Bricker, I’m afraid I’m gonna have to ask you to spill the beans as to the nature and method of the communications you’re having with Mr. Square.
I cannot, merely on your say-so, accept simultaneoulsly the fact that you can correspond with this individual and the fact that you are incapable of yourself accomplishing the demonstrations that would convince the unbelievers of Flatland that our thiird dimension exists.
Gilligan, interesting thought problem. I’m having a hard time imagining a civilization that can design and construct an interplanetary (at least) craft, but can’t grasp the concept of painting something a different color. Here’s my take: the travellers take a can of red paint and apply some of it to one face of a cube. Voila! A cube that is not uniformly green! That should go a long way toward convincing their friends that they’re not nuts.
Although it’s not incredibly relevant to the analogy at hand, I feel obliged to point out that it is rather difficult for the Flatlanders to be capable of much intelligent thought. With only 2 dimensions available, it would be impossible for the neurons in their brains to be nearly as interconnected as ours are. If you had four interconnected neurons, at least one of them would be inaccessable to any additional neurons. Good luck to anyone who has to try to explain anything to them.
Well, let’s see where we are.
Spiritus Mundi asked:
As it happens, he didn’t find this comforting! 
But it is accurate. His personal conviction is, in fact, based on a sensory experience that is extra-normal, as far as his world goes, and indeed is not repeatable on command. I’m not sure I agree that qualifies it as “irrational”, though. A. Square’s sensory experience, while unique to him in Flatland, does in fact actually represent reality. “In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” He has many reasons to distruct what he saw – and his buddies, having not seen it themselves, have even more good reasons to be skeptical. But the fact remains… what he saw is true. I’m not sure I buy, then, that he’s irrational for believing it. If he epxected others to simply take his word for it, without a scrap of evidence… that would be irrational. But as to his own belief…
Scylla said:
That’s a good point. But Scylla – you have, I assume, a full-time job, perhaps a spouse and family, yes? I appreciate your willingness to drop everything and hurry to succor A. But what about the parallel plane, Flatland Prime? And the other parallel plane, Flatland Double-Prime? To say nothing of Flatland’’’’’’’’? In each of these also exist creatures that saw, in one way or another, the bizarre antics of the Sphere. No matter how compassionate you may be, I hardly think you can afford to devote your life to curing their problems. Moreoever, even if you could – there are infinitely many parallel planes. Even with No-Doz, you just won’t have the time. And… well, I don’t wish to speak for you… but after a while, it would get kind of tiresome, don’t you think?
SKEPTICAL OCTAGON: “Aw, screw off, you rectangular idiot! There ain’t no such thing as ‘up, but not north!’”
A. SQUARE: “Scylla, a little demonstration, if you please!”
OCTAGON: “Ah! Oh, my! I can’t believe it! You were right!”
SKEPTICAL HEXAGON (just arriving): “Hey, guys - what’s up (so to speak)?”
OCTAGON: “Square was right! There is such a thing as ‘up but not north!’ It’s amazing!!”
SKEPTICAL HEXAGON: “Yeah, right. He got to you, too, eh?”
Your work would be never-ending, just in A.'s plane!
You may have a point. It might have been cruel to reveal something to A. that he can’t prove. On the other hand, some might argue it’s better to know, no matter what. You may disagree, but is bitchslapping really warranted for that philosophical difference of opinion?
Again - you might be right. But again - there are those that would contend it’s better to know the truth, period.
Indeed! Well, I hope that’s what happen to A.
Whoops! I forgot the address this trenchant point from The Ryan:
As has already been pointed out, the analogy was mentioned in the OP, so I can’t give you a great deal of credit for keen detective work.
But, in case it’s unclear, let me refine and pinpoint exactly what I’m trying to show with this parable.
In the Could You Believe and Athiest threads, some suggestion was made that religious believers are per se irrational. It is that point only that I wish to address. Clearly Mr. Square’s adventures dop not, by analogy, constitute any sort of evidence that there is a God, or of where He lives and what He wants you to have for breakfast.
