Calling all Great Minds: The Theory of Everything

Well it is encouraging that the debate has trimmed down from the insane to simply the misguided.

Very simple and very observable. The “science” of taking our 3-d world and putting it down onto a 2-D surface is called drawing and Brunelleschi back in the 1400’s published extensive MATH regarding the subject.

Of course we’re not limited to measuring information in 2 of those dimensions. The simple proof is that we can move about in all 3 dimensions. We can describe the position of things in 3 dimensions (x,y,z). We can hold things. More salient to your “perspective” argument: we can see THROUGH things. All of this is just as “obvious” as the fact that we can only see surfaces. I’m not even sure why this is even a point of contention. Why don’t you address any of this?

I’m assuming you’re talking about time and not a 4th spatial dimension. Have you seen a flip book? A movie? That’s how we account for the 4th dimension. There are also physical representations of spatial 4-d figures like a tesseract.

If the dimension you’re referring to is time? It does not follow the rules of spatial dimensions. It only flows one way and we can only observe in one (and opposite) direction. The “observation” does not work the same as visual sight for, ahem, OBVIOUS REASONS.

But if you would PLEASE answer these questions (and take time to really think about these):

  1. What questions are you posing to us that is supposed to be esoteric or mindblowing?
  2. What exactly is your theory?
  3. How does this theory apply to everything?
  4. Why do you think those who post on this board are such sheep?
  1. I guarantee he doesn’t have a degree in any form of college.
  2. From any establishment, there is naught.
  3. He was trying to act like he’s better than everyone else and realized it was a foolish attempt.

i would like to have a discussion with you about sock puppets…

you have *weird *timing registering for this very-and-only conversation.

:dubious glare:

Enough.

This isn’t appropriate. If you think someone is socking, tell the mods.

I got on this site when I googled “In what order did the senses evolve” and saw there was a lot of intelligent discussion going on, then started looking around. I registered to post my opinions on this topic, but I also did on a few others. I’m assuming socking is having multiple accounts? But I’m sure if the mods checked, his IP and mine would be drastically different.

He’s definitely backpeddling. There’s no more talk about dark matter or asteroid belt inversion, or the number 42.

He’s… partially right on the 2-dimensional sight. We do only surfaces but we can also see through things. More importantly (and I’m slightly embarrassed for not bringing this up earlier) we can see REFLECTIONS. With a system of mirrors I can most definitely view an object from any number of spatial axes.

edit: I don’t think James is a double account. He posts in other threads whereas the OP only lends his expertise to this particular thread.

I suppose that’s true… But it’s still light reflecting from a surface, so it’s 2D. That’s my understanding, at least.

Area is mathematically a function of TWO dimensions. Area itself doesn’t “require” other dimension(s) to calculate, and therefore surface area itself doesn’t in the absolute strictest sense, but for all practical purposes, you’re dealing with more than 2 dimensions if you’re calculating surface area. So yes, it “requires” at least three dimensions - AT LEAST being the key part, not THREE DIMENSIONS

But the questions are asking you to examine what you consider to be three-dimensional. Don’t just take it for granted that reality is 3D, think about what that means. Yes it means height, width, and depth, but think deeper than that layer. How does the object behave, how is it shaped, how does light interact with its surface, does the internal composition change, etc? 3D is not ONLY a shape of an object, it’s the objects identity. And if you can only SEE two of those dimensions, then you have pay very close to attention to any patterns which are emergent on the surface specifically because you CAN’T see anything else.

example: the surface of a third billiard ball is consistently red. Ignoring paint wearing off, abuse, tampering, etc, that ball will remain red on the surface. It doesn’t spin or move unless prompted to do so. However, if that billiard ball were to turn from red, to blue, to yellow, then back following a predictable pattern, while also then clearly there is some element at play which is being overlooked and your inherent deficiency at ONLY being able to intuit the two-dimensional surface is preventing that element from being obvious. There are two solutions to this quandary: You can confound the issue by adding additional layers of complexity, OR you can consider the possibility that one of YOUR original premises is incorrect…for example, what if, just WHAT IF the infinitely huge, spinning, surface-morphing billiard ball ISN’T actually three-dimensional. Just what if? What would that change about your perception of the billiard ball, what patterns would emerge, and how could you check to see if that was in fact that case?

