Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How is it possible to exist w/o 3 dimensions?

MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 12:49:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actuelly we know quit alot about worlds with more than three dimensions, because we can calculate on them with math.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:10:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.

there are somethings that exist that are brains can't visualize or imagine. Just go with it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:14:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:10:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.

there are somethings that exist that are brains can't visualize or imagine. Just go with it.

No.

Furthermore, the math involving it is meaningless because even though a zero value exists in math it does not 'exist' in real life anymore than nonexistence exists (since existence is a state).
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:27:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth.

Flatland - Edwin Abbott (pen name "A Square")
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:30:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:49:21 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
Actuelly we know quit alot about worlds with more than three dimensions, because we can calculate on them with math.

No we don't, and that string theory math you are talking about isn't real math, they made up some new rules to imaginatively conjure with numbers, and it doesn't tell us anything.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:40:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.

I don't think we can really imagine it.

But then again, there are some one dimensional people on these boards, and maybe they can.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 1:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
What are you talking about? Calculating in n-dimensions doesn't require imaginary numbers nor does it need string theory. String theory is physics. As we can observe how many mathematical concepts works in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions it is easy to generalise the rules and just calculate in n-dimensions.

Of course there are thing we can't see nor visualize. Quantom mechanics being a good example, but we can still observe it effect, test and thereby comfirming that it is there.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 2:10:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:48:21 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
What are you talking about? Calculating in n-dimensions doesn't require imaginary numbers nor does it need string theory.

I assumed you were talking string theory, but nevertheless, the mathematics of additional dimensions doesn't tell us anything about additional dimensions, it only tells us about the mathematics used, they are only conjuring with numbers, it's purely hypothetical and has no corresponding reality which it can tell us about.

String theory is physics. As we can observe how many mathematical concepts works in 1, 2 and 3 dimensions it is easy to generalise the rules and just calculate in n-dimensions.

All you get is abstract spaces, and it's meaningless outside of the mathematics of it.

Of course there are thing we can't see nor visualize. Quantom mechanics being a good example, but we can still observe it effect, test and thereby comfirming that it is there.

There are no effects to observe, no tests, and no way to confirm the existence of other dimensions, Science seems to point to the existence of a transcendent reality, perhaps other dimensions of existence, but it's necessarily inferred by the contingency of our four dimensions, but no scientific validation is possible.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 2:30:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 2:10:55 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:48:21 PM, OllerupMand wrote:
What are you talking about? Calculating in n-dimensions doesn't require imaginary numbers nor does it need string theory.

I assumed you were talking string theory, but nevertheless, the mathematics of additional dimensions doesn't tell us anything about additional dimensions, it only tells us about the mathematics used, they are only conjuring with numbers, it's purely hypothetical and has no corresponding reality which it can tell us about.

This is entirely my point.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 3:49:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:10:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.

there are somethings that exist that are brains can't visualize or imagine. Just go with it.

That. It might be able to be formulated mathematically but there's no way to visually conceive it.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2012 6:29:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 3:49:46 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:10:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.

there are somethings that exist that are brains can't visualize or imagine. Just go with it.

That. It might be able to be formulated mathematically but there's no way to visually conceive it.

Nope! I mean it can't exist in real life.
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 12:06:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.

The Internet.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:14:11 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:10:03 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/28/2012 1:07:08 PM, MouthWash wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That's not what I'm asking... this isn't only about other dimension; singularities are posited to have NO dimension at all. I don't understand how something could exist that way.

there are somethings that exist that are brains can't visualize or imagine. Just go with it.

No.

Furthermore, the math involving it is meaningless because even though a zero value exists in math it does not 'exist' in real life anymore than nonexistence exists (since existence is a state).

Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 4:29:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:40:29 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.

I don't think we can really imagine it.

But then again, there are some one dimensional people on these boards, and maybe they can.

Buh-dum-tiss
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 9:42:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
i'm not certain why it would be so hard to visualize a two dimensional world. Take a piece of paper, draw on it, and visualize you in it. Since it is flat, everything in front of you, regardless of its depth looks like a line. Someone already mentioned it, but there is a book called Flat Land that goes into good detail.

