Alternate dimensional existance

[Mart]

I refer you to post #21' date=' where I first used the word penumbra in this thread. You can ascribe the later hyphenation to the four hours of sleep and blistering headache caused by last night's mathsathon, but I would point out that since [i']pen[/i] is a non-native prefix the hyphenation is not incorrect, but redundant.

Actually, the definition you used is one of two, and it is the less 'correct' one (insofar as anyone cares how the Catholic church organised its bun fights in days of old.)

Good riposte. I like it.

However, it always helps if we are trying to reach an understanding that terms used are mutally agreed and known to be agreed. I think this may be a basis for "forms of evidence".

Of course, if your intention is to confuse people then anything goes. And again, you may confuse people without intending to.

I'm not in the business of trying to confuse people. What about you?

[Sayonara]

I don't think there is any form of such a business that can be successfully exploited on a public forum.

 

However, there are always people who get confused.

[Mart]

Many people confuse their model of nature with nature.

If you think there is a nature which is distinct from a model of nature than there is a big problem. This has to be an assumption unless you have had direct experience of nature - nature as it is and not seen through our models.

It could be that all there is are models of nature.

[Cadmus]

If you think there is a nature which is distinct from a model of nature than there is a big problem. This has to be an assumption unless you have had direct experience of nature - nature as it is[/b'] and not seen through our models.

I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to me to be suggesting that we should consider our models of nature to be nature. Please tell me that I am wrong.

It could be that all there is are models of nature.

Our species has had models of nature since the beginning of consciousness. Although nature has not changed all that much in the interim, our models have evolved greatly, and currently are evolving at a rate greater than ever in the history of our species. It is not useful to think that our current models are correct where our earlier models have been wrong. Our models are getting closer, but are still not perfect. They can never be perfect, of course, because our species is physicslly limited in how well it can interact with and understand nature.

 

What does your post mean? Are you suggesting that there is no nature, but only human models of it?

[YT2095]

there is "A Nature", as we then later understand it, we can THEN build models of it.

[Mart]

I don't think there is any form of such a business that can be successfully exploited on a public forum.

What? I didn't mean an actual business. I meant it was my intention to act in a one way and not another.

 

However, there are always people who get confused.

Yes there are. I do. Do you? Have you ever had experience of someone deliberately trying to confuse you? Have you ever deliberately tried to confuse someone?

[Mart]

I must be misunderstanding you. You seem to me to be suggesting that we should consider our models of nature to be nature. Please tell me that I am wrong.

You are not misunderstanding me.

But don't get me wrong. I said consider not assume.

 

Our species has had models of nature since the beginning of consciousness. Although nature has not changed all that much in the interim . . .

If our models of nature are nature then they are (as you imply) products of human consciousness

It's an assumption that nature has not changed only if you assume there is nature behind our model of nature. If nature is our model of nature then nature changes as our consciousness changes.

[Cadmus]

It's an assumption that nature has not changed only if you assume there is nature behind our model of nature.

OK. I will continue to make that assumption, and you are free to continue not to.

[YT2095]

If our models of nature are nature then they are (as you imply) products of human consciousness

It's an assumption that nature has not changed only if you assume there is nature behind our model of nature. If nature is our model of nature then nature changes as our consciousness changes.

 

No, there is a fundemental flaw in that arg, here`s how it goes.

 

You may change the pathways in your brain and become conscious of all the living truths out there possible!

that changes nothing.

Actions employing this data in a significant fashion WILL change Nature though.

 

imagine, you know all the secrets of the universe (nature) and then die, the synaptic junctions, dendrites and neurons break down, a little while later the electrons change hands to make new compounds as you rot and decay, nature benefits ZERO from this.

 

and so it`s my opinion, that unless this thought through consciousness is actively employed in a meaningfull manor, the configuration of your brains synapses and neurons is worth little more than a buy one get one free Mc Donalds cheese burger offer!

[Cadmus]

You may change the pathways in your brain and become conscious of all the living truths out there possible!

Do you seriously think that this is possible?

that changes nothing.

On the contrary, that would change everything.

Actions employing this data in a significant fashion WILL change Nature though.

Huh?

imagine, you know all the secrets of the universe

Do you really think it of value to imagine thus?

nature benefits ZERO from this.

I disagree completely with this. Please explain, if you might, how nature would benefit not at all from such an evolutionary leap.

and so it`s my opinion, that unless this thought through consciousness is actively employed in a meaningfull manor, the configuration of your brains synapses and neurons is worth little more than a buy one get one free Mc Donalds cheese burger offer!

Huh?