Example aside, reexamine your previous response. You have no idea what the back of shadowed half (or more) of ANY object looks like without precedent. You have no idea what the back of your monitor looks like just by examining the front of it. However, if you actually saw in three-dimensions, you could see the entire monitor, INSIDE AND OUT, without needing to adjust your frame of reference at all. We clearly do not see the world like that, and we need to stop telling ourselves that we do. That creates a false base of knowledge which eventually becomes accepted and expanded on, despite that initial gross misperception. It’s a subtle change, but changing this ONE variable to adjust for our perception paints an entirely new picture of reality which is consistent with OUR everyday reality in every way, AND it renders outer space sensible.

We only SEE light, and light behaves in very specific and predictable ways.

I’ve studied these fields my entire life. I am more than qualified to discuss modern physics in most any facet. At some point I grew weary of answering every new question which arose with “we don’t really know what’s going on, but…”, so I started from the ground up, erased every assumption we take for granted, found a few GLARINGLY obvious oversights which our math has been based on (three-dimensionality being the biggest culprit), made the slightest adjustment, and shit myself as I realized that although nothing had changed mathematically, suddenly it at least made perfect sense WHY we don’t see these things.

The thing most people don’t understand about math as it relates to physics is that it isn’t INTUITIVELY consistent. Very much of it is based off of assumptions which we all take for granted, such as dimensionality and soforth. You would be shocked if you realized how much of higher order math in physics is forced into fitting yet presented as though it’s clear as day. This isn’t to say Math should be ignored, but rather the exact opposite: people should pay MORE attention to concepts they take for granted. And not just to disprove them, but to validate their own assumptions. This is HOW we learn…not just by attacking new concepts, but by validating our own assumptions. I’ve been teaching for a long time and I’ve learned a trick or two.

Truth is almost always as evident as it APPEARS to be, and rarely even what we’ve declared it as being. But there’s a limit to that concept; and identifying exactly where that limit is, exactly what that limit looks like, and exactly what happens when it is exceeded is paramount. Apply the scientific method directly to the concept I’m trying to outline, and see where it takes you.

Hmmm…I’m gonna go get Angua and see if she wants to play. Adding an astrophysicist to this thread can only make it better, right?

Yes, but don’t get too carried away.
The fact that it is our brain that combines two 2d images into a 3d one doesn’t mean 3d is an illusion.
It just means we have develloped the means to perceive depth. Depth is real.
Some creatures, without binocular vision, can’t perceive it.

Just like we can see the colour red and lot of other animals can’t. It doesn’t mean red is totally illusional. Just as that we can’t see ultra violet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist for real.

Walk around it.

You are making arguments from authority, but you have failed to establish yourself as a legitimate authority.

You have stated some things that are simply and demonstrably false and have failed to address any questions about them. The simplest example is your statement that “Earth is a ball of water”.

Why won’t you mention your credentials or tell us how a planet where the water constitutes way less than 1% of its mass can accurately be called a ball of water?

I just farted.

No, no, no. I’m not asking you to guess about what I’m asking you, I’m asking you a very simple question:

what criteria do YOU (you specifically) use to determine the three-dimensionality of an object. Is it based on anything other than the assumption that all objects are three-dimensional?

Stop jumping three steps ahead and answer the bleeding question please. I didn’t mention anything projections. Don’t complicate something this simple.

interesting you mention the tesseract. What would it be like to exist INside the “three-dimensional shadow projetion” of a tesseract if you could only perceive light reflecting off of exposed surface areas? If you understand the first thing about higher-dimensionality, this should be an interesting response.

This is precisely why I removed all the extrapolations and began at square one. I haven’t mentioned anything about ANYTHING other than surface area as it relates to dimensionality in about two pages now.

And the human propensity to deliberately IGNORE our own inherently flawed perceptions on the blind hope that science and math will be explain the totality of reality instead of only the physical reality we can SEE (light, and light only) is the exact reason why we’re stuck on triflingly simple concepts such as dark matter. Light is such a small portion of reality. Gravity is gargantuan in its extent, but it doesn’t have a physical representation like light does. This isn’t as problematic as it sounds if you first understand that physical reality is only a fractional percentage of what IS.

Dark matter isn’t invisible just to be invisible…it’s only invisible to us because LIGHT isn’t reflecting off of it! Stop following light, start following GRAVITY, and it suddenly appears.