The idea of another spacial dimension in terms of string theory is that they are extremely small and we can not see them. It is like if you were looking at a garden hose from 100 yards away. It looks like a line with height and length, but without any depth. In reality even though you can't see it, there is depth.
RyuuKyuzo
Posts: 3,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/3/2012 10:15:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.

How is it possible to exist w/o 4 dimensions? I mean, one static 3-dimensional unit would only be around for a split moment and then *poof*, gone forever.
If you're reading this, you're awesome and you should feel awesome.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 3:22:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

You're thinking of Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott. It's a great book :)
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2012 4:47:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 1:14:11 PM, MouthWash wrote:
Furthermore, the math involving it is meaningless because even though a zero value exists in math it does not 'exist' in real life anymore than nonexistence exists (since existence is a state).
Not true; zero does exist in real life: zero apples, zero balance, etc. The "zero" that doesn't exist in real life is when one is attempting to have zero of EVERYTHING or NOTHINGNESS. That's the zero that doesn't exist, because it is a contradiction.

Existence doesn't require 3 dimensions, it only requires itself: it requires not be a contradiction. So the 0th dimension exists (time or a point); the 1st (a line); the 2nd (a plane); and the 3rd (a solid). These make up spacetime and are the 4 dimensions that we know of. There may be more, but we do not have evidence of them...yet!

**************************************************
At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
That's about the most incoherent thing I've read all week! I'm adding it to my sig!

Nothingness is a contradiction; it is the attempt to negate that which CANNOT be negated: existence. Nothingness = non-existence = existence of non-existence = contradiction.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/8/2012 6:10:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imagine punching seven.

You can't.

No, that's just an arbitrary shape representing seven. That's not seven, in the same way the letter c followed by a followed by t isn't what one means by cat.

When you concieve of non-3D objects (or whatever-D-we-are-in) then you can answer this Q.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:55:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

That would be Carl Sagan.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 4:58:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/4/2012 3:22:33 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 9/28/2012 12:41:23 PM, socialpinko wrote:
It's impossible to conceive what you're talking about. For the life of me I can't remember who wrote it but consider a world of two dimensions where everything lacks depth. A line from this world is somehow transported to our 3-dimensional world and is instantly blown away by the utter difference. Later it is magically transported back and at once tries to communicate what it had seen to the other inhabitants of the 2-d world. But obviously since no one there has seen the 3-d world they have no idea how to interpret what the line is saying.

It's kind of like a super, mega, nuclear paradigm shift. We can't conceive of it until it actually happens. Likewise we can't really know too much about how other worlds with different numbers of dimensions would be like unless we actually experienced them.

You're thinking of Flatland by Edwin Abbott Abbott. It's a great book :)

Ah, I was wrong.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 12:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.

That does seem to be quite a dilemma, relativity theory says things get shorter as they approach the speed of light, and at the speed of light the length goes to zero. But we have photons that travel the speed of light, they have no mass and according to theory, they have no dimensional existence in space. The theory also says that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down and at the speed of light, it stops.

So a photon has no mass, no spatial existence, and no temporal existence, it's hard to understand how it can exist without mass, spatial, or temporal existence. If it doesn't have any of the attributes of existence, can we really say it exists?

And yet, I don't really think anyone questions the existence of light. Perhaps what we need to question is the nature of the categories we have applied to existence.

Suggestions anyone?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 2:15:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 12:14:02 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.
That does seem to be quite a dilemma, relativity theory says things get shorter as they approach the speed of light, and at the speed of light the length goes to zero.
Relative to us, their length goes to zero AND relative them (the object at c) OUR length goes to zero! That is to say, once you reach c, the Universe becomes flat in the direction of travel.

But we have photons that travel the speed of light, they have no mass and according to theory, they have no dimensional existence in space.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Remember, photons have no rest mass BUT they do have energy and there is an equivalence to these. Also, there are 2 other spatial dimensions that are still occupied; those 2 that are perpendicular to the motion at c.

So as you can see, it is the entire Universe that is "flat" relative to the photon; therefore, ALL distances are ZERO relative to the photon.

