So which came first, "volume" as a whole? Or, dimension A + dimension B + dimension C. How can any of these be defined without their reference to "the whole?" Shouldn't the whole exist first, before you can begin to decide it has any dimensions? Or, if not, then what do we have that exists outside of "nothing?"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?
And yes, "understanding" is a dimension in and of itself, and this is the dimension that I prefer most to work with.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Time and space are not, as this statement of yours implies, "a dimension." Space is three dimensions in itself, for a start.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
No I don't believe in spirits because I have not seen one or experianced anything that would lead me to believe that they exist. I'll believe as soon as I have that experiance.
The first sentence of what you quoted was an attempt to get you to think in 2d concerning the balloon issue. Remeber the 2D people only know of thier 2D realm any other dimensions are not observable to them and, for all intents and purposes, are non-existant as far as they are concerned. Now apply that to our 3d realm. We can only observe our 3 spatial dimensions. Any other spatial dimentions are beyond our ability to grasp or observe (at the moment) and are therefore, for all intent and purposes, non-existant to us.
The second sentence was an illustration that though we cannot yet experiance any other spatial dimensions we can at least hypothesis and theorise about them because we have a tool and language to do so. Mathmatics.
The third sentence was just sarcasm. Sorry
I prefer to think in terms of "planes" of existence. And time and space is a plane of existence in that sense ... just as the spiritual world -- if it exists? -- is a plane of existence.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Then your talking about two different things. "planes of existance" and spatial dimensions are not the same thing.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You think the universe is two-dimensional?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You usually have "Gain" first, followed by "Treble," "Middle" and "Bass," then "Reverb" and "Master Volume."
And by experience, do you mean in the sense that you find a means to contact them? Or, would it be enough to make it sound plausible? For example, in the way scientists "predict" that black holes exist?
It's just kind of hard to imagine anything existing in less than three dimensions. Since the surface area of an object with "no height" (meaning it doesn't exist) is equal to zero.
Well, yes, then I guess I shouldn't be made to feel like an idiot for trying to understand things in these terms.
Could it be because the mind itself is the fifth dimension? It seems to be able to conceptualize everything in the first four dimensions -- and then some!
I was kind of wondering about that.
Well, without the surface area of the water -- contingent upon the water beneath it that is -- would you be able to float your boat?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
It would really help things along if you learned to use words correctly rather than relying on sci-fi definitions. What you are saying doesn't match up with what I think you are trying to say.Iacchus said:And yes, "understanding" is a dimension in and of itself, and this is the dimension that I prefer most to work with.
Understanding is not a dimension in and of itself. However, in a futile exercise to show you why, let me ask: If understanding is a dimension, how do you measure understanding?
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Both would be equaly well. The only difference would be that a personal contact experiance would be less reliable especially if I'm the only one that can see or hear them. Without independent, objective verification or evidence I would have to assume that those experiance could be delusional or hallucinatory.
BTW, Black holes have been proven to exist. The Hubble space telescope provided the evidence. (enough at least to convince the majority of astronomers and physicist 99.9%)
See here:
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html#9
Quoted from above article:
"10. How does the Hubble Space Telescope search for black holes?
A black hole cannot be viewed directly because light cannot escape it. Effects on the matter that surrounds it infer its presence. Matter swirling around a black hole heats up and emits radiation that can be detected. Around a stellar black hole this matter is composed of gas and dust. Around a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy the swirling disk is made of not only gas but also stars. An instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, called the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), was installed in February 1997. STIS is the space telescope's main "black hole hunter." A spectrograph uses prisms or diffraction gratings to split the incoming light into its rainbow pattern. The position and strength of the line in a spectrum gives scientists valuable information. STIS spans ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths. This instrument can take a spectrum of many places at once across the center of a galaxy. Each spectrum tells scientists how fast the stars and gas are swirling at that location. With that information, the central mass that the stars are orbiting can be calculated. The faster the stars go, the more massive the central object must be.
STIS found the signature of a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy M84. The spectra showed a rotation velocity of 400 km/s, equivalent to 1.4 million km every hour! The Earth orbits our Sun at 30 km/s. If Earth moved as fast as 400 km/s our year would be only 27 days long!"
I guess it would be equally hard for a 4D being to visualize a realm with only 3 spatial dimensions since no "schmalts" (meaning that it does not exist) or is equal to zero. That's the point i'm trying to make. It very hard to think in terms we are unfamiliar or have no experiance with. But we do have math to help us out in this particular situation.
I know. it's very difficult for me too.
The thing is that you need some sort of frame work that is self consistant before you go into trying to describe something that is outside our everyday experiance or understanding. We can talk about extra dimensions using math because it is a self consistant framework.
I don't think it falls under the accepted definition of what a spatial dimension is. Just be warned that you redefine words at your own risk.
Speaking of which....
Sorry, I am pathalogicaly sarcastic. Sometimes I don't even know when I'm being sarcastic. My wife usualy smacks me in the back of my head when I am.I was kind of wondering about that.
Perhaps another way to look at this is with the image below ...
Here, the first circle (top left), albeit it is a representation of height versus width (two dimensions), can also be used to project the four dimensions of time and space -- "spherically" that is. Hence where all four points come together, in the center of the circle as well as the sphere, we have "perception" (5). Which, is the whole point ... If we don't perceive (5), we don't understand.
Also, since our perception comes from heaven above (5), and we are grounded to the earth below (6), a synchronicity exists between heaven and earth ... ESP or, the sixth sense anyone? Hence the marriage (7) of Heaven (5) and earth (6) ... (567).
Last edited:
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Perhaps another way to look at this is with the image below ...
Here, the first circle (top left), albeit it is a representation of height versus width (two dimensions), can also be used to project the four dimensions of time and space -- "spherically" that is. Hence where all four points come together, in the center of the circle as well as the sphere, we have "perception" (5). Which, is the whole point ... if we don't perceive (5), we don't understand.
And, since our perception comes from heaven above (5), and we are grounded to the earth below (6), a synchronicity exists between heaven and earth. ESP or, the "6th sense" anyone? Hence the marriage (7) of Heaven (5) and earth (6) ... (567).
If we're gonna pull a Kilik, let's do it right....
So, at the top, we have Keter. This is the path to the divine. Some link it to the Crown Chakra.
Next, there is Binah and Chocomah (Understanding and wisdom). You notice that two of the three connections from Keter connect to these two. Obviously this implies that our understanding and wisdom are supplied to us by our connection to the divine.
Now we move to Gevurah and Chesed (rigor and compassion). As Gevurah follows Binah, so does our rigidness flow from our understanding. They are tempered, however, with Chesed; Chesed comes from our wisdom.
In the middle is Tifferet (Beauty). Tifferet is the sum of the divine, our wisdom, understanding and everything else. It is obvious that this beauty isn't necessarily our physical beauty, but our spiritual as well.
Aww, hell, you get my point; which is I can ramble off a bunch of mystical crap that doesn't get us any closer to explaining to you about the different dimensions.
Let me try it this way. They're mathematical constructs we use to help us analyitically describe the universe and its resultant phenomenon (doo-doo-dee-doo-doo). Ever do any linear algebra? the fifth dimension is the fifth cell in a 10-dimensional array. Get it?
Please see the representation above. And no, I don't mean "Ricky Mortis'" either. Thanks.
Why? Just to obscure the issue? ... I don't see why else?
Last edited:
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Why not? Nothing else has seemd to get the point across. Why not obfuscation?
Tricky
Briefly immortal
You forgot Iacchus' favorite. Distortion.