How do you determine an object to be three-dimensional if you’re only seeing the surface area of it? This isn’t a trick question, I promise. This is asking you specifically. Don’t refer to outside sources for answers; this isn’t that kind of question.
Using your answer to question 1, how could an object greater than 3-dimensions be translated to you? If you don’t think such an object could exist, then do you also not accept the premise that spacetime is greater than three-dimensional?
Spacetime is “4d or 3+1 d”, and you can perceive six-directions simply by looking around you, is there any other possibly-not-so-intuitive-but-still-pretty-goddamn-obvious directional pair that you are capable of looking which runs perpendicular to length, width, and height at every point in space? Remember, that’s an important aspect of dimensionality… All dimensions are perpendicular to all other dimensions at every point in space - refer to xyz coordinate system, etc (I’m begging you not to argue this point with me). All this means is that if you look in any singular direction, are there two “other” directions which you’re also capable of looking without actually turning your focus away from the exact xyz coordinate where you are looking?
Mind you, these aren’t trick questions, and you should actually think about the answer before giving a reactionary emotional sarcastic response. The full questions are in post #203. I would advise reading that first, so as to avoid some of the more obvious pitfalls which have already been addressed.
The “argument” I’m alluding to is we very, very clearly live in a four-dimensional environment but more importantly that there is a very, very clear directional pair (“spatial” dimension) which denotes exactly what that fourth dimension IS, and what it looks like. This has only been overlooked because of bad habits such as people referring to our reality as “three-dimensional” and THEN attempting to tack “time” on at the end, instead of incorporating “time” in from the beginning. “Time” very obviously has a spatial-representation if you realize that surface area is in fact a function of two-dimensions, not of three. Please don’t address this paragraph if you haven’t taken the time to think about and respond to the paragraphs above.
The theme I see in your posts over and over again is that we do not agree with you because we do not understand you, when it is entirely possible(and in my opinion, probable) that we understand you completely and still think you are wrong.
This is why learning is important. If you had properly learned reading comprehension, you’d have realized that the sentence:
“Then, once you realize you are utterly incapable of doing so, you can rejoice in your newfound knowledge”
was in direct reference to the statements which preceded it within the paragraph. Allow me to demonstrate:
…either LEARN something - or at least understand it well enough to disprove it on merit rather than sarcasm and emotion. I’m actually WELCOMING that. But you can only do that if you take a few minutes (and that’s honestly all it would take) to understand what I’m saying.
see how much easier things are when you take an extra few seconds to process rather than raging at comments which aren’t even being made?
Now this is a good observation.
And indeed it doesn’t.
You’re trying to get too much out of a system that isn’t really a system but more something an extrapolated nomenclature.
See the actual 1st dimension and 2nd dimension don’t really exist. They are just concepts derived from the xyz axis as we use it.
They could just as easily have been called direction X direction Z and direction Y.
The only true dimension is 3D.
Time is indeed, as you have noticed, a totally different concept from the xyz axis.
It does work in conjunction with it but ‘4th dimension’ is just another made up term.
However arbitrary they may be the dimensions 1 through 4 are already in use. If you want to come up with a new concept call it something new.
No rage; this site is for amusement purposes only for me. And your rebuttal is incoherent.
In your reply to the first reply on one of the other boards where you pasted your mess of an OP, you wrote “Please assure me YOU aren’t the shining example of a “great mind” of your species.”
Are you an entirely different species? If so, cool. That is much more interesting to me than all of your bullshit about space and time. I’ve read insane babbling about space and time often, but I’ve never conversed with another species. What species are you?
Because there is shading and light hits things is different ways to make clues that they, in fact, have a height, width, and depth. We can extrapolate that the object will be the same on the other side because we have a reasonable expectation of what exists based on previous interactions. For example, I currently cannot see the back of this moniter, but I know it has a VGA port and a power outlet on the other side.
Surface area has always been found by using the measure of the object’s three dimensions so are you saying surface area is a dimension?
I’m trying hard to understand you, Anthem.
EDIT: I’m also wondering where you have gained your scientific knowledge, why we should give you credence over dedicated scientists, and what the deal is with the alternate timeline thing. Are you Billy Pilgrim’s scientific twin (or a Tralfamadore)?
Do you have any reason for claiming this to be the case other than the fact that conceiving of dimensions individually isn’t something which is immediately intuitive?
I only ask because under my framework “the first two dimensions” also reveal themselves, and they do so following the same premise using infinity. However, that’s working forward from our perception, which has to be to the starting point.
It’s almost as though you’re claiming that the xyz axis is somehow the starting point rather than where our perception led us, which is demonstrably untrue. That sort of lazy intellectualism is the reason we’re in this mess to begin with. The xyz coordinate system only applies to dimensionality on our scale. We have no means whatsoever of determining the internal three-dimensional coordinates of atoms, let alone elementary particles and “science” is well aware of that fact. Hell, on those scales, reality overlaps itself, so how could you possibly apply an xyz system to it?
But that was good. Try the other questions as well if you wouldn’t mind. You may change your mind about that 4th dimension not having an obvious visual representation.
