I've Been Talking With Mr. A. Square, of Flatland

Great Debates
41

[skzzzt…]Brick[skzzt…]icker![skzz]Bricker! Do you read me? [skz] We seem to have a lot of noise interfering with what was once clear signal.

Here’s my take on things:

It’s a given that A. Square perceived another dimension, which is cool conceptually, but unless he can show how that new dimension effects people, he’s going to have a tough time convincing anyone to try to imagine what it’s like. They may take the contention that a n-th dimension exists as an interesting theoretical discussion, but not change any of their daily lives to incorporate that fact.

Now, if A. Square began claiming that things in this new dimension control aspects of the lives of the Flatlanders, things get a little bit more wooly. As a fellow Flatlander, I would want A. Square to explain why beings in this other dimension take any interest in our lives, and why we can’t see any aspect of them moving around in Flatland. If A. Square tried to tell my that these multi-dimensional beings controlled, for example, the weather in Flatland, I would want him to explain how and why they would choose to do so, and point out that Flatland scientists had come up with much more plausible explanations for why the weather works the way it does. A. Square might claim to have an explanation for certain things Flatland scientists didn’t understand, like how Flatland was formed. But these explanations would all reduce down to the fact that multi-dimensional beings that no one can see, that have better things to do than watch us, and so on, are behind it.

In the long run, I would acknowledge that A. Square is talking about something that might be possible, but that he is asking me to take his word that unseen and inexplicable forces are responsible for things that scienists have adequately explained to me. Depending on how much I respect A. Square’s intellect, reliability, and character, I might decide to reject his story out of hand as being just plain kooky, I might listen politely to it but not pay it much attention, or I might geniunely admire his good fortune to have found an explanation for questions about Flatland that he has always had.

But in the long run, I don’t think his personal experience, without any corroborating evidence that I can touch or see or logically connect to things I know to be true, would convince me to believe in something new.

How’s that sound? But I agree with others that this is a very interesting topic and that [szt] is proba[skzzt…] without[sqzzzt…]comes the noise again[skzzzzzzzzzzzzzt]

42

Sunspots, probably.

I hope no one takes Mr. Square’s current difficulty as an analogy that might is relevant to the existence of God (or other weather controlling beings, for that matter). I thought A.'s dilemna did, however, go to the related point of whether belief in something that can’t possibly be proved is per se - that is, in and of itself - irrational. So I don’t expect him to convince his fellow Flatlanders of the truth of his convictions – but I hope I can save him from being thought a fool for having them.

As to the points raised with respect to there being multiple Brickers in “parallel” 3-D worlds… I’m sorry, but I don’t believe it. We are the only possible 3-D world - isn’t that obvious? :slight_smile:

  • Rick
43

Bricker:
As I explained above, I do not consider Mr A’s non-rational belief in the veracity of his experience in altered perception to be irrational. However, if Rectangle B, a stranger who heard/read/was told about Mr A’s experiences believed the story based upon no direct experience, I would call that belief irrational.

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*

44

Remember, Flatlanders weren’t completely two-dimensional. The sphere told A. Square that all Flatlanders have a teensy tinsy bit of thickness, and that if you stacked enough squares one on “top” of the other you could form a cube.

(Similarly, women weren’t completely one-dimensional line segments either – they were supposed to be reeeeeeeeally really skinny parallelograms.)