But hopefully his predicament will shed some light on the dilemna faced by someone who (a) is convinced that a given statement of fact is true, and (b) has absolutely no way of proving it. The poignancy of the dilemna is made more real in my analogy by casting the reader in a position of also knowing that the statement is true. Obviously, in the case of religion, you and I cannot point to any similar certainty.
But in this way, we are like the other Flatlanders: unwilling to accept remarkable claims without remarkable proof. This is not a bad way to live life - don’t get me wrong. But what if there is a remarkable truth, and no available correspondng remarkable proof? This is A.'s problem - and perhaps our problem as well (although who can be sure?)
Sheesh.
Well, as it happens, I’m very capable of these demonstrations, but as I suggested in my reply to Scylla, above, other things keep popping up – I have a big proposal to get out the door this week, I had my K of C Fourth Degree meeting last night, and I was hoping to re-seed the back yard. Frankly, I’m swamped.
And to waterj2, who suggested Flatlanders aren’t too bright because of the neuron connectivity issue… well, I mentioned this to A., and he pointed out that our dimension is the one with the WWF.
Rick
Rick
If such a suggestion was made I didn’t see it, because if I had, I would have challenged it. It’s my understanding of the consensus here that religious belief is only irrational when those beliefs contradict established fact.
I certainly agree that any belief is irrational if it contradicts established facts.
Let me noodle around and see if I can dredge up the post(s) that I referred to above. It’s entirely possible they appeared elsewhere, or that I drew a weak inference.
heres what he could do.
he could construct something out of 2 dementions in the shape of something that could be “Folded” into a 3-D object (for arguements sake, lets say, a cross).
He could go around with this 2 dimentional cross shaped object, telling everyone how this object could magically become a “cube”, simply by manipulating the very forces and law of physics that hold their very dimentions together.
As he cannot actually do this (being in a 2 dimentional universe and all) he has the great gift of being able to see something that no one else has seen (well, in flat land, anyway).
the residents who believe in this “3rd dimention” soon see mr flat as a hero, and become obsessed at this cross shaped figure, carrying models of it everywhere, staring at it, believing that they can “see” the cross being manipulated into a cube.
others dont believe. they are content to sit in 2 dimentions.
which side is right?
well, at least one person wants to meet me…
http://fathom.org/polldata/pollcheck.adp?poll=dope-page5&question=62
Cheers!!
Bricker:
I feel the need to point out that I never said mr A was irational, I said his belief was not rational (based upon reason alone). I make a real distinction between the non-rational and the irrational. Any conclusions not based firmly upon rational precepts is non-rational. A non-rational position that contradicts rational precepts is irrational.
In Mr A’s case, he knows that teh information he was receiving from his senses was dostorted from what he has experienced for the whole of his life. It is not possible for his experience to have otherwise occured. He therefore has absolutely no empiracal basis for believing that his perceptions were accurate. It is trivial to imagine other circumstances in which his perceptual ability would be altered and the “insight” he receives would not represent a more accurate picture of reality.
Nevertheless, he is not irrational or believing it to be true. We also have no evidence with which to cast doubt upon his particular altered percepions. The question is not determinable by rational means, therefore Mr A must resrt to his non-rational “faith” that the insight he received was accurate. He may, in fact, be correct, but he has no rational basis for either believing or expecting to convince others.
The one-eyed man analogy, of course, fails right up to the point that the man’s other eye. After all, if Mr A could still “see”, then there exosts at least a possibility that his unusual means of perception could be studied/replicated.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Scylla:
I specifically stated that I would accept the term “n-d” as referring to n spatial dimensions. I do not consider this to be an important point, hence my reference to it a “quibble”, but the fact is that time is a dimension, and any physical theory that considers time to not be a dimension is almost sure to fail in situations of high relative velocites.
In mathematics, if time is considered at all, it’s usually considered a dimension. In normal speech, time is not considered a dimension. I was pointing out that normal speech is not quite accurate.