???
Why would I do that when the same system can be defined in either way and come to the same conclusion? I’m not changing anything, I’m actually defining the same dimensions using the concept of multiple infinities rather than blindly assuming that 3-spatial dimensions exist merely because I said so. I have no reason to DEFINE dimensionality based on my perception of it, and I’m therefore not doing it…but I’m coming to the same conclusion as your blind assumption either way, so how is this a bad thing?
You’re actually defending the concept of dimensionality as it exists while simultaneously admitting your concept of it to be completely arbitrary. Why would you possibly do such a thing?
This is a bit of a snarky video but it is my serious response to your question because it commits a similar logical problem, here.
We might just be seeing a two-dimensional projection (the light) from the object, but it still implies the attributes of three-dimensions (length, depth, height) for which we can verify by walking around the object and seeing it from different angles, etc, as we do with everything else in our world.
When you start getting into metaphysics about what something “is” or “is like,” it’s all very interesting discussion but totally useless when it comes to empirical truth simply because there are infinitely many answers that are all internally consistent but lacking in any meaningful verification in reality.
If we somehow had a tesseract in our midst, we’d just see its projection or “shadow.” Of course, you’re making a huge number of assumptions in your question. We don’t know yet if such an object exists or can exist, so we can’t really speak one way or the other. Fourth-dimensional spacetime means something rather specific (under, say, relativity) insofar as time is the “fourth dimension,” and while time and space are tied together under spacetime, it doesn’t mean you can suddenly start talking about tesseracts plunging through our world like a sphere through the world of Flatlanders.
The problem is that mathematical rules, when extrapolated, don’t necessarily relate to reality. We build the math around reality and then see how far the math can take us with respect to prediction. We could take the rules on and on and on and start talking about the 10000th dimension if we really wanted to, and it’d all be mathematically consistent. But if it doesn’t really say anything about our reality, what good is it other than an exercise in intellectual masturbation?
The other issue is that I’m not sure you understand how spacetime works in today’s scientific framing. We do couple together space and time in the same continuum because it helps to treat them as dimensions we can move through, since the math works and is reflected in physical observation (relativistic physics). But again, this doesn’t mean you can suddenly extrapolate what you want and have it work. Internal consistency doesn’t mean anything without empirical verification of some sort.
we visually perceive 3 dimensions because of depth perception. this is an aspect you are willfully disregarding in your feeble attempt to make a point. but it is the sole aspect that changes 2-d surface visualization to 3-d perception.
it cannot be translated visually. every other aspect of this question is moot as you are trying to mix visual sciences with physics. we cannot see in more than 3 dimensions. here’s why.
you’ve shifted from VISION and how VISION works to talking about “perceptions.”
VISION is fairly well understood. you are off the trail of the concept. we cannot ***see ***in more than 3 dimensions.
Let’s see. If you’ve answered some of these, feel free to skip them. But I think you haven’t responded to these. And no more garbage about what dimension you’re hurrying off to:
So you’re taking the “shut up” option out of “put up or shut up”. I’m not asking for mathematical proof for everything we already know is true. I am asking YOU to give mathematical proof for ANYTHING - just one little solitary fact - that YOU and YOU ALONE believe to be true. You’ve offered dozens, if not hundreds of such assertions in this thread. Back one of them up. Or admit that you’re pulling this all out of your ass.
Here, I’ll offer an example. You stated upthread that it takes 42 minutes to cross infinity. Those are your words. Now, speaking as a scientist, if I were to make such a claim, I would need to back it up. I can think of two ways to do so.
First would be empirical observation. I did the experiment, and this is what I measured. If this is how you arrived at your 42 minute number, please provide the following information: How was the experiment done? What object made the trip? What, precisely, was the “infinity” that was crossed? How did the object travel? How was time measured? Against what was it calibrated? How many times did you repeat the experiment, and what variance did you see?
The other way I can think of to get a number like that is pure mathematical reasoning. I started with THESE values, applied THESE equations for THESE reasons, and got THIS result. Again, if this is how you did it, please explain clearly and precisely what values, equations, and logic you used to get that result.
If there is some other method of arriving at the value of 42 minutes, please explain, in depth, how you got it. Note that “this is what my gut tells me” is not a valid explanation.
Also please note that this is exactly the same standard of evidence and scrutiny that each and every scientific paper ever published goes through. If you don’t like it, well, why should your theory be given weight or credence when you haven’t done the work to provide evidence that stands up under such scrutiny? If you like, this is the peer review process. If you want anyone to take your ideas seriously, YOU have to convince them. Skepticism is the job of the peer group, and rightly so. The burden of proof is on you. It’s not OUR job to just blindly accept whatever any random person tells us. It’s YOUR job to prove it.
I think he realizes a lot of his claims are incorrect. After re-reading and researching his mirror theory I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s incorrect.
HE IS CORRECT ON THE 2 DIMENSIONAL SIGHT.
He is trying to make us think, apparently. I never sat down and realized I only see in two dimensions, that 3D sight is just an illusion from my brain and the development of binocular vision. It was rather enlightening.