I very well understand how spacetime works. I’m not working off of a cheat sheet that I can use to impress ignorant friends, I actually understand what 3+1 dimensional MEANS. For instance, I understand that 2+1 dimensionality mathematically works far better to describe our earthbound reality than 3+1 dimensionality, which is really only useful for describing outer space once you understand 2+1 dimensionality. I understand that the only reason this 2+1 dimensional model hasn’t been fully adopted is because it completely breaks down in outer space. I also, after reworking the very tenets of 3+1 dimensionality to compensate for the errors, understand that 3+1 dimensionality similarly breaks down when applied to our earthbound dimensionality. I understand a great deal about these subjects, and I understand that the goal is to unite them…which can easily be done by adding OUR PERCEPTION in on the front end of the equation, rather than ignoring it entirely. This not only resolves any contradictions between earthbound and outer space dimensionality, it answers damn near every question which has plagued mankind since the beginning of recorded history. This is truly a theory of EVERYTHING, not just of science. And it’s simple as all shit. Please don’t turn this into a discussion about MY understanding of math, physics, spacetime, or anything else which you are only aware of due to the hard work of other people. Anyone can memorize facts. Understanding the connected bits is something else entirely, and it requires a mind which isn’t a slave to the unevolved ideas of others.

And there is a veritable orgy of empirical verification of what I’m saying, but I refuse to address it further until there is some understanding reached on the actual simple parts of what I’m saying. Which is that the physical particulate matter we see and interact with is absolutely, 100% dependent on light on the surface area of objects.

So long as you all are arguing this blindly obvious point based on nothing more than your own aversion to the conclusions I began with, I can’t move onto anything more. Cut that out and focus on the point at hand.

But we have countless precedents. We know things are 3D because we maneuver through them and around them, etc. We generally understand that even though we only see part of an object at a time, there is more to the object even though we don’t see everything at once.

Are you trying to argue that we’re part of some quantum holographic world/simulation/supercomputer, analogous to a video game? Where we only see 2D projections of objects rendered?

No matter what your answer to that is, the point is that we don’t need such a hypothesis. Right now, current mathematics/observations warrant a 3D spatial world until we’re shown that something more is needed and that a better framework can explain it all. So far, no such examples exist.

So your argument is because we can’t “see” in 3D, we must therefore not live in a 3D world? This is nonsense.

Strawman argument. Who on earth is making that claim? Nobody.

The things you claim are “glaringly obvious oversights” are just your own errors, though. You’re committing a fallacy known as “argument from ignorance” which is basically “I don’t understand something, therefore nobody else does. I see problems in the assumptions, so therefore everyone else has based their math on bad assumptions.”

You’re free to question assumptions and discuss all you want, but you’re not going to get anywhere by just insisting you’re qualified when you have yet to show it – you may be falling victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect: Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia .

All you’re doing is appealing to metaphysics and asking “what if?” questions. Do you understand that there are infinitely many what-ifs?

[QUOTE=Anthem(0)]
what criteria do YOU (you specifically) use to determine the three-dimensionality of an object. Is it based on anything other than the assumption that all objects are three-dimensional?
[/QUOTE]
This seems pretty easy to answer. For many objects, I can hold them in my hand and feel all three dimensions at once. I can visually verify that one side differs from another. With some common objects, I can receive information visually about all three dimensions simultaneously, as when I look at a coin and move it around in front of my eyes.

ETA: MDKSquared said this much better.

I realize that, I just meant it is an illusion for us. It’s not true 3D. I realize it exists, though.

Anthem, you’re Gish Galloping something fierce.
Therefore, I am going to focus on just one point and ask you to show it to be defensible.

You just told me:

When in the very first post, you said:

Do you understand what a projection is?
You’re saying we don’t see in three-dimensions, but rather two-dimensional surface areas. This is a projection. 3D projection - Wikipedia

Answer the following questions without spilling over with endless reams of text:

1. So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that we typically confuse 2d projections of 3d objects… with something that is “actually” 2D?

2. Do you acknowledge that nobody has ever argued that we “see in 3 dimensions” insofar as seeing all sides of an object? We see a 2D projection of a 3D environment. The light from the 3D objects enters our eyes and our mind processes that plane of light as input.

I’m sorry but this is not blindingly obvious.
That nearly sounds as if your saying that it’s only ‘real’ when light shines on it. But that can’t be what you’re saying so you will have to be more obvious still.

Latro is right, you need to be even more obvious, because what you said isn’t very apparent.