Imagining in different dimensions

Oh I know this one, quite interesting! :icon_bigg

 

I think the idea of dimensions is a human invention and is not really what is "out there." We have left/right, up/down, forward/backwards built into our shape. So it makes sense for us to see the world in terms of those parts we carry around. But when we look at a 45 degree angle, we have to then do arithmetic to explain where something is located. It seems like every direction must be a dimension. Why should 45 degrees or any degrees off the axes have to be interpreted by a formula based on the axes? I don't buy it. We use dimensions because they are useful for our particular symmetries. They are not real.

is this the right forum for this discussion?

d

 

mathematics did not prove the existence of dimensions (I teach math) It simply assumes them. Check out the postulates for geometry and topology. Mathematics is our model of the world based on our perspective. You can tell that mathematical descriptions of our observations are not identical to the real when you try to emulate the real world in computers. Things that happen instantaneously in the real world must be laboriously calculated before they can be shown.

That does not make math any less fun, but it does clip our wings a little.

drengen

 

nicvcer

if you think about h = root (x squared + y squared)

and then h = root( x squared + y squared + z squared) you can see that we added a dimension and the formula still works. So if we add a fourth dimension, it should work again etc. This is the kind of thinking that led to multiple dimensions. Our mathematics is general enough to deal with dimensions that are figments of our imagination.

But that does not mean there is no significance to these higher dimensions. We add a fourth dimension to graphics all the time in order to solve transformations in Euler. So our mathematics id sonsistent. The question is does it really mean there are dimensions or that should there be dimensions beyond three we hava tool to deal with them in our terms. I think the latter is true.

So math works. It may not mean what we think it meanss however. dimensions are in the eye of the beholder.

 

thinking logically about stuff like this make my soft pink squishy self melt in confusion lol

especially after watching that first video

 

Hail Nicver & drengen! Please allow a venerably ancient philosopher to engage with both of you in this discussion. It would be my privilege, for thou art bold figures emerging in these hallowed forums. The Hellenic gods would be pleased to witness such tete-a-tetes.

The disciplines of Math & Sciences are marvelous displays of imaginative speculations. That's what makes them so viable for spawing creative solutions to the understanding of reality. The problem is that, by toying with remote concepts, these disciplines are apt to fall into error and (for instance) declare that there is more than one existing reality. Posh, I say!

However, I fundamentally agree with drengen that dimensions are illusionary (although practical!). Dimensions can only appear when we can measure distance from one point to another, for measurement is a mathematical/geometric construct. In our universe, we know of absolutely nothing of substances being less than 3-dimensional, nor more than 3-dimensional in spite of claims to the contrary. A "one-dimensional line" on a flat plane is deceiving to the eye, for, if examined under a microscope, we would detect that such a line has depth and width. And, as for space, we are burdened with the concept that space (even Einstein went along with this!) that space is three-dimensional. There is no proof of this. The reality is that space has NO DIMENSIONS WHATSOEVER! Astounding declaration, is this not?

Well, at least an INFINITE SPACE has no dimensions. When it comes to our so-called BIG BANG UNIVERSE, however, it is plausible that one could measure a direction from one edge of such a confined beastie to another edge. However, in an infinite space this universe is but an epi-phenomenon in a phenomanally infinite cosmos. Finite universe at that.

Space is required to be infinite, for it is simply impossible for it to be otherwise. If space were not infinite, then what else could possibly be beyond the limits of a finite space? A brick wall that itself continues infinitely? Or, a NOTHINGNESS? Nonsense! Existence cannot arise from something that does not exist, which is what NOTHINGNESS signifies by definition. No, infinte space has always existed. It could not have been created (No FIRST CAUSE!), and could not have created itself (causa sui, from the Latin). This infinite space cannot age (how could space age?), it is timeless, and never will disappear.

If space were to be totally empty, we could not distinguish distances unless we find at least two bodies in it. The relationship between these bodies could be measured but that's about it. Let's take HYPERSPACE. Here is an extraordinarily useless concept! Yes, some objects (of which we have no secure knowledge of) can be multi-dimensional. But if space is itself dimensionaless it can accommodate any object of whatever dimensions! There is no architecture to space. It is the 3-dimensional objects in space that impose any possible architecture to space. However, that is just a thought. There is no need whatsoever for space to be more than 3-dimensional. As for the 3 dimensions that we are sure of, we cannot have a one-dimensional world, nor a two--dimensional world. That would cause more havoc in speculative mathematics and science than we can bear in our 3-dimensional brains! As for SUPERSTRING THEORY: Give it up boys and girls it ain't gonna work.