The theory also says that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down and at the speed of light, it stops.
Well, that is so RELATIVE to the object traveling at c but NOT to all others. For example, when you fire a a photon to a target 6 miles away, that target is actually 0 distance away relative to the photon! ALL distances are zero to a photon and so it needs zero time to cross them. In fact, a photon uses up ALL of it's time and so has none left.

So a photon has no mass...
Yes, no REST MASS, but remember that it has energy and that there is an energy/mass equivalence namely: E=mc2. Ergo, a photon's energy/mass exists.

...no spatial existence
It DOES have spacial existence, it's just that space itself is flat to the photon in it's direction of travel. However, the space that is PERPENDICULAR to the photon's motion is NOT flat. Remember, to the photon it is the UNIVERSE itself that is flat

...and no temporal existence
Indeed it does have temporal existence because it uses up all of its available time.

It's hard to understand how it can exist without mass, spatial, or temporal existence.
Because it does have mass/energy, occupy space, and exist in time.

If it doesn't have any of the attributes of existence, can we really say it exists?
Indeed we can! We can because existence is predicated upon things like mass, energy, space, or time but rather these things are predicated on existence!

And yet, I don't really think anyone questions the existence of light. Perhaps what we need to question is the nature of the categories we have applied to existence.
And how!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2012 10:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 2:15:56 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:14:02 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 9/28/2012 11:52:43 AM, MouthWash wrote:
Imagine a two-dimensional, flat universe. If there was NO space allowing it depth, then how could it exist? It seems like it would just wink out.
That does seem to be quite a dilemma, relativity theory says things get shorter as they approach the speed of light, and at the speed of light the length goes to zero.
Relative to us, their length goes to zero AND relative them (the object at c) OUR length goes to zero! That is to say, once you reach c, the Universe becomes flat in the direction of travel.

Yes, and from our perspective, it has no dimensional existence. Let's call the direction of travel length, if length =0, then I'm not sure "flat" is the right word.

But we have photons that travel the speed of light, they have no mass and according to theory, they have no dimensional existence in space.
Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Remember, photons have no rest mass BUT they do have energy and there is an equivalence to these. Also, there are 2 other spatial dimensions that are still occupied; those 2 that are perpendicular to the motion at c.

If length equals zero, then width doesn't matter does it? If length is zero, what is it that gets to have width? A cube that is 0 x 1 foot x 1 foot has an area of zero, it doesn't have any dimensional existence.

So as you can see, it is the entire Universe that is "flat" relative to the photon; therefore, ALL distances are ZERO relative to the photon.

Yes, time dilates till it stops, lengths contract to zero, and the photon doesn't move, so from our frame of reference, it is not represented in any of the four dimensions of our reality, so how can we say it exists?

The theory also says that as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down and at the speed of light, it stops.
Well, that is so RELATIVE to the object traveling at c but NOT to all others. For example, when you fire a a photon to a target 6 miles away, that target is actually 0 distance away relative to the photon! ALL distances are zero to a photon and so it needs zero time to cross them.

Yes, from the frame of reference of the photon, the entire universe has no dimensional existence, and from our frame of reference, the photon has no dimensional existence.

In fact, a photon uses up ALL of it's time and so has none left.

I don't know what that means.

So a photon has no mass...
Yes, no REST MASS, but remember that it has energy and that there is an energy/mass equivalence namely: E=mc2. Ergo, a photon's energy/mass exists.

The energy and mass are interconvertable, but the photon is massless, if it wasn't, it couldn't travel C. I've hear matter referred to as "frozen light" before, and on some level, that rings true to me.

...no spatial existence
It DOES have spatial existence, it's just that space itself is flat to the photon in it's direction of travel. However, the space that is PERPENDICULAR to the photon's motion is NOT flat. Remember, to the photon it is the UNIVERSE itself that is flat

Again, with length zero, there isn't anything to measure as width, you can't have a 1 foot wide by 1 foot tall nothing can you?

...and no temporal existence
Indeed it does have temporal existence because it uses up all of its available time.

Still don't know what that means.

It's hard to understand how it can exist without mass, spatial, or temporal existence.
Because it does have mass/energy, occupy space, and exist in time.

