The Instigator
LucciDamus
Pro (for)
The Contender
felixmendelssohn
Con (against)

PART 2 the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT, NOT the concept of time!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
LucciDamus has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/10/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 days ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 180 times Debate No: 117654
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

LucciDamus

Pro

New rules, More time to respond, If you cite a souce, Put the argument in your own words (if you can) so that i can debate you and not a 3rd party.

1. Time is not neccesary as a coordinate to specify a point on the xyzplane BECAUSE objects in the xyz plan are forever moving through space. Meaning time is nothing more than the distance between celestial bodies and how said distances change relative to eachother.

2. From what we know about the xyz plane, It is only logical to assume, If we were to take take the z axis away, Perception WOULD be limited. So how does time help us perceive in a way the objects around us already dont?

3. However in thought, It is possible to percieve with out the limits we know day to day. Gravity, Thermo dynamics etc these rules are not present in thought even though the effect of said perception is real.
felixmendelssohn

Con

seems to be an insignificant distinction even if it was true.
1. "Time is not neccesary as a coordinate to specify a point on the xyzplane" === trivially true. But then you said "BECAUSE objects in the xyz plan are forever moving through space. " which is false because motion is the derivative of position with respect to time. If there were no time, There would be no motion. Also, Idont understand what you mean by "objects continually moving" as an explanation for time is not neccessary.

2. Without time, You cannot perceive an object's speed and the world would be static simply because the definition of speed involves taking the derivative with respect to time.

3. Huh?
Debate Round No. 1
LucciDamus

Pro

I see your point and very well argued. However lets examine "time" as a means of percieving objects moving through space.

1. This what i mean by, "relative to other objects. " If we remove the unit of time and only use distance, We percieve how objects move through out space solely by angles of shadows and distance between objects. It may be hard but its possible.

2. I say that to propose exactly what you expressex, Time is either present and neccesary for all dimensions to exist, Therefore can be deamed a dimension of its own. Basically, I dont have to know the velocity of a car to know that it is in motion.

3. Further more, Thoughts, Metaphysically occurences, 6sense, Intuition. These are the things i believe we can study more in depth if we consider the possibility that the 4th dimension can only be percieved by the mind (not the brain but the mind). I would give supporting detail but i dont think you adressed that point so to be fair i juat rephrased it to sound less, Taboo.
felixmendelssohn

Con

1. "If we remove the unit of time and only use distance, We percieve how objects move through out space solely by angles of shadows and distance between objects. It may be hard but its possible. " === if you remove time, There could be NO "moving".

2. "Time is either present and neccesary for all dimensions to exist, " === whah? No? Why? Support?
"Basically, I dont have to know the velocity of a car to know that it is in motion. " == yea, You just need to know that the car has a non-zero velocity, Not the exact value. The point is that motion is the changing of position with respect to time, W/o time, You cannot perceive motion.

also, If you define dimension to be related to perception then there could be vastly more than 4 dim. You see color is also a dimension, It allows you to distinguish between 2 identical cubes. Mass is also a dimension, It allows you to distinguish 2 objects similar in shape. . . .

3. I still don't understand what you're trying to say here. Can you show me some significant implication if we view the 4th dimension like you proposed?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by canis 5 days ago
canis
I would have chosen the 5th dimension. You would not have hit the 3th.
Posted by canis 5 days ago
canis
"the 4th Dimension is evident in tge process of THOUGHT". . . I see no "why"?
Posted by felixmendelssohn 5 days ago
felixmendelssohn
is this even a significant distinction?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.