[Mart]

No' date=' there is a fundemental flaw in that arg, here`s how it goes.

 

You may change the pathways in your brain and become conscious of all the living truths out there possible!

 

that changes nothing.

Actions employing this data in a significant fashion WILL change Nature though.

 

imagine, you know all the secrets of the universe (nature) and then die, the synaptic junctions, dendrites and neurons break down, a little while later the electrons change hands to make new compounds as you rot and decay, nature benefits ZERO from this.

 

and so it`s my opinion, that unless this thought through consciousness is actively employed in a meaningfull manor, the configuration of your brains synapses and neurons is worth little more than a buy one get one free Mc Donalds cheese burger offer![/quote']

I think I get what you're saying. Actions change things, thinking doesn't. OK. Say someone thinks X. Tells it to Y. Is that not an action?

[Bettina]

I know this is basic, but I need to double check.

 

A two dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world has only length and width. If he is driving around his planet can he drive in circles. In other words not just forward, back, and side to side.

 

I'm reading about a fictional character trying to describe a 3 dimensional world to a 2 dimensional being, but it doesn't explain that part good enough.

 

Can he drive around on a table in any direction? (except up or down)

 

Bettina

[john5746]

I don't see why not. He could travel in any x,y direction. Describing a 3rd spacial dimension to a 2-dimension being would be like trying to understand a 4th spacial dimension.

 

For someone to go into the 3rd dimension would be magic. They would just disappear!

[5614]

For someone to go into the 3rd dimension would be magic. They would just disappear!

Huh? I'm in the 3rd dimension, as are you (in that I have height (x), length (y), width (z)) Why would "someone" disappear?

 

A two dimensional being on a 2 dimensional world has only length and width. If he is driving around his planet can he drive in circles. In other words not just forward, back, and side to side.

Just being technical a circle is a 2D shape so if you are on a circle you can only move within 2 dimensions (without leaving the circle), whereas a sphere is like a 3D circle, so a perfectly round football is a sphere, not a circle.

Consequently if his planet is 2D (ie. a circle) he can only move within 2 dimensions.

If his planet is like ours and is 3D (ie. a sphere) he can move within 3 dimensions.

Now time gets more interesting. If time is the 4th dimension and the guy in the 2D world has time there is now a 3rd dimension in the "2D" world even though it is not width (because classically width is the 3rd dimension). So I suppose the obvious question is to officially be a 3D world must the 3rd dimension be width, or can it be time? (I don't know the answer to that!)

 

Can he drive around on a table in any direction? (except up or down)

Yes, a 2d universe would imply that.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Huh? I'm in the 3rd dimension' date=' as are you ([i']in that I have height (x), length (y), width (z)[/i]) Why would "someone" disappear?

 

 

.

 

I think they meant if they were only 2D they would disappear to the others in 2D. Similarly if you are only 3D you would disappear into a fourth dimension.

[Bettina]

Thanks for the clarification. That helps.

 

It is so interesting when you see the problem of how to explain a Sphere to a 2D being. I placed myself directly into the 2D world and tried to imagine what a sphere looked like.

Slicing up a sphere then compressing it so it has only 2 dimensions is one thing, but explaining that it was once a sphere is difficult.

 

Bettina

[bascule]

someone said something about things existing in more that 3 dimentions.

 

I always thought that time was the 4th dimention' date=' but what other dimentions would there be?[/quote']

 

M-theory proposes 10 spatial dimensions and one time dimension.

 

3 of the spatial dimensions are the ones we are familiar with. 6 of them are "compactified", that is closed and highly curved, to the point that we can't experience them.

 

The dualities seen between the 5 string theories seem to be illuminating a higher dimension where the two dimensional strings we experience manifest themselves as large multidimensional membranes, namely p-branes and d-branes. And thus quantum entanglements may indeed be a physical connection in a higher dimensional space.

[Dak]

are dimentions not just metaphores? why do they have to be actuall things? i have width, height and length, but i also have energy, mass and velocity. why are the width, height and length concidered as 'dimentions', whereas energy, mass and velocity not concidered dimentions? to me, it seems strange to assighn 'dimentions' to the directions in which things can exist. my personal thinking is that stuff exists, and stuff has energy. the whole x, y and z thing is convienient for discussing where things exist, but there are no actuall x,y and z 'dimentions' as such, in the same way that time is a useful metaphore for discussing the change and rate of change of matter, but there is no actuall 'dimention' of time.

