A Fifth Dimension?

[Iacchus]

This metaphor is too abstract for you to understand? Seriously?

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know?

 

[uruk]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know?

Boy I'd say you got it wrong. If there is no third dimension there would not be the zero for the height. It's not even a variable to be considered. The formula for area is simply length X width. No height. 2D means no third dimension.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know?

You just calculated volume of something that doesn't have a volume.

The two dimensions would just go 3*4=12

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know?

Yep. Your mind appears to be solidly locked into only thinking in three dimensions. hmm....

Iacchus, how many dimensions does height have?

 

[Iacchus]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? I don't know?

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

 

[Upchurch]

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

Your not understanding dimensionality means that the universe had to have been designed? Iacchus, please don't be so naive. There are much simpler conclusions that can be drawn from this one fact.

 

[Iacchus]

You just calculated volume of something that doesn't have a volume.

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

The two dimensions would just go 3*4=12

Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?

 

[uruk]

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

Willfull........ignorance....appro...approaching critical.....mass....Head will....soon .....im....implode.........YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! -==SSSUUUUUUUUKK.==-*pop*


Seriously, who said it evolved one piece at a time?

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?

I know i'll regret saying this, but.

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"

And the answer is. YES YOU CAN.

 

[Iacchus]

I know i'll regret saying this, but.

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"

And the answer is. YES YOU CAN.

 

[uruk]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?

What ever the substance of this 2d realm is would also be two dimensional. although there would be some 2D physicists who postulate a thoeretical 3rd spatial dimension for which they would have mathmatical description of but would have a hard time visualising. Though I'm certain that others will say that there is an intelligent entity that existed beyond thier 2d universe that created them.

 

[.13.]

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"

That sounds something like Iacchus-4D would say...

 

[TobiasTheViking]

That sounds something like Iacchus-4D would say...

<sarcasm>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you don't say</sarcasm> :/

Sincerely
Tobias

Preaching to the Choir

 

[kmortis]

Forward, not up.

Or words to that effect.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Forward, not up.

Or words to that effect.

huh?

 

[kmortis]

huh?

SPHERE. Now stretch your imagination a little, and conceive
a Square in Flatland, moving parallel to itself upward.

I. What? Northward?

SPHERE. No, not Northward; upward; out of Flatland altogether.

Ok, I should have said "Northward, not upward".

 

[drkitten]

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?

Of course he does. He's seen Star Trek, and Superman 2, and so forth.

Of course, he apparently regards them as documentaries.....

 

[Upchurch]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

...what is the volume of a dream? or a spirit? How tall, wide, and deep are dreams and spirits?

You think these things exist, right? So, according to your ...statement... above, these things must have substance and, thus, volume.

You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?

The two dimensional plane would be the somewhere, but don't worry about that now. You are so mired in 3-dimensionality, you aren't prepared to think in those terms yet. We have to get you crawling before we can get you to fly.

 

[Iacchus]

...what is the volume of a dream? or a spirit? How tall, wide, and deep are dreams and spirits?

You think these things exist, right? So, according to your ...statement... above, these things must have substance and, thus, volume.

Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no.

The two dimensional plane would be the somewhere, but don't worry about that now. You are so mired in 3-dimensionality, you aren't prepared to think in those terms yet. We have to get you crawling before we can get you to fly.

Apparently not, because I believe that spirits exist. Why don't you? And we all know that Uruk doesn't believe in spirits or, this is what I have assessed, but why would he/she say something like this? ...

What ever the substance of this 2d realm is would also be two dimensional. although there would be some 2D physicists who postulate a thoeretical 3rd spatial dimension for which they would have mathmatical description of but would have a hard time visualising. Though I'm certain that others will say that there is an intelligent entity that existed beyond thier 2d universe that created them.

 

[kmortis]

Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no.

Apparently not, because I believe that spirits exist. Why don't you? And we all know that Uruk doesn't believe in spirits or, this is what I have assessed, but why would he/she say something like this? ...

The belief in spirits is not neccessary to use extra dimensions. According to certain cosmologies, more than 4 dimensions fit the mathematics quite nicely.

This, however, is not the frelling point, idit? No, the point is, multiple people have been trying to explain the 2^nd dimension to you. You, on the other hand, have either been pulling their chain, or being willfully ignant. Do you grasp the 2-D concept or not? Can we advance this point or do we have to stay mired here?