As for EXISTENCE itself: there never was a time when existence was not, and there will never be a time when it will cease to exist. Our finite universe, however, will some fine day, collapse, and that will be the end of it for this universe. But fear not, even if we have all perished in this universe, there are likely to be others. Even now, in an infinite space, there are -undoubtedly- an infinite number of other universes. The problem with a never-ending story, like an infinite cosmos, is that it confounds us with a lack of meaning and a lack of purpose. In my estimation, without reflective, self-aware minds in the universe (or in an infinite cosmos as opposed to a finite universe), there can be NO REASON for EXISTENCE. It is we, my dear friends, that impose MEANING and PURPOSE to EXISTENCE.
And with that, Palidin retires to his castle haunts, knowing damn well I'm going to suffer much over these many words. But, alas, a philosopher's life is charmed by his imaginative ways. PALADIN

 

Wow I love the way you think.

 

nicvcer

Your idea about the brain protracting the last instant of life to what feels to be a very long time was interesting to me. I don't buy your exact theory because it is speculation (maybe even wishful thinking), but it has got potential.

Suppose we could find the clock that tells us how fast things are happeing in our subjective world.. I mean our personal clock in our heads, the clock that tells us how fast time seems to be passing. Then suppose we could alter that clock to run at a slower speed. Our perception of time would change so that more thoughts could be processed. Another way of saying this is that we would experience more lifetime in the same amount of real world time.

This is not such a crazy idea. Nice thinking.

 

Mon cher garcon Nicvcer... I've shortened another piece I had prepared for an answer, for I reflected on it and the "babble" was more to satisfy my pretensions than to produce an answer that would be more serviceable for you. I chopped this up to directly address some of your pithy statements, which are very much well-configured and substantial.

1) You stated: "I think the Nothingness desired existence, thus we have existence." My comment: If a Nothingness could desire existence, that implies that Nothingness already existed & that Nothingness was NOT Nothingness but Somethingness, which could not be because Nothingness cannot be Somethingness at the same time it is Nothingness, Right?
2) If Nothingness had a beginning, from what source did it arise from? Somethingness? (The same problem arises for A FIRST CAUSE when I proposed an answer to the existence of infinity. But an infinite space, for example, is already something. It is basically an EMPTINESS, a "hole," to put it crudely; but, a hole, is a palpable thing. You know a hole when you see one! Thus, an Emptiness - a container for mass (a requirement to have before substance can be present - which we understand to be space, is Something, rather than Nothing, that has existed always and will persist without end, come what may).
3) Something that is infinite defies the notion of a beginning of any kind. It is eternal as well as infinite {infinity and eternity are interchageable terms} Your concept of infinity/eternity. howerver, is that it had a beginning. This is not infinity/eternity; it is what philosophers and theologians refer to as aevi-eternity; that is, something that has a beginning but no end, i.e. like the number one for example: a start but no end to the following series of numerals. In that case what instituted the "one?"
4) You stated: " It is the only conclusion that I am comfortable with." My comment: Well, that is a sort of belief (like religion) when it is probably quite the opposite.
5) You stated: "It saddens me that we will never...be able to reveal the true reasoning behind existence." My comment: With this, you are quite likely to be correct.
6)The one great consolation for the dead is that they are not lonely anymore! There are far more dead than there are living (although with the proclivity of the human race's desire to breed without control, this may change).
7) PREY, clasped in the jaws of predators, i.e., lions, crocs, sharks, large Mad Hares, etc., appear to sink into some sort of a coma before dying, which deadens their pain before they are consumed (Nature is not all that cruel, after all). Furthermore, humans, who have been seized by prey, but have survived an attack, relate that they fell into a kind of stupor and accepted the condition, feeling an overwhelming peace at the probability of their immediate demise. In an experience of my own, when much younger, an elephant tried to devour me, thinking (I guess) that I was some kind of fruit...NO! just trying to amuse you! However, while swimming off the coast of Florida (Daytona), I was caught in an undertow, bringing me quite a distance from shore. I struggled to swim back in but the current was too powerful for me to fight off. I thought: 'If the sharks don't get me first, I will surely drown, for I was so fatigued that I just floated on my back awaiting destiny to unfold. At that moment, a surge of calmness took over, and I gave up my struggle, resigned to die and not feeling bad about it at all. Voila! that was just the right thing to do, for by relaxing my grip, my body was carried back by the resurging undertow to a shallower depth where my itsy-bitsy toes touched the soft sand below. A group of people where gathered on the beach, while some really pudgy lifeguard was getting into his rescue boat to motor towards me. His motor, however, was sputtering on and off. I would have been caught again by that undertow, but my "under-toes" grabbed the sand and, like a ground mole in water, I succeeded in grabbing enough land to walk out. What an experience, and coughing up lots of seawater to boot and a tiny octupus (no, just kidding there).
8) Nicvcer, we simply do not know if death is the final state. To all appearances, however, it probably is. We have no credible evidence to the contrary. Maybe, just maybe, there is evidence but we are not prepared to see it or , even, to acknowledge it. Keep hoping. There is no harm in that.