I don't think so, I think we have to see it as existing, but transcending our four dimensional frame of reference.

If it doesn't have any of the attributes of existence, can we really say it exists?
Indeed we can! We can because existence is predicated upon things like mass, energy, space, or time but rather these things are predicated on existence!

The General Theory of Relativity is explicitly ontological, it tells us what mass, energy, time, and space are, and what it tells us is they are relationships. The question arises, "What are they relationships among" and the answer is, we do not know, as it relates to the ultimate reality, the mystery remains.

And yet, I don't really think anyone questions the existence of light. Perhaps what we need to question is the nature of the categories we have applied to existence.
And how!

I think we have to accept that light exists, but it transcends our four dimensional frame of reference, and when pondering some of it's aspects, the word "absolute" comes to mind. I suppose this is why every religion I've studied equates the transcendent reality to light on some level.

A lot of people try to tell us that there is insufficient reason to believe in anything transcendent to our four dimensional reality, and yet, none of them question the existence of light.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 11:29:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/9/2012 10:03:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/9/2012 2:15:56 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:14:02 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Relative to us, their length goes to zero AND relative them (the object at c) OUR length goes to zero! That is to say, once you reach c, the Universe becomes flat in the direction of travel.
Yes, and from our perspective, it has no dimensional existence. Let's call the direction of travel length, if length =0, then I'm not sure "flat" is the right word.
I would argue that zero is not= "does not exist."

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Remember, photons have no rest mass BUT they do have energy and there is an equivalence to these. Also, there are 2 other spatial dimensions that are still occupied; those 2 that are perpendicular to the motion at c.
If length equals zero, then width doesn't matter does it? If length is zero, what is it that gets to have width? A cube that is 0 x 1 foot x 1 foot has an area of zero, it doesn't have any dimensional existence.
Ah but it has an area of 1! And so it indeed does have dimensional existence!

So as you can see, it is the entire Universe that is "flat" relative to the photon; therefore, ALL distances are ZERO relative to the photon.
Yes, time dilates till it stops, lengths contract to zero, and the photon doesn't move, so from our frame of reference, it is not represented in any of the four dimensions of our reality, so how can we say it exists?
Huh? The photon DOES move in our frame of reference; it moves at c. It's in the photon's frame of reference that it doesn't move. But how can it? It's got no where to go because it's already there!

Well, that is so RELATIVE to the object traveling at c but NOT to all others. For example, when you fire a a photon to a target 6 miles away, that target is actually 0 distance away relative to the photon! ALL distances are zero to a photon and so it needs zero time to cross them.
Yes, from the frame of reference of the photon, the entire universe has no dimensional existence, and from our frame of reference, the photon has no dimensional existence.
But that is not the case because 0 not= "no dimensional existence." Even a point has dimensional existence!

In fact, a photon uses up ALL of it's time and so has none left.
I don't know what that means.
It's kinda like this: objects in spacetime split their energy between motion through space and motion through time. If they use all their energy for motion (ie reach c) then they have no time left to use (hence they are "frozen in time); and vice versa. This is what I meant by "has no time left."

Yes, no REST MASS, but remember that it has energy and that there is an energy/mass equivalence namely: E=mc2. Ergo, a photon's energy/mass exists.
The energy and mass are interconvertable, but the photon is massless, if it wasn't, it couldn't travel C. I've hear matter referred to as "frozen light" before, and on some level, that rings true to me.
We are in agreement here. All I am expressing is that the photon's mass is in the form of energy.

It DOES have spatial existence, it's just that space itself is flat to the photon in it's direction of travel. However, the space that is PERPENDICULAR to the photon's motion is NOT flat. Remember, to the photon it is the UNIVERSE itself that is flat
Again, with length zero, there isn't anything to measure as width, you can't have a 1 foot wide by 1 foot tall nothing can you?
Right, but then there's not a nothing here and a 1 x 1 x 0 "thing" has a volume of 0 BUT it has an area of 1.

Indeed it does have temporal existence because it uses up all of its available time.
Still don't know what that means.
See above; motion/time example.