 

Can he drive around on a table in any direction? (except up or down)

 

Yes' date=' a 2d universe would imply that.[/quote']

 

actually, could he drive on a table if he was only 2D? if you imagine him to exist in the x and y directions, then to be on the table he would have to be a certain distance above the surface of the table, ie a certain distance above the table in the z direction, in which he does not exist, so i dont think that hed be able to travel on the table, as such. he might be able to travel in circles through the surface of the table though.

 

well, this is my first forray into quantumn strangeness, so sorry if none of it made sence

[Bettina]

are dimentions not just metaphores? why do they have to be actuall things? i have width' date=' height and length, but i also have energy, mass and velocity. why are the width, height and length concidered as 'dimentions', whereas energy, mass and velocity not concidered dimentions? to me, it seems strange to assighn 'dimentions' to the directions in which things can exist. my personal thinking is that stuff exists, and stuff has energy. the whole x, y and z thing is convienient for discussing [i']where[/i] things exist, but there are no actuall x,y and z 'dimentions' as such, in the same way that time is a useful metaphore for discussing the change and rate of change of matter, but there is no actuall 'dimention' of time.

 

 

 

actually, could he drive on a table if he was only 2D? if you imagine him to exist in the x and y directions, then to be on the table he would have to be a certain distance above the surface of the table, ie a certain distance above the table in the z direction, in which he does not exist, so i dont think that hed be able to travel on the table, as such. he might be able to travel in circles through the surface of the table though.

 

well, this is my first forray into quantumn strangeness, so sorry if none of it made sence

 

Thats Ok.....I am giving him some thickness....like a piece of paper so I could understand it better. But...you raised a good point. What is he really? What would a 2D world be like?

 

Bettina

[Ophiolite]

What would a 2D world be like?

Come to Britain and view our leading politicians. They don't come much more two dimensional than that.

[ecoli]

Thats Ok.....I am giving him some thickness....like a piece of paper so I could understand it better. But...you raised a good point. What is he really? What would a 2D world be like?

 

Bettina

 

well, seeing as how inhabitant the 3 demensional universe, it would be quite difficult to imagine a 2d one, our experiance simply doesn't allow for it.

[Sayonara]

Unless you're the author of Flatworld, or anyone who has read it, or someone else with similar capacities.

[Dak]

i'd have thought that imagining a 4D world would be harder

[Zeo]

Ok, supposedly, there are supposed to be . . . what, 9 dimensions? Well, regardless, let's just say that the number of dimensions is [x] for easy reading. I propose this: What if we're just living in a world with [x] dimensions that we are simply not aware of? What if there are no dimensions, that that the word 'dimension' is just a concept we apply to geometrical measurements of objects in space? Are there really more dimensions? If there are, what are they? In my opinion, dimensions are variables in the world defining an object. So, with that in mind, couldn't you say that color and smell are dimensions too? No, of course not, at least, not for smell, because smell is really your olfactory receptors responding in a certain way. Color maybe, in terms of wavelength and how things are perceived through our eyes . . .

 

To answer the most precedent question: A 2-d world doesn't seem possible to me, at least, atoms as we perceive them or any other form of matter, no matter how small, could possibly exist within them, because everything has matter. So, by that reasoning, a 2-d world is nearly impossible.

 

Maybe a 3-3 world, with really big w and l values, but an atom wide H value . . .

 

 

Maybe not.

[Bettina]

Ok' date=' supposedly, there are supposed to be . . . what, 9 dimensions? Well, regardless, let's just say that the number of dimensions is [x'] for easy reading. I propose this: What if we're just living in a world with [x] dimensions that we are simply not aware of? What if there are no dimensions, that that the word 'dimension' is just a concept we apply to geometrical measurements of objects in space? Are there really more dimensions? If there are, what are they? In my opinion, dimensions are variables in the world defining an object. So, with that in mind, couldn't you say that color and smell are dimensions too? No, of course not, at least, not for smell, because smell is really your olfactory receptors responding in a certain way. Color maybe, in terms of wavelength and how things are perceived through our eyes . . .

 

To answer the most precedent question: A 2-d world doesn't seem possible to me, at least, atoms as we perceive them or any other form of matter, no matter how small, could possibly exist within them, because everything has matter. So, by that reasoning, a 2-d world is nearly impossible.

 

Maybe a 3-3 world, with really big w and l values, but an atom wide H value . . .

 

 

Maybe not.

 

Whether a 2d world is impossible or not, I want to understand how it could function if it was possible. The article I'm reading about the 4th dimension requires me to understand how I would teach a 2D being the meaning of a 3D world. How I would get him or her to comprehend it even though he cannot see or understand the concept. I am compressing the 3D world into his. Once I can do that, I can apply it to try to understand the 4th dimension concept.

 

It is a kool experiment.

 

Bettina