The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The 4th Dimension is imagination

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2018 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,090 times Debate No: 117216
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (40)
Votes (0)




People speak of the 4th Dimension as if it is a place.

I argue the 4th dimension like the 1st 2nd and 3rd, Are everywhere in all places.

I argue the 4th dimension can be percieved with the mind and is not a place but a way of percieving reality on a different plain.


I appreciate your thoughts here, However I believe it has been fairly well-established and agreed-upon for quite some time that the 4th dimension is time. In fact, The fabric of our universe is often described as "spacetime" or the "spacetime continuum". Gravity is often described as the curvature of spacetime. Einstein is famous for using these facts in his theories of both General and Special Relativity. However, This concept far predates Einstein.

Viewing time as the 4th dimension can be thought of in somewhat-simplified terms. When we set a meeting, We might say, "meet me at the 33rd floor of the building located at 14th street and 2nd ave. " However, These directions are not complete. To ensure the meeting actually happens as desired, You would need to specify time as well. However, This is a gross oversimplification.

"In 1905, Albert Einstein based his seminal work on special relativity on two postulates: (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i. E. , Identical) in all inertial systems (i. E. , Non-accelerating frames of reference); (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, Regardless of the motion of the light source. The logical consequence of taking these postulates together is the inseparable joining together of the four dimensions, Hitherto assumed as independent, Of space and time. Many counterintuitive consequences emerge: in addition to being independent of the motion of the light source, The speed of light has the same speed regardless of the frame of reference in which it is measured. "

4D space is a medium of quantum information transfers. Simply stated, The first three dimensions are used to specify an object"s location/movement in space (forward-backwards, Left-right and up-down), While the fourth dimension locates its position in time. All four dimensions are used to specify completely the location or dynamism of an object in space. Collectively the four dimensions are inseparably interlinked and known as space-time. (Ganesh Subramaniam)

Four-dimensional space, The concept of a fourth spatial dimension. Spacetime, The unification of time and space as a four-dimensional continuum. (Hermann Minkowski)

When we talk about a fourth dimension, It"s considered space-time. (Big Think)

"But spacetime is even more complicated than space, And it's easy to see why. The chair you're sitting in right now can have its location described by those three coordinates: x, Y and z. But it's also occupied by you right now, As opposed to an hour ago, Yesterday or ten years from now. In order to describe an event, Knowing where it occurs isn't enough; you also need to know when, Which means you need to know the time coordinate, T. This played a big deal for the first time in relativity, When we were thinking about the issue of simultaneity. Start by thinking of two separate locations connected by a path, With two people walking from each location to the other one.

This is supremely non-controversial, And explains why time needs to be considered as a dimension that we "move" through, The same as any of the spatial dimensions. But it was Einstein's special theory of relativity that led his former professor, Hermann Minkowski, To devise a formulation that put the three space dimensions and the one time dimension together.

From a physics point of view, The implications are astounding. It means that all massless particles are intrinsically stable, Since no time can ever pass for them. It means that an unstable particle, Like a muon created in the upper atmosphere, Can reach the Earth's surface, Despite the fact that multiplying its lifetime (2. 2 "s) by the speed of light yields a distance (660 meters) that's far less than the distance it must travel. And it means that if you had a pair of identical twins and you left one on Earth while the other took a relativistic journey into space, The journeying twin would be much younger upon return, Having experienced the passage of less time. " (Forbes)
Debate Round No. 1


Well put, However 3 points to counter your argument: Perspective of time in each dimension, The perspective of one dimension to the higher and quantum application.

1. Perspective of time excludes time as a dimension itself because as you explained, Locations require time to be reachable (simplified point but i have made that complex argument before so i get it) in the 3rd dimension. This would also be true for 2, Two dimensional beings on a 2 dimensional plane, And so on to the 1st. There for with out time, There is no 1st dimension to observe.

2. The explaination of the dimensions as seen on youtube lol, 1st dimensional creatures can't percieve 2nd dimensional creatures and 2nd dimensional creatures can't observe the 3rd do the lacking axis in a lower dimension. I believe this to be true, As it agrees woth einstein. So i argue the 4th dimension is a perception where the 3rd dimension can be seen with out being seen by the third ( percieved, Not seen)

3. Quantum mechanics is still limited to the 3rd dimension although quantum theory is not. The definition of mechanics, By bases of my argument, Is to bring imagination to reality (3rd dimension or combination of xyz axis). So q-mech aline does not isolate time as a dimension but rather a way to better understand matter in 3d terms.

With these 3 points expressed i ask, Can i meet all three criteria with thought?

1. I can measure the time i spent in a thought, About a person. 10 sec.

2. I can percieve someone or a place, In thought, With out being percieved in the 3d, Ex: i can think of sally, See her face in mind she not perceive me at all. That fits the criteria of lower dimension limitations.

3. Quantum application shows a particle can be in 2 places at once. Thosr places are however measured, Observed and tracked in the 3d we perceive in. Which excludes quantum behavior from being q dimension.


Unfortunately, These points are neither well-reasoned nor logical. I will go on to show that not only are most of these arguments based in fallacious thinking, But they are wholly unrelated to proving the point Pro is attempting to prove.

Let's look at #2 for example, "the explaination of the dimensions as seen on youtube lol. " Aside from the fact that we are not told where on YouTube these explanations sit, This argument demonstrates a severely flawed understanding of basic physics. To attribute the human notion of "perception" to 1st dimensional "creatures" that don't have senses, Bodies, Or even consciousness in the conventional sense, Is a complete non-starter. As 3-dimensional creatures, Yes we can perceive the 2nd dimension itself, But we cannot perceive 2-dimensional "creatures. " I'm not even sure what a 2-dimensional creature would look like. Unless we're discussing the book Flatland by Edwin Abbott (highly recommended), I don't think attributing human sensations, Phenomena, Or perception of qualia to other-dimensional creatures is a reasonable way to discuss this issue.

I'm also utterly perplexed by argument #3. "The definition of mechanics, By bases of my argument, Is to bring imagination to reality. " I'm quite certain that is not a definition of any sort of mechanics, Quantum or otherwise, That has ever been used by anyone. Furthermore, Quantum mechanics is definitely not limited to 3 dimensions. See any of the following:
  • Separability, Locality, And Higher Dimensions in Quantum Mechanics (Alyssa Ney)
  • General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in Five Dimensions (Paul S. Wesson, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada)
  • Quantum Physics in Higher-Dimensional Hilbert Spaces (Internationale Akademie Traunkirchen)
  • Quantum Mechanics In 5-dimensional Space-time And Special Relativity Theory (XiaoLin Li, Chongqing, China)

Your first mention of meeting criteria quite literally mentions time as the dimension by which you measure a thought, Yet you're trying prove essentially the inverse.

Your next mention is similarly unconvincing. Even when you're seeing "her face in mind", You're still seeing a 3-dimensional rendition of her. This is just like the way we dream in 3D even though, Obviously, The objects we see in our sleep with closed eyes do not exist in the three dimensions you're speaking of.

Your third also reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and quantum mechanics. I believe you are referring to the concept of quantum superposition which is utterly unrelated to the discussion of the 4th dimension being time versus "imagination" or anything else for that matter.

Some more sources:

  • Seeing Things: Science, The Fourth Dimension, And Modern Enchantment (https://academic. Oup. Com/ahr/article/119/5/1466/44608)
  • Time As a Geometric Property of Space (https://www. Frontiersin. Org/articles/10. 3389/fphy. 2016. 00044/full)
  • On higher-dimensional dynamics (https://aip. Scitation. Org/doi/10. 1063/1. 1462418)
  • Time as the Fourth Dimension (https://www. Jstor. Org/stable/27750742? Seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)
Debate Round No. 2


To rephrase, For the sake of my argument

Dimension: a plane and limit of perception

The mind is the tool for mankind to percieve the 4th dimension like the 5 senses are used to percieve in the 3d, For 3 reasons: how perception is limited in each dimension, How imagination increases our ability to percieve reality and how the perceptions observed in the mind (metaphysically) stand separate or arguably above the 3rd dimension reality we know.

1. If, Perception was limited to one dimension, The 2nd dimension would virtually not be percievable. And so forth moving upward. Logically case. This shows that what separate dimensions are their limitations. Does the mind and imagination not let us live beyond 3d limits? In 3d reality if i want to see snow i must go where it is. But in thought, That limit is arguably broken.

2. Which brings the 2nd point, Arguably, The mind is the only place to mathematically explain the 4th dimension. X is one dimension, When stacked another dimension, Y is percieved. Once that xyplane is stacked 3dimensions are percievable. Is not a thought a stack of 3d planes in another, Dimension?

3. For the 3rd point i would like to highlight a 3d limitation broken in imagination and thougt. The conciousness awaress of being observed. The "beings" i referred to are hypothetical of course. But in each dimension there is an inability for one to know one is being percieved from the higher dimension if said being were limited to said dimension, Hypethically.

Which redifnes the conclusion.

I can percieve you in my mind and youre limited to not being aware as if i was percieving you in a higher dimension. Similar to when the proverbial "burning of the ears" when some one is talking about you behind your back. Perhaps that phrase expresses the ability to be aware you are being percieved in a higher dimension. Thought the ear tingle is a physical occurance in the 3d, The tool we use to process said perception is imagination and thought.


There are so many problems with this round's argument, Not one part of which is backed up by any scientific evidence as compared with me. These are all aside from, Or on top of, The plethora of spelling and grammatical errors that make the entries difficult to understand at times.

These fallacies can be found starting right away with the attempt to reframe a definition halfway through the debate to suit Pro's needs. The definition of dimension has nothing to do with perception. As I said, There is no construct through which we can interpret what it means for a non-3-dimensional creature to "perceive" and thus using that word in the definition of "dimension" is nothing short of vacuous and irrelevant. The true definition of dimension has to do with the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.

Furthermore, On what is Pro basing the claim that the mind is the tool for mankind to perceive the 4th dimension like the 5 senses are used to perceive the 3rd? Are the senses not centered in the mind? How are you possibly separating the part of the mind responsible for perceiving light from the part responsible for perceiving time? What does it mean that the mind and imagination let us live beyond 3D limits? Perhaps we can have dreams about the past or future, But we are still perceiving everything in three dimensions. In 3D reality you absolutely do not have to go to where the snow is, You can close your eyes and imagine it. This is utterly unrelated to the 4th dimension.

Point #2 is simply incoherent and meaningless, As is point #3. What does it mean that a 3D limitation is broken in imagination by the conscious awareness of being observed? I am observing my friend in my apartment right now and am aware of his consciousness. Am I existing in any sort of higher dimension or imaginative realm?

The first sentence of the last paragraph is honestly a bit disturbing and scary when it offers a window into Pro's mind. "I can perceive you in my mind and you're limited to not being aware as if I was perceiving you in a higher dimension. " Sure, I may not be aware of you perceiving me, But I don't remotely see how that calls higher dimensions into play. We don't at all use imagination to process the perception of hair cells tingling as a result of vibrations of the cochlear fluid that come from protuberances of air waves entering our ear drums. It is our three-dimensional synapses and the electrical impulses that fire between them that lead to what we consider to be the phenomenon of hearing. It is very unclear to me why or how a higher dimension is necessary to understand this.

I'd urge Pro to produce the following:
  1. Scientific evidence or sources backing up his/her contentions
  2. Scientific evidence or sources refuting my contentions
  3. Logical arguments as to why my contentions and scientific evidence aren't valid
Have a good day
Debate Round No. 3


1. "The true definition of dimension has to do with the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it. " source, YOU

-lets start there. The 1st dimension requires one coordinate, The 2nd requires 2 and the 3rd requires 3. (Source, Common sense) And these are coordinates necessary to locating any given point on a plane. If time is the 4th dimension, How many coordinates in the dimension of time, Does it take to identify any given point?

For example, Just a common sense non scientific study example.

With only one coordinate to express a point on a 1-dimensional plane, Does it still not take time to observe said point? Is time still not a factor because it is not being considered? So even though the limitation of having one coordinate is present, Shouldn't the 1st dimension actually be two if time is its own coordinate? No its only 1 because (common sense dictates) time is just a concept present in all dimension.

2. "Are the senses not centered in the mind? "

I argue that you are referring to the brain (source, Elementary anatomy), The physical form. I am referring to the metaphysical "mind. " There isn't much scientific evidence on how the mind works because we can't prove conceptions like emotion, We can only prove physiological responses associated with the mood. But the mood is still a mystery, Just like the mind. I argue that cracking that mystery will enhance perception, Or at least as we know it. -source, Common sense.

3. "I am observing my friend in my apartment right now and am aware of his consciousness. "

- If you're going to belittle an argument, Don't misquote it. The picture you were attempting to paint is, "I was talking about my friend behind his back and out of no where he called me and said 'my ears are burning, I think someone is talking about me, " I argue that the friend who'e ears were burning, Was perceiving in a 4th dimension.
You should be disturbed, I would be too if people around me were perceiving on a plane higher and I wasn't in on it.

Or i would be disturbed if everyone had the same tools but others were using theirs in a way that let them accomplish things that I couldn't.

In closing,

Meditation, Prayer, Law of attraction etc, These concepts more so explain the 4th dimension than time. Calling time the 4th dimension to me is a cop out and does nothing to enhance the way we perceive reality. On the other hand, When we are able to perceive differently based on mood, Or intuition, We are getting a story more in depth that what we perceived on a xyz plane. For example, If i perceive malice in you, Where do i see? Specify with the coordinates necessary. . You can't because that perception needs another coordinate, One that takes the entire 3d plane, And stacks it.

The cons argument is the same argument that is commonly made for time being the 4th dimension and as he states facts and quotes text, Though very thorough, He lacks originality in thought and fails to bring new ideas to support time being the 4th dimension. He even fails to create an argument but rather copy paste links for me to read his argument, In essence causing me to debate with myself lol.

P. S.

I will not site any data. My points stand on there own. If you choose to get caught up on semantics then debate with someone who prides themselves on reciting formulas and text. I pride myself on being able to understand the perspective of any concept regardless of how it is formed.


I am hoping the voters are quick to notice two things when they cast votes:
  1. Pro's poor spelling and grammar
  2. Pro's refusal to cite any scientific (or other) sources
It is never sufficient for a debater to claim that they don't need to cite any data because their points "stand on there [sic] own. " This is an especially egregious error to make when those points, In fact, do not stand on their own. Not by a long shot. Furthermore, I will show that Pro's arguments here, Even if properly formulated, Are nowhere close to being valid, Logical, Or sound in attempting to prove their point or refute mine. As the BoP is on Pro, I should insist that they back up their claims with something beyond what they claim to be "common sense", Especially when they are completely unqualified to make such assertions and actually don't really pose any arguments that make any sense.

Pro states that he/she does not want a debate involving reciting formulas in text and getting caught up on semantics. This is far from the reality of proper discourse. There is no rote memorization or regurgitation going on here. Rather, My arguments are well-researched points backed up by scientific evidence from scholarly sources. Anyone who has experience in debate leagues will know this is absolutely essential and that it is virtually impossible to win a debate without a modicum of evidence to counter an opponent's abundance thereof.

That aside, On to Pro's points that he/she claims stand on their own:

1. Pro offers some convoluted argument about the number of coordinates needed to plot various points in the different dimensions. They say, "shouldn't the 1st dimension actually be two if time is its own coordinate? " This makes utterly 0 sense and further reflects Pro's fundamental misunderstanding of physics and general science. I go back to the example of the work meeting. To tell a person where a meeting is in a large city, They must first tell them the North-South block to go to, Then the East-West block, And then the floor. However, In order to make sure the meeting actually occurs, They must add in the time of this meeting. This is a simplified version of showing how time is the 4th dimension. It requires only one coordinate - the time of the meeting. This is a very obvious demonstration of the way in which time can be a single-coordinate dimension that is interwoven into the fabric of the universe (i. E. Spacetime).

2. This point starts getting into the mind-body problem concerning dualism vs. Materialism, Etc. There is absolutely scientific evidence regarding the way the mind works including concepts like emotions (originating in the amygdala within the limbic system) and such. Though Pro refuses to cite ANY evidence whatsoever, I will gladly do so:
  • https://www. Paulekman. Com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/What-Scientists-Who-Study-Emotion-Agree-About. Pdf
  • https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/pmc/articles/PMC4329228/
  • https://www. Scientificamerican. Com/article/feeling-our-emotions/
  • https://www. Sciencedaily. Com/terms/emotion. Htm
Pro claims that the source for their argument is "Common sense, " however I don't think they are remotely qualified to state what common sense is when it comes to neuroanatomy and biochemistry. That is not to say I am an expert, Though I have studied the subjects at length, But the sources I've cited most certainly are. It is here that, Especially with the Burden of Proof on Pro, They absolutely must use scientific evidence to counter claims. It is not sufficient to say that their arguments "stand on there own" when they have no such grounding.

3. I would say right back to Pro that they should not misquote an argument if they are going to belittle it. That is a complete mischaracterization of my argument, Which I felt was extremely straightforward. In no way am I mentioning the concept of ears burning and someone talking about them. There is absolutely no scientific basis for the phenomenon of "ears burning", So the claim that this perception is occurring in the 4th dimension is a complete non-starter. It would be like saying finding a heads-up penny is good luck so this luck must exist in the 4th dimension. Even if it was proven (which it has never been and will never be) that there is a sensation of ears burning, There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think this concerns a higher dimension that in someway replaces the universally-agreed-upon concept that the 4th dimension is time. The burning ears myth originated in 77 AD, Far before there existed the technology to categorically rule out its veracity.

Before Pro moves on to say they are not willing to cite any sources, They claim, "You should be disturbed, I would be too if people around me were perceiving on a plane higher and I wasn't in on it. " This is very difficult to decipher with its poor grammar, But any interpretation of it is still not logically sound and doesn't really apply properly to this argument.
Debate Round No. 4


You disagree to my point about time being a dimension by agreeing. Yes time would be its own coordinate if it were a dimension, But time itself in the context you explained is not a separate coordinate its actually a combination of the xyz here is why. . Based on what you said.

What am i saying when i say meet me under the tree at 3pm? Or better question. Is 3pm a concept that can stand on its own? No. This is why time is reletive.

When i say meet at 3, I can just as well say, Meet me when the distance between the tree and the north star is 2 inches when holding two fingers 2inches from ur left eye while facing true north with the tree at your posterior.

Did we or did we not meet at the same time? Yet we used 3d geometry to express time. We used x y and z only, Not an added coordinate. We just specify the 3 coordinates already provided. Now yes time would make it easier to word but it is not neccesary to meet at the same place at the same moment?

Answer that question and explain how not in that exampme.

Or, Meet me at the temple when the shadow cast on the building is 33degress from true north. X left, Y north, Z the position of the sun.

Therefore, The next coordinate can not be time as time is not neccesary to specify a point. I can specify a point using xyz coordinates in the same fashion. So my question how do we percieve the xyz coordinates, From an added coordinate?

Imagination, Or even metaphysics better explain the next dimension.

Here is how. Meeting me anywhere at any moment doesnt require an added perception or coordinate.

But what if i percieved you almost reaching the destination with out physical evidence that you were. What if i simply just 'felt in my mind' you where one block away.

When i imagine correctly in my mind and see you accurately in route, What coordinates did i specify to myself to identify your location. Xyand z of course, But there is an added coordinate because i can percieve your location as if i am there though i am not.

So how would i map what i am percieving? I can't draw a 2d or 3d map. As i can be on any point and yet still observing you on your way.


Again, This argument is a bit difficult to understand because of the poor grammar, Though I have tried my absolute best to interpret it as generously as possible.

Pro says that time is not a separate coordinate, It's actually a combination of xyz. This does not make sense at all. A given axis/coordinate plane is exclusive of all others. There is only one type of measurement that can be taken within a given dimension, By definition.

Pro's key point here is that he/she can arrange a meeting at a specific time and location by using distances between various objects from specific perspectives. He/she goes on to state, "Answer that question and explain how not in that exampme [sic]. " I will now, Unequivocally, Do exactly that:

This could not possibly be more incorrect. For simplicity's sake, It is very easy to see that the specific perspective Pro mentioned will lead to the same answer once per year. Without specifying which year, Or saying something like, "the next time ___ is ___ inches from ___, Etc", Which is an invocation of time, It would be utterly impossible to know when the meeting will take place.
(The particular example Pro provides would also be completely impractical. Using things like "inches" when holding "fingers" to determine time using relative position of heavenly bodies would never work. One would need extremely precise measurement devices, Telescopes, And the like, To make this work. That does not mean it is impossible in theory, Just in practice. However, I would concentrate more on the first issue as that pokes an enormous hole in Pro's argument, Both in theory and in practice).

This should be all that is necessary to have thoroughly disprove the crux of Pro's argument. He/she provides no scientific/mathematical backing for his/her assertions. Rather, They use what they consider to be "common sense", Despite the fact that the logic is completely flawed (at best).

Pro goes on to say that imagination must be the 4th dimension based on the idea that he/she can feel in their mind that I was one block away. This is utter nonsense. One cannot possibly know something like this with any accuracy. Pro states, "But there is an added coordinate because i can percieve your location as if i am there though i am not. " First of all, One absolutely cannot perceive another's location as if they are there purely out of imagination. Of course, They can "imagine" this, But they can never know for sure. Beyond that, Even if some sort of ESP or Psychokinesis existed, There is no fathomable reason why we should suppose this represents a higher dimension, Let alone the one immediately beyond the x-y-z coordinate system.

Here are a number of scientific sources speaking to the higher dimensions that exist in our universe, None of which are "imagination":
  • http://mkaku. Org/home/articles/hyperspace-a-scientific-odyssey/
  • https://web2. Ph. Utexas. Edu/~coker2/index. Files/4d. Shtml
  • https://aeon. Co/essays/how-many-dimensions-are-there-and-what-do-they-do-to-reality
  • http://www. Pbs. Org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2014/04/how-many-dimensions-does-the-universe-really-have/
  • https://www. Popularmechanics. Com/science/math/a27737/visualize-higher-dimensions/
To summarize this entire debate:
  1. Pro has refused to cite one scientific, Mathematical, Or even opinion-based source. They claim that their arguments stand on their own and are based on common sense, But this couldn't be farther from the case
  2. Pro has repeatedly demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of nearly all the concepts touched upon and required to intelligently discuss this topic
  3. Pro has not come close to fulfilling the Burden of Proof on top of failing to refute my arguments
  4. Pro has used a number of fallacious, Rather non-sensical thought experiments and examples to attempt to prove their point, But has actually done nearly the opposite
  5. Pro's grammar and spelling have made much of their writing unintelligible
Debate Round No. 5
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
Can't believe no one voted here
Posted by NYStateofMined 3 years ago
Dude, Idk what to say other than LOL. You're honestly scaring me a bit with this level of being delusional. I don't even have words for you.

As is said in Billy Madison, "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, Incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, And may God have mercy on your soul. '"
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
Oops. I did it again. Part 2 is out there now! (Evil disney channel laugh) mu hahahaha mu hahahaha
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
@kgfog8 or whatever

I maybe delusionally insane. . Hahahaha

Sike idk what answer u expected but i wanted to give u a moment of believing i answered that question.

I wonder how they described Galileo, Delusional? Retarded? Possessed?

Idk pick one lol
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
@Nystateofmind quit while you are ahead or quite? Im sure that was a grammar error uh oh will you self distruct now? Lol

Seriously though, You won't understand that statement until later in life.

Think of this: we all percieve reality, But some people dont have vision or hearing. Can't you understand that some of us are better at percieving in certain ways than others? In other words

You are blind, In the forth dimension. Your "eyes" are closed. Lol so you dont see whats right in front of you. Or at least you dont know its in front of you because you are blind. Time is blinding you from opening your eyes to next level of perception.
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
@newstudent thats not a "heads up" i think u meant, "CONGRATZ WE talked about you in class today"

Which is weird, 2 nights ago i wondered if any of u were college students visiting this site for class and then i fantasized about my discussion coming up in convo during class.

I assume of course im not the only one on this site so lucky.

But i seen this happening 2 days ago and boom it happened. Call it what you want but i think its an example of how to utilize 4th dimensional perception (or whatever the correct way is to phrase it. )
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago

Feel free to challenge me in a similar debate. Perhaps i could make an interesting case study for you.

Heck, You may even get a thesis paper out of it. .

Btw my brother is a phd in psychology so i looove your type.

Im the rockstar philosopher of the family. The proverbial black sheep.

Come ooon see how mildly competent i can be. Trigger warning, I can't sp3ll tho! Haha
Posted by LucciDamus 3 years ago
Omg you guys were talking about m3 in cl@$$?

Niiiiiiiiiice, I bet your professor won't call me in the middle of class to discuss this matter.

Besides, Im loving that i am only one on this side of the debate.

Here is the thing, I can admit i care not about grammar, And i am not a professional debater.

I get paid to close deals so eh. Whatevs.

What i do know is i used to think time was the 4th dimension too, Until i actually started to manipulate reality with my mind. So i am convinced by personal experience the next level of perception is utilizing the mind in meditation or even focussed thought.

However i didnt use personal experience to debate, As it is not as relatable as math or science.

#LucciDamus lol so what school yall getting brainwashed at? Lol
Posted by PhysStudent0101 3 years ago
I'm in the same class as NewStudent. Spent about 35 minutes in class looking at Lucci. Tempted to refer it to my Abnormal Psych class. Plenty of the people on this board seem pretty crazy, But Lucci is the main one who sticks out as being mildly competent but totally off his rocker.

Also, Minus 1000 for awful spelling and grammar. Pick up a dictionary. Use spell check. Read a book.
Posted by BertrandsTeapot 3 years ago
" Our Philosophy of Science professor (in my 2nd year at Uni) directed us to this debate specifically to look at LucciDamus's argument for an example of how NOT to debate things in this realm. "

That's how you know you're doing it right!
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.