Because it does have mass/energy, occupy space, and exist in time.
I don't think so, I think we have to see it as existing, but transcending our four dimensional frame of reference.
I think it would help if we change how we view dimensional ordinality. We have 4D spacetime and so we think of it as 3D space + a 4th D of time. So is that REALLY 4 dimensions? No! It's actually 5! How so? Let's examine:

1D = Line / Length
2D = Plane / Area
3D = Solid / Volume
4D = Time / Time

Forgetting Time for a second (pun intended), we can see that 3D is made up of a "special arrangement" of 2D; 2D is made up of a "special arrangement" of 1D; and 1D is made up of a "special arrangement" of 0D! And there's the forgotten dimension: the 0th Dimension!

In a way, it is actually the MOST important one because ALL other's are based on it. So one might ask: what is 0D composed of? The answer: itself! There can't BE anything less than 0D because then there wouldn't BE anything that's doing the BEING. It is actually the least that existence can be (and most too...but that's another story!)

So, you might be asking: if there's really 5 Dimensions in this way, isn't all our physics off? Nope, because there's actually only 4, it's just that we counted one of them twice! Which one? Why time of course! And so the dimensional ordinality becomes:

0D = Point / Time
1D = Line / Length
2D = Plane / Area
3D = Solid / Volume

Voila! We have our 4 Dimensions but arranged in a slightly different way and it actually makes more sense this way.

Indeed we can! We can because existence is NOT predicated upon things like mass, energy, space, or time but rather these things are predicated on existence! ***Corrected in Bold***
The General Theory of Relativity is explicitly ontological, it tells us what mass, energy, time, and space are, and what it tells us is they are relationships. The question arises, "What are they relationships among" and the answer is, we do not know, as it relates to the ultimate reality, the mystery remains.
Hmm...Technically, we've been discussing Special Relativity; General Relativity is really a theory of Gravity. Regardless, I understand what you're saying and to that I will add that that's what we can EVER have because ANY THING (time, matter, energy, etc) can ONLY be expressed in terms of OTHER THINGS (hence a relationship.) It sounds stupid, but what it boils down to is that there will ALWAYS be a circularity to our knowledge with respect to our understanding of the Universe. And as long as we realize and understand certain tautologically sound principles, we will be in a position to make or discover new relationships within the Universe.

I think we have to accept that light exists, but it transcends our four dimensional frame of reference, and when pondering some of it's aspects, the word "absolute" comes to mind. I suppose this is why every religion I've studied equates the transcendent reality to light on some level.
Again, I don't necessarily think that it needs to transcend reality when taken in a different perspective as I detailed above.

A lot of people try to tell us that there is insufficient reason to believe in anything transcendent to our four dimensional reality, and yet, none of them question the existence of light.
I'll tell you (and I know that you've expressed this yourself before) that the majority of physicists LOVE the notion of transcendence ESPECIALLY when it comes to dimensions...only they prefer to "transcend" 7 more times for a total of 11 dimensions! To which I say "SHOW ME THE MONEY! SHOW ME THE MONEY!" Hehehehe! However, I am not so closed minded as to say "I will NEVER accept more dimensions than the 4 we know of"; but, I will need some evidence...some good ole fashioned EMPIRICAL evidence!

BTW, this view of a photon's "flat Universe" can easily explain entanglement: the photons are 0 distance from each other! Anyways, as you know, I am still a "hidden variable" hold out!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 8:59:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 11:29:09 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 10:03:21 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/9/2012 2:15:56 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 10/9/2012 12:14:02 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
Relative to us, their length goes to zero AND relative them (the object at c) OUR length goes to zero! That is to say, once you reach c, the Universe becomes flat in the direction of travel.
Yes, and from our perspective, it has no dimensional existence. Let's call the direction of travel length, if length =0, then I'm not sure "flat" is the right word.
I would argue that zero is not= "does not exist."

I disagree, if the measurement of a dimensional magnitude equals zero, then that dimensional magnitude does not exist. Zero is not a mathematical representation of a spatial magnitude, what it mathematically represents is the absence of a spatial magnitude.

