, they work.

 

As with the rest of your thread here - and as I repeatedly asked before, I don't get what is your proposed problem with it.

 

Why the universe is 3D.

The universe is *NOT* 3D, the universe is, at the very least, 4D, and probably a lot more (String theory proposes 11 dimentions, and other theories propose either a larger or smaller number).

 

Human beings percieve their space in 3 dimentions. We cannot explain things easily with 10 dimensions or 11, so we simplify things into 3 dimensions. That's not to say the universe is 3D. Not at all. If it was, we'd be intercepting a lot more than we actually do. We'd be able to manipulate time as we do volume. We cannot, because we only grasp 3 dimensions, and we explain our universe in terms we can understand.

 

 

Why space exists. Why time exists.

Those are philosophical questions, not scientific questions. What is the ROLE of time in our universe, might be a scientifically valid question, but why did it come to exist in the first place, well, as far as we could postulate there might be other universes with other laws of physics in which time acts different or is nonexistent (that might be.. hard to believe, though, seeing as without time there's no movement). Our universe does have time, and we quantified it to (again) make sense of it. Asking why things are the way they are is meaningless. Asking what it *MEANS* that things are the way they are is the role of physics, mathematics, biology, cosmology, chemistry and other sciences.

 

 

That is what I have made a representation of, but it sounds incredible, so I am not heeded.

It doesn't sound incredible, throng, it just makes no sense.

 

Mathematitions demand extraordinary complexity and I certainly have zero credibility in the feild, spiritual folk hate logic and philosophers only like debunking. Field unity is required.

This is the weirdest generalized qualifications I've seen. Mathematicians demand math, and it is only "extraordinarily complex" if you don't know what you're looking at. Some things in mathematics -- specifically the basic geometry, which this thread is about -- is incredible simple.

Not all spiritual folk hate logic.

Philosopher do not debunk.

 

Seriously. WTF.

 

It is destined to be an unsaid thing I'm afraid. Very sorry.

 

I think it was said well, it just made no sense. If you think yuo didn't explain yourself properly, please feel free to revise your statements or explanations, but from what I got from your ideas, I think you're trying to impose philosophical thinking into mainstream scientific methodology, and those two just do not fit together. "Why this exists" is philosophy. "What this does" is science.

 

Try to separate between purely natural phenomena (black holes, planets, stars, time, etc) and concepts human beings invented for the sake of clearing up their own questions (like geometry).

 

Geometry was CREATED by man to explain nature. It was purposefully fitted to nature. How can you be so surprised it fits nature....?

 

~moo

[throng]

Of course people think how geometry works, people invented geometry. Your statement is pretty much like saying you don't understand why hotdogs taste like meat and being surprised they just do.

 

We invented geometry as a way to explain things around us. We made it up so it works out. Obviously, they work.

 

As with the rest of your thread here - and as I repeatedly asked before, I don't get what is your proposed problem with it.

 

 

The universe is *NOT* 3D, the universe is, at the very least, 4D, and probably a lot more (String theory proposes 11 dimentions, and other theories propose either a larger or smaller number).

 

Human beings percieve their space in 3 dimentions. We cannot explain things easily with 10 dimensions or 11, so we simplify things into 3 dimensions. That's not to say the universe is 3D. Not at all. If it was, we'd be intercepting a lot more than we actually do. We'd be able to manipulate time as we do volume. We cannot, because we only grasp 3 dimensions, and we explain our universe in terms we can understand.

 

 

 

Those are philosophical questions, not scientific questions. What is the ROLE of time in our universe, might be a scientifically valid question, but why did it come to exist in the first place, well, as far as we could postulate there might be other universes with other laws of physics in which time acts different or is nonexistent (that might be.. hard to believe, though, seeing as without time there's no movement). Our universe does have time, and we quantified it to (again) make sense of it. Asking why things are the way they are is meaningless. Asking what it *MEANS* that things are the way they are is the role of physics, mathematics, biology, cosmology, chemistry and other sciences.

 

 

 

It doesn't sound incredible, throng, it just makes no sense.

 

 

This is the weirdest generalized qualifications I've seen. Mathematicians demand math, and it is only "extraordinarily complex" if you don't know what you're looking at. Some things in mathematics -- specifically the basic geometry, which this thread is about -- is incredible simple.

Not all spiritual folk hate logic.

Philosopher do not debunk.

 

Seriously. WTF.

 

 

I think it was said well, it just made no sense. If you think yuo didn't explain yourself properly, please feel free to revise your statements or explanations, but from what I got from your ideas, I think you're trying to impose philosophical thinking into mainstream scientific methodology, and those two just do not fit together. "Why this exists" is philosophy. "What this does" is science.

 

Try to separate between purely natural phenomena (black holes, planets, stars, time, etc) and concepts human beings invented for the sake of clearing up their own questions (like geometry).

 

Geometry was CREATED by man to explain nature. It was purposefully fitted to nature. How can you be so surprised it fits nature....?

 

~moo

 

Yes we did invent geometry as a model.

 

I think the problem is, to establish an origin we can only make a dual comparison, because all definition is relative.

 

We say there are two possibilities, is or isn't. One is absolute but there is no comparitive difference, so we express both simultaneously to express singularity (like a blank page is 'nothing' and the point is 'something'.)

 

Singularity (origin) is 'nothing and something' simultaneously expressed.

[mooeypoo]

We say there are two possibilities, is or isn't. One is absolute but there is no comparitive difference, so we express both simultaneously to express singularity (like a blank page is 'nothing' and the point is 'something'.)

 

No, we don't.. That would be false dichotomy.

 

There are a bunch of cases where our "simplified" geometry isn't enough, and we are stating that a model is simplified on purpose just to help us understand it. For example, the possible shape of the universe; since we know the universe is more than three dimensions, it cannot be represented by a "simple" geometrical shape. But we are imaginative creatures, and we need analogies, so when we speak about it, we create them on purpose - a "donut shape", for instance - knowing full well that they're not REALLY perfect, they just exist to help us imagine that shape.

 

We're not considering things as "either or", throng.

 

That doesn't mean that the simplified geometry is completely meaningless. It just requires adjustments when you deal with more than three dimensions, where it exists.

[throng]

No, we don't.. That would be false dichotomy.

 

There are a bunch of cases where our "simplified" geometry isn't enough, and we are stating that a model is simplified on purpose just to help us understand it. For example, the possible shape of the universe; since we know the universe is more than three dimensions, it cannot be represented by a "simple" geometrical shape. But we are imaginative creatures, and we need analogies, so when we speak about it, we create them on purpose - a "donut shape", for instance - knowing full well that they're not REALLY perfect, they just exist to help us imagine that shape.

 

We're not considering things as "either or", throng.

 

That doesn't mean that the simplified geometry is completely meaningless. It just requires adjustments when you deal with more than three dimensions, where it exists.

 

I actually consider everything either or, even a possibility among many.

 

I try to create a singular construct but I always think if it has no relative how can it be described?

Edited May 11, 2009 by throng

[mooeypoo]

I actually consider everything either or, even a possibility among many.

 

I try to create a singular construct but I always think if it has no relative how can it be described?

Then your thought is fallacious, and apparently more closed minded than the scientists whose theories you claim to disprove.

[throng]

Then your thought is fallacious, and apparently more closed minded than the scientists whose theories you claim to disprove.

 

I think all the theories are constructs with workable functions and my idea is actually completely functionless. So I don't refute of disclaim any construct most of which I don't understand. I just have ideas and try to find a conveyance.

 

I still don't conceive how a singular origin can be expressed without relative properties by which to do so.

 

I think primary space must exist before location is defined. When we have two points the 'primary space' becomes the distance between.

 

I think in more formless terms like a probability in a feild of infinite possibility, infinite sets etc, but still require a fundamental empty space of some sort as primary with which the origin is interactive.

 

[mooeypoo]

I think all the theories are constructs with workable functions and my idea is actually completely functionless. So I don't refute of disclaim any construct most of which I don't understand. I just have ideas and try to find a conveyance.

 

I still don't conceive how a singular origin can be expressed without relative properties by which to do so.

 

I think primary space must exist before location is defined. When we have two points the 'primary space' becomes the distance between.

 

I think in more formless terms like a probability in a feild of infinite possibility, infinite sets etc, but still require a fundamental empty space of some sort as primary with which the origin is interactive.

 

Yes, but that's not science, throng. Science is logic *AND* evidence. It's explaining REALITY, and to show that you are explaining reality, you need to make predictable theories that explain the phenomena they refer to.

 

If you don't have that, you don't have a scientific theory.

[throng]

Yes, but that's not science, throng. Science is logic *AND* evidence. It's explaining REALITY, and to show that you are explaining reality, you need to make predictable theories that explain the phenomena they refer to.

 

If you don't have that, you don't have a scientific theory.

 

I do have a very basic expression that isn't previously considered I don't think.

 

Using math points, we have a primary feild and an inert location, this represents origin, if we draw another point the 'primary feild' becomes the distance consisting of infinite possible locations that preexisted.

 

Consider that two points, a singular distance dimension, doesn't define a relative location, It is fair to consider them two possible locations, and treat the 'primary feild' as non existant.

 

It defines 1D as two locations and nothing else, it disregards the 'nothing'.