I’m not incorrect, and I don’t believe I’m nitpicking either. If I were to say something like “Well, the sun actually doesn’t move, but I’ll use the term ‘sunrise’ anyway”, that would probably be nitpicking because most people are aware of the inaccuracy of considering the sun to move. But I don’t think that most people are aware of the inaccuracy of considering time not to be a dimension. I therefore pointed out the inaccuracy, and proceeded to use the inaccurate terms with the understanding that they were shorthand for the correct tersm.
Are you telling me what my thought processes should be?
[emphasis mine] And what’s your point?
Name any number of dimensions, and I can name a vector for you that has that number of dimensions. Therefore, the number of dimensions is infinite. They may not all have physical interpretation in our universe, but that doesn’t mean that the dimensions, as concepts, don’t exist.
But would you consider it sufficient proof that anyone that didn’t believe is being unreasonable? And how do we know that there aren’t other things in Flatland already capable of doing this?
So why are you spending so much time arguing about it? After all my objections, I said that for the sake of argument, I was willing to ignore them. If I’m willing ro ignore them, then why aren’t you?
I hardly think it is secret, as I made clear in my first post. As I said in that post, I do not think that this analogy should be just hinted at. If Bricker wants to show something about religion using this situation, then he should make that intention clear.
He implied it, but did not say so.
And I think that I have the right, when you post statments about how Mr. Square should just ignore what he saw, about how he shouldn’t “inflict” his revelations on others, about how this is due to some self-esteem on the part of Mr. Square, and how Sphere is not a compassionate, rational and ethical being, to point out that while these may be appropriate points in a religious discussion, they are not appropiate if* all we are discussing it the question of how Mr. Square can convince other people that he’s right.
*And I made it clear that that my statement was a conditional statement, hence the “if”.
I don’t think that “objectionable” is the quite the right word for your statements regarding Mr. Square and Sphere (although you have been using rather vulgar language in your reponse to me). “Irrelevant” would be a better word, if* we are just talking about Mr. Square.
*See footnote above.
Indignation? Where have you seen indignation? Other than perhaps right here?
What is the purpose of this baseless attack on my level understanding?
This discussion is being “ruined”? I don’t notice anyone else saying so. Perhaps you just don’t like people not instantly agreeing with everything you say? I mean, I’ve disagreed with many people, but I’ve never said that they’re “ruining” a siscussion just because they don’t afree with me.
Bricker:
Which is exactly why I thought that such issues as whether Sphere is moral or not were not relevant to this discussion. The problem with simply implying an analogy, rather than actually stating it, is that it invites comments, such as Scylla’s, that adress what the reader considers the analogy to be, rather than what writer considers it to be.
Since you have declared the analogy to be showing a particular point, I will respond to that point. The Flatlanders situation presupposes that the event did in fact occur, and the conclusion that Mr. Square is or is not rational depends on that assuption. In the case of religion, I don’t think that you’re going to be able to get universal agreement to the assumption that God exists.
The Ryan:
What’s the difference between “quibble” (your word) and “nitpicking” (mine?) Neither furthers the discussion.
“Are you telling me what my thought processes should be?”
Sure. Why not.
"quote:
It's this wonderful device that represents 3 dimensional images on 2
dimensional surface.
[emphasis mine] And what's your point?"
It’s proof that a 3d image can be represented on a 2d surface. (spatial dimensions that is.)
“They may
not all have physical interpretation in our universe, but that doesn’t mean that the
dimensions, as concepts, don’t exist.”
So if I imagine it it’s real? Wow. Now I can start beleiving in Santa Claus too."
“But would you consider it sufficient proof that anyone that didn’t believe is being
unreasonable? And how do we know that there aren’t other things in Flatland
already capable of doing this?”
Like what else in Flatland can self-materialize, change size and mass, and disappear? I would consider it a pretty convincing argument, and would certainly take Mr. Square’s assertions seriously. Posit a more likely explanation than Mr. Squares and I’ll consider that as well.
“So why are you spending so much time arguing about it?”
I was hoping you might be embarrassed enough to cease and desist. Oh well.
“He implied it, but did not say so.”
How obvious does it have to be? Were not talking Machiavellian subtlety here.
“And I think that I have the right, when you post statments about how Mr. Square
should just ignore what he saw, about how he shouldn’t “inflict” his revelations on
others, about how this is due to some self-esteem on the part of Mr. Square, and
how Sphere is not a compassionate, rational and ethical being, to point out that
while these may be appropriate points in a religious discussion, they are not
appropiate if* all we are discussing it the question of how Mr. Square can convince
other people that he’s right.”
I did not dispute your right to post your oipinion, you disputed mine. I particularly liked my answer to which you refer because it works on both levels. Bricker’s equally clever response was also pertinent and entertaining.
Why should anybody possibly care if you have a personal problem with metaphors?
Have they been outlawed?
Your objection to the subtlety of Bricker’s fine OP is equally ridiculous.
“This discussion is being “ruined”?”
You have not said anything to further the discussion, and have not responded to the OP.
Bricker:
Install a Ferris wheel. Both you and Mr. Square can charge admission for rides.
Scylla:
My interest in presenting my quibbles wasn’t entirely to further the discussion, but rather to clear up some possible misconceptions.
So how does contradict my claim that a three dimensional image can’t be containe (not represented, contained) in a two dimensional object?
If you imagine a concept, then the concept exists. Santa Claus, as a concept, does exist.
I have absolutely no idea; I’ve never been there.
How about that it’s coming from another two-dimensional universe?
Didn’t you listen to what I said? I told that I was willing to ignore the problems for the sake of argument. I had already “ceased and desisted”.
How about actually saying it? It’s kind of hard to have a debate when no one actually says what they mean; they just strongly imply it.
I’ve already explained over and over again that I did not dispute your right to post your opinion. I don’t understand why you persist with this ridiculous idea.
I don’t have a problem with metaphors pers se, I have a problem with people presenting metaphors as an argument.
Well, I guess that’s a subjective statements, so there’s no real way to disprove it.
What the heck do you call this?
Why do you have this need to make up ridiculous claims about me? Are you a pathological liar or something?
Did I jump back into the Pit by mistake?
Singledad:
Maybe you did.
The Ryan:
You did respond to the OP. I missed that. Your correction is well taken on that particular point. Were it only so the other other way around on the rest of the points…
A-ha! But if there are an infinite number of 2D parallel planes with parallel Mr. Squares, presumably those parallel Mr. Squares were visited by parallel Mr. Spheres. Mr. Sphere is in the same boat as you, after all (not having infinite time). Therefore the ethical solution to your dilemma is to visit the Mr. Square you’ve been in communication with, proving his case and let Bricker+1 visit Mr. Square+1, Bricker+2 visit Mr. Square+2, and so on.
This is a great topic, btw!
Fenris
fenris:
That was inspired!
Hey, wasn’t there an OP around here someplace?
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Scylla wrote:
Three-dimensional beings? Oh, that’s a hoot! Three dimensions! Har har har har har!! Sounds like the subject of a Twilight Zone episode, or a grade-B science fiction movie, or some new-age nonsense. Pffft. Three dimensions. I mean, come on: We both know that the strength of gravity and the intensity of a light source fall off as one over the distance to the first power, right? If there were a third dimension, they would fall off as one over the distance squared. So at the very least, if there IS a “third dimension”, light and gravity don’t go there.
And furthermore, a third dimension would allow for the existence of really weird structures that don’t exist in out 2-dimensional universe. For example: the “tube”, which is a tunnels of circular cross-section that can extend all the way through an object without causing that object to collapse. (Sounds weird, doesn’t it? I get a headache every time I try to picture one of these “tubes”.) Another example: in a 3-D universe, you could close the door to your house without cutting off your air supply. There would be little “gaps” around the sides of your door that would allow a little bit of air to flow in and out. (In fact, you might have to take extra pains when constructing the door if you wanted it to be “air-tight”! Imagine that!)
This mulling about over what “3 dimensions” would be like is all good fun, but really, everything we need to know about the 2-dimensional universe we live in is described in A.K. Dewdney’s 1984 book The Planiverse.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.