Well, I wouldn't put it that way. Remember, photons have no rest mass BUT they do have energy and there is an equivalence to these. Also, there are 2 other spatial dimensions that are still occupied; those 2 that are perpendicular to the motion at c.
If length equals zero, then width doesn't matter does it? If length is zero, what is it that gets to have width? A cube that is 0 x 1 foot x 1 foot has an area of zero, it doesn't have any dimensional existence.
Ah but it has an area of 1! And so it indeed does have dimensional existence!

I said area, I meant volume, but no way, if a cube"s volume in space equals zero, then it has no measurable spatial coordinates and by definition, it doesn"t have dimensional existence. If the answer to the question of how many pink unicorns are there, is zero, then you are saying that pink unicorns don"t exist. But this raises an interesting question, maybe it exists in 2 dimensions but not 3, not sure what that means though...I think it probably means I'm right and you're wrong :)

So as you can see, it is the entire Universe that is "flat" relative to the photon; therefore, ALL distances are ZERO relative to the photon.
Yes, time dilates till it stops, lengths contract to zero, and the photon doesn't move, so from our frame of reference, it is not represented in any of the four dimensions of our reality, so how can we say it exists?
Huh? The photon DOES move in our frame of reference; it moves at c. It's in the photon's frame of reference that it doesn't move. But how can it? It's got no where to go because it's already there!

Yeah, I didn"t mean to say "our" reality, in the photon"s frame of reference it has no dimensional existence, it doesn"t move, and it has no time or mass, no volume in space, so what exists exactly?

Well, that is so RELATIVE to the object traveling at c but NOT to all others. For example, when you fire a a photon to a target 6 miles away, that target is actually 0 distance away relative to the photon! ALL distances are zero to a photon and so it needs zero time to cross them.
Yes, from the frame of reference of the photon, the entire universe has no dimensional existence, and from our frame of reference, the photon has no dimensional existence.
But that is not the case because 0 not= "no dimensional existence." Even a point has dimensional existence!

Maybe this is just semantics, dimensions are generally used to locate things in space, a point is said to have zero dimensions, but it"s pointless unless it"s located somewhere in three dimensional space (pun intended), maybe we can"t talk about the existence of dimensions independently, in the end, I think they are relationships.

In fact, a photon uses up ALL of it's time and so has none left.
I don't know what that means.
It's kinda like this: objects in spacetime split their energy between motion through space and motion through time. If they use all their energy for motion (ie reach c) then they have no time left to use (hence they are "frozen in time); and vice versa. This is what I meant by "has no time left."

Hmmm, interesting, I"ll need to ponder that some more to understand it, I think in images, can"t seem to formulate a picture for that.

Yes, no REST MASS, but remember that it has energy and that there is an energy/mass equivalence namely: E=mc2. Ergo, a photon's energy/mass exists.
The energy and mass are interconvertable, but the photon is massless, if it wasn't, it couldn't travel C. I've hear matter referred to as "frozen light" before, and on some level, that rings true to me.
We are in agreement here. All I am expressing is that the photon's mass is in the form of energy.

Quite mysterious, probably goes toward your argument better than mine, zero mass converts to a nonzero quantity of energy, so something exists when you assign it a zero measurement. There"s probably a hidden variable that will explicate this for me, I"ll have to ponder it.

It DOES have spatial existence, it's just that space itself is flat to the photon in it's direction of travel. However, the space that is PERPENDICULAR to the photon's motion is NOT flat. Remember, to the photon it is the UNIVERSE itself that is flat
Again, with length zero, there isn't anything to measure as width, you can't have a 1 foot wide by 1 foot tall nothing can you?
Right, but then there's not a nothing here and a 1 x 1 x 0 "thing" has a volume of 0 BUT it has an area of 1.

That"s quite an abstraction, but maybe so, like I said, maybe it exists in 2 dimensions but not three.

Indeed it does have temporal existence because it uses up all of its available time.
Still don't know what that means.
See above; motion/time example.

Because it does have mass/energy, occupy space, and exist in time.
I don't think so, I think we have to see it as existing, but transcending our four dimensional frame of reference.

Continued in next post...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater