[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 200x200, 1406784474885.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5562197 No.5562197[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Is it philosophically possible to talk about things which are inconceivable and outside of human imagination?

>> No.5562244

>>5562197
The answer implicit in your phrasing is no.

>> No.5562249

are there even things outside of human imagination

>> No.5562255

Does 4+ dimensional linear algebra count?

>> No.5562259

dumb frogposter
sage and report

>> No.5562261

>>5562255
how it's outside of human imagination when mathematicians imagine it all day every day

>> No.5562298

>>5562261
I think what he means is that while we understand the numbers behind it, and can discuss those numbers, we couldn't possibly spacially imagine linear algebra in 4+ dimensions.

>> No.5562306

>>5562197

Yep. It's called paradoxes.

>> No.5562315

>>5562298

the original post wasn't about spatial imagination though, that's not the only kind of imagination

also actually 4th dimension is spatially imaginable, you can even google for pics

>> No.5562322

>>5562298
I can.

>> No.5562337

>>5562298
>we couldn't possibly spacially imagine linear algebra in 4+ dimension

Yes we can, well we can see its 3d format.

But no, we're highly limited as 3d creatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

>> No.5562346

>>5562315
>the original post wasn't about spatial imagination though, that's not the only kind of imagination
I know, I was just saying that we can understand the numbers behind something without understanding the spacial properties.

>also actually 4th dimension is spatially imaginable, you can even google for pics
Those pictures are 2D images of 3D renditions. Not entirely 4D if you ask me. And then we have the fifth and sixth and so forth, can you imagine them.

>>5562322
Me too. We should be best friends :3

>>5562337
Pretty much this. That explanation was how I first started understanding the higher dimensions. Gotta love the Sagan.

>> No.5562378

It is conceivable to experience these things, but not to talk about them.

>> No.5562457

For all the plebs ITT who can't think in more than 3 dimentions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q

>> No.5562525

Yes, e.g. The Order of Things - Foucault (among which his discussion of Borges' "a certain Chinese Encyclopedia)."

>> No.5562535

>>5562197
You're talking about them right now, aren't you?

>> No.5562546

when shakespeare says 'there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy' what does he mean by this? i've never understood if this is a particular jab at one person or a general sentiment

>> No.5562624

>>5562535
No he's talking about the concept of being able to talk about them. RETARD

>> No.5563352

Possible? No.
Meaningful? No.