Debunking dimensions

Great Debates
21

[Captain Janeway]
Man the shuttlecrafts! Theres a rift in the google-janglemuffin continuum!
[/Captain Janeway]

:wink:

Kabbes:

Ok thats a bit beyond me, but I am prepared to accept that it may be the case. What I am trying to do is debunk the notion of parallel or other hidden/folded-up/imperceptible/higher dimensions. The point is that if you use N parameters to describe a thing (whether they are inter-dependant or not) the thing is not an N-dimensional object of itself, it is only an N-dimensional object by virtue of those N dimension-measurements that we apply to it.

True if their are some aspects to reality that we can’t perceive, then their are some dimension-measurements we cannot measure, but this doesn’t make these “unknown dimensions” things in themselves - they are (like dimensions 1, 2 and 3) a way of measuring things.

Hence dimensions have no existence of their own, except in our minds.

Is that such an unreasonable/unscientific argument?

Oh and Monty, I was just having a laugh with the creationism thread. And I don’t expect anybody to accept anything I say as fact, would I post here if I did?

22

If you use n coordinates to describe an object, it may not be an n-dimensional object. However, if you need n coordinates to specify a point within the object, then it is, in fact, an n-dimensional object. See here for a more detailed explanation.