Do we exist as cosmic beings beyond the four dimensions of space and time, that is in the fifth dimension and beyond.
I think so. I think my Spirit exists independent of space and time and is in a fifth dimension.
Although the first 4 diemesions are defined, all after that are not. They are anything a researcher temporarily wants them to be(Temperature, Pressure, Mass, etc). In fact, I think it was Cecil who enlighted me to this.
Your Spirit does indeed exist independent of space and time. The chronosynclasticinfundibulum is merely a mis-en-scene that you manipulate by the will of your Spirit, using your brain and body as Its tool.
Shouldn’t this have been in General Questions?
Uh, cite please.
no, it belongs in Great debates. Too much like religion for a general question IMO. What exactly is a Chronowhatsit, what does it do, who discovered it, and what evidence is of it’s existance.
There is no scientific evidence of a “spirit” force or a soul. Or let me clarify that. None that I have ever seen. I would be greatly interested in hearing more about this explination.
Personally I think that we have alot to learn of the universe, and once we unlock it’s secrets we might learn more about our true potenial. But I don’t feel that we exist outside the normal dimensions, but that we might someday learn that we in some inadvertant way effect some sort of quantum fluxuations. Which of course is not to say we can control jack, just that we effect it many ways.
Of course it is all speculation and assumptions on my part, as science is not mature or advanced enough to test it properly. Again, AFAIK.
I disagree with your assertion.
Which one? Would it like to fly in my beautiful balloon?
Sorry. I felt compelled.
Amedeus:
Uh, the GQ thing was just a joke. After a few thousand posts, I’m pretty familiar with the layout here. Anyway, asking for scientific evidence of the Spirit is like asking for psychic evidence of quantum gravity.
Welcome to Straight Dope Great Debates.
Thanks, I found out it was a joke. Sorry, im humor impaired. 
That and I’ve never read Vonnegut. Serves me right though.
We live and we learn.
Huh? You found out? 
How?
Truer words were ne’er spake.
Hehe, this Pit rant will help. Prematurely I went ballistic on myself. Not so much becaue of the joke, but it did make me decide to write it.
On the note of the OP, how would you imagine the 5th dimension to be like? Can you Imagine a 5th dimension. I can understand 4, If 4 is time. What kind of nuances would you have to worry about navagating in 5 dimensional space?
As any Buckaroo Bonsai fan will tell you, there are 8 dimensions.
In seriousness, when you describe the position of an object in space, you are already dealing with six dimensions: X,Y,Z,A,B,and C (or for our flier friends, roll, pitch, and yaw)
To accurately describe the spatial position of any object, all six of these dimensions are important, unless the object is a point. Then, X, Y, and Z will suffice. For any object occupying any volume of space, it is also important to note not only it’s X,Y, and Z position, but also it’s orientation or “attitude”, the A,B,and C position, where A is rotation about X, B is rotation about Y, and C is rotation about Z.
So inasmuch as we can state that the fourth dimension = time, the 8th dimension, let’s call it D, would be rotation about time (simply, is an object’s position in time pointed toward you, away from you, or any of the infinite positions between)
So to the O.P., yes, each human exists in 8 dimensions, his/her spatial position in X,Y, and Z, in reference to whatever, his/her attitude(Standing? Lying down? facing north? South? facing up? facing down?)and the space the person occupies in time. Whereas we can change out position in the first three/six dimensions, we are at the present, and that’s all, as far as time goes. It will always be difficult to imagine the 8th dimension (rotation about time) until we are capable of changing our position in time, which can’t happen by default, because if it was possible, we’d be seeing people from the future all the time.
Clear as mud, eh?
b.
I can do Billy Rubin one better.
Now, we all know of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity:
a four dimensional continuum of space-time, distorted by mass, describes gravity.
Years later, the Kaluza-Klein theory arose simply by adding a fifth dimension to relativity: this produced Maxwells equasions describing Electromagnetism, which manifests itself as electricity, magnetism, light, and chemical bonds.
Adding a Sixth and Seventh dimension describes the Weak Nuclear Force, responsible for certain kinds of nuclear decay.
Going up to Eleven dimensions produces the Strong Nuclear Force, which binds up the atomic nucleus
11 dimensions=4 forces=physics=biochemistry=humans!
An interesting idea. Though I’m not personally familiar with the equations of which you speak, I’ll take your word as you seem to know your stuff. OTOH,I do have a theory about those forces:
The weak force is in fact the force which holds the Saran Wrap to the surface on which you want it to stick, and the Strong force holds the Saran wrap to the surface on which you don’t want it to stick. The only thing I have yet to resolve is; how does it know?
Ok, so I’m no scientist.Wanna hear my theory about the Brontosaurus?
b.
It has been proven that there are many more than 4 dimensions. Of course, i dont think you can call time a dimension, because there is no such thing as time, since it is relative. But anyways, there are many different dimensions, which twist and fold. But whether we exist in them or not has yet to be seen. I’m guessin we do, though, since we have discovered them within our own mesely dimensions.
It is a (minor) abuse of language to say that the universe has three (or 26 or whatever) dimensions. Mathematical models have dimensions. If you have a model with N dimensions, I can create a one-to-one map your N dimensional model onto a one dimensional line. Every point in N space can be mapped to a point on my line. I will admit that this is not a useful model, but the laws of physics can be formulated for this model. We just like to choose the model where the laws have the simplest form. If a model with 11 dimensions has a simpler form than one with, say, four dimensions, then it is a more useful model.
It is important to remember that it is the model that has dimensionality, not the universe itself.
Please specify the coordinates of your spirit.
Distance is also relative. Relative does not mean arbitrary. For a particular reference frame time (and distance) are well defined.
Sure. Let’s hear it.
Dr Matrix, I think I retain the dissenting opinion on that one (in re to the universe not “really” having extra dimensions). Though we’ve been over it before. I’d just like to note that I’m not yet convinced (for what that’s worth, which is little I’m sure :)).
Should higher-dimensional theories yield testable results as conclusive as, say, Newton’s or Kepler’s, shouldn’t we accept those extra dimensions as surely as we accept the three spatial dimension so often dealt with and implicitely accepted as factual?
On the other hand, if your senses are your guide, then why would you accept the theories on quarks, electron movement, and other subatomic phenomenon? Those are just as “unobservable” as extra dimensions.
I apologize for the stubborness of my position, but I am still at a loss on yours.
[sub](NOTE: due to semi-recent threads I have been made aware that, in fact, higher dimensional theories are not completely, or even “mostly”, worked out. As such, this post is making the assumption that higher dimensional theories are indeed the correct path for theoretical physics to take and will one day prove to offer testable conclusions.)
The Brontosaurus was thin at this end, tapering towards extremely thick in the middle, and tapering to thin again at the far end.
You asked.
b.
Yes. As long as we realize that they only exist in our useful model.
We decide which model to use based upon utility. In most day-to-day events, three spacial dimensions and one temporal dimension suffice. Sometimes more or fewer coordinates are more useful. If I want to specify where Paris is, I need only specify latitude and longitude - two dimensions. Is Paris just a point on a sphere? No, it is represented by a point on a sphere. If a model with 11 or 26 dimensions has a simpler description and yields accurate predictions, I say go with it.
A physics model with N dimensions can be mapped onto a model with M dimensions. Both descriptions will yield the same results. We prefer the one with the simpler laws. But the number of dimensions in our model does not affect the universe; it just makes the laws more or less simple.
Yes, I did. Thanks, I s’pose.
Something I just (re)read made me rethink what I said in my last post. It is true that a model can be mapped onto another with a different number of dimensions, but if we assume GR’s principle of local causality, any model for the universe will have four dimensions, because any mapping to another dimensionality will not preseve local causality. Since I am so fond of local causality, I guess I would have to say the universe appears to have four dimensions.
I never understood what principles would required the higher dimension of string theory.
To the OP. In what sense do we exist outside of space and time?
Let me say that I am not familiar with string theory. Let me also say, however, that the higher dimensions required by string theory are not (should it prove to be true) a part of our everyday existence. The world as we know it would not change at our energy levels. At much, much higher energy levels (such as, oh shortly after the big bang) the dimensions not currently accessable would begin to merge with our familiar 3(4). Right now, every part of space contains a gateway to the other dimensions (should, again, the theory be correct) but those “gateways” are on the scale of the Plank length. The energies necessary to probe those “gateways” is unimaginable.
So, don’t expect everything to change if string theory comes true. This is also why string theory would likely not be tested within the foreseeable future.
AFAI have read.