/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2661052

shameless self bump

>>2661081
no one has any thoughts on this, how can this be /sci/

Well, we do live in a 4-dimensional spacetime with time as a dimension. Time is part of the generalized distance formula between two points, and you can do rotations in the xt-plane.

I don't know what your point is about shadows, though. As far as consciousness, I'm conscious of the present rather than everything that happens to me ever, which implies there's a different consciousness for each point in time.

>>2661052
That's how I always thought of it.

Well considering you bumped after only 2-3 minutes, do you know how slow /sci/ can get sometimes?
And sorry, can't really help with you're thoughts

>>2661094

just crazy to think about, i went a bit to far though to the point where(this is where the shadows come into play and takes into the consciousness you mentioned)

we are shadows of our 4-d selves, we are the 3-d components, with time, our consciousness changes with each passing moment, but our 4-d selves have more awareness of more than one moment, they see the big picture.

know what imsaying?

I am the shadow, the true self!

>>2661131
So our current state is just a portion of our 4-d selves?

Postulating about unobservables is entertaining and all but it's not terribly useful to science.

What predictive power would your conjecture grant you? Is it falsifiable? How do you test it?

>>2661131
I understand what you're saying, but I doubt that any such 4-D consciousness exists. And I don't think it makes sense for one consciousness to be a shadow of another.

>>2661131

dig this. Time is the fourth dimension and we're already aware of that; we have mathematics for it and everything.

We're actually higher-dimensional (fifth?) beings casting shadows on four-dimensional spacetime.

Each moment, when you see a 3d space, you are looking at the intersection of many "planes" in 4d space, in the same way that a line is the intersection of two planes.

"Space" as we know it is the intersection of 4d spaces, and we are casting shadows on the 4d spaces from even higher dimensions.

>>2661143

yes pretty much what im saying, ever changing at every moment, in the shadow of our true selves

>>2661146

with anything that is available to do and the short time ive been thinking about it, ive been thinking of such things with no success, get back to you, but fun to think about for now


>>2661152
it doesnt have to make sense, it doesnt have to be true, it doesnt have to be benefitial, fun to think about. and our 4-d is the collective of our 3-d over that time

I have trouble entertaining this question because, while taking time to be the 4th dimension makes the math work in modern physics, it's still time. It's not a spatial dimension.

And what does this mean to science?
Not much?
Cool.
But to be serious, its a nice thought.
Polite sage.

>>2661165
beautiful. just beautiful

>>2661165
you even went one step further, just amazing to think about.

but as you probably know, im continually thinking and rethinking points of mine, im having fun with this, you should to, entertain yourself and enjoy. as far as dealing with science, it does and doesnt, give it time, all innovations begin with a simple thought. think about it if you would.

>>2661052
This excites you cause its a novelty, some thing new.
But we all are already aware of this.
Shadow? No.
We exist in the present.

>>2661177
>It's not a spatial dimension.
Tell that to
<div class="math">ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2</div>
and the Lorentz transformations.

>>2661175
and thanks for the silent kudos, appreciated.

>>2661193
It's spacelike, which means that the math for space works for it, but it's not space. For one thing, movement along it only goes in one direction.

>>2661191
what are you doing with your awareness..??

im thinking there is more to this i couldnt even begin to fathom, so if you have been aware, what progressions have you made,

excitement in knowledge has gotten us to where we are today, dont stunt the growth unless you are completely set in not moving forward. move along sir

>>2661221
>For one thing, movement along it only goes in one direction.
The same is true of all dimensions.
You can only move a positive <span class="math">\Delta x[/spoiler] in a given <span class="math">\Delta x[/spoiler].
You can only move a positive <span class="math">\Delta y[/spoiler] in a given <span class="math">\Delta y[/spoiler].
You can only move a positive <span class="math">\Delta z[/spoiler] in a given <span class="math">\Delta z[/spoiler].

Also, time is not a _spacelike_ dimension; in the distance formula it appears with the opposite sign.

>>2661233
I need to clean that up a bit.
You can only move with a positive <span class="math">\Delta x / \Delta x[/spoiler].

>>2661233
I'm kind of slow, but I don't understand what you're doing with the deltas. An object can move back and forth along a line in space. It cannot move back and forth along an interval in time.

And while it is true that -t can appear in an equation, I understand that only to mean that one is subtracting the time, e.g., the time interval for one process minus the time interval for another process is a shorter time interval. You can subtract times, but that is not the same as moving backwards in time.

>>2661221
if you are unwilling to accept time as a dimension, let us think of it as a dimension we are not yet aware of, or will never be capable of being aware.

we are seeing these intersections of 4 spaces in a shadow. or if you will, a projection of the 4-d space onto a plane currently rational to us

H.G. Wells beat you to it by almost 100 years, OP.

>>2661249
>An object can move back and forth along a line in space.
Movement in space means <span class="math">dx/dt[/spoiler].

>It cannot move back and forth along an interval in time.
That is true because <span class="math">dt/dt = 1 > 0[/spoiler]. However, it is a non-argument, as the same thing applies to space: <span class="math">dx/dx = 1 > 0[/spoiler].

>>I was laying down the other day and I came to a thought
means:
I was smoking pot the other day...

>>2661250
I guess... I mean, supposedly physicists have no problem with higher-dimensional theories of space...they're "curled up" or something like that which is why we can't detect them...but my poor little imagination can hardly get started with them. But you go ahead and blow other folks' minds, you rascal you.

>>2661251
im h.g. wells. and you thought time travel was a fact of fiction muaahahahaha.

but on a serious note, im not trying to make this into a ridiculous hypothesis in which we can apply to make science fiction feasible, but more of food for thought, mutual benefitial relationship in which i share ideas you share ideas, and we feast

Just a minor qualm, but it annoys me when people say time is <span class="math">the[/spoiler] 4th dimension. It's <span class="math">a[/spoiler] 4th dimension. It's an important distinction.

>>2661270
that i cannot. but if i was imagine where i could have taken this

>>2661269

you crazy ole fool, dont make me blush

>>2661292
hence
>>2661250

building and rebuilding, a polite excuse me to you good sir. i like insight and further ideas built by other people, all opinions should be recognized.

>>2661292
nod

are there more than one time dimensions? I've thought before that there were three spacial dimensions unbound by three time dimensions. the three spatial dimensions a very long string among the three time dimensions constantly branching out after each deterministic event, one branch for each possible outcome...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q_GQqUg6Ts

rob bryanton's work on the tenth dimension and such.
really helped explain all this to me

>>2661267
Dude you are freaking me out. It is true that movement is change in position relative to time, but it is also true that an object can return to its prior position in space while it cannot return to its prior "position" in time. (At least, in my simple understanding it is true...I wish I had an inertial frame of reference around sometimes as it would make things easier.) That is, an object cannot return to its prior position in spacetime, but that's entirely due to the time dimension.

Taking your second point: if you apply a 3D dimensional metric to some region of space, then the change in any one dimension with respect to any other dimension is always 0, because the dimensions are (presumably) orthogonal. However, the change in any spatial dimension relative to t can be positive or negative.

>>2661332
>but it is also true that an object can return to its prior position in space while it cannot return to its prior "position" in time.

Again!
Return = come back at a later *time*.
Obviously you can't come back to an earlier time at a later time. You can't use words with time in their definitions to demonstrate time is different than space.

>the change in any one dimension with respect to any other dimension is always 0
Let an object move along the line y=x. For that object, dy/dx = 1.

>>2661052
>>2661052

ya its possible, i've thought about this too, what i think the 4D is that, say you looked at your self in third person, like in a videogame, that space that you're looking down on yourself in would be the 4th dimension if that even existed, but since it doesn't you'd just be looking at yourself from a view point in the 3D just like 3 feet behind and above your self. but if the 4th dimension did exist it would be that place where your eyes existed, but you'd only be able to experience that very little portion of the 4th dimension, because your eyes would exist in there but you couldn't look around or feel or anything because all your senses would be in the 3rd dimension, and time can be a 4th dimension persay but its not really 'the' 4th dimension its just a dimension we added to our 3rd dimension,to create a 4th dimension. idk but i can tell you've been watching carl sagan

>>2661165

This is fairly silly because we exist in all dimensions at once. There is no proof that there are any dimensions besides space and time, but if there are such dimensions and they exist in the universe then we necessarily exist in them even if we do not detect them.

So theres not really any such thing as being of a "higher" dimension. It's not hierarchal, dimensions of the universe just exist.

>>2661321

That is a load of horseshit. Higher dimensions are abstract mathematical constructs.

>>2661318

Time is linear so far as we can tell. Multiple dimensions of time make no sense.

>>2661387
>Multiple dimensions of time make no sense.
It makes as much sense as multiple spacelike dimensions; that is to say, it makes perfect sense. In fact, you can have a universe with 3 timelike dimensions and 1 spacelike dimension which would be indistinguishable from our own.

>>2661369
Yes, of course you're right about diagonal movement. Duh.

BUT--to the first point. If three dimensions (call them the spatial dimensions) stand in different relations relative to another dimension (call it time) than they stand to each other, then that other dimension is different. Thus I see no problem in using "time" to show the difference between time and the spatial dimensions. But I'm weak on this.

Let me try another tack: thermodynamics. The laws of thermodynamics stand in one relation to the temporal dimension than to the spatial dimensions, because of entropy. So time stands apart from the spatial dimensions.

>>2661418
Hmm. So why say there are 3 spacelike dimensions and 1 timelike dimension in our universe? Is it arbitrary?

>>2661419
>Thus I see no problem in using "time" to show the difference between time and the spatial dimensions.
There's a big problem when your arguments, when deconstructed, reduce to "time is time, space is not time."

As far as entropy, entropy also increases with increasing t+x/2c or t-y/3c. It does single out one set of timelike vectors as being "forward," but it doesn't single out any quantity we could call "time."

>>2661432
Yes, it is arbitrary. We could start calling time a spacelike dimension, and x, y, and z timelike dimensions, and it would make no differences in the math other than a few conventions of sign here and there, but it would also confuse the fuck out of people.

>>2661452
Again, I'm pretty slow here, but "time is x, space is not x," if meaningful and true (admittedly a big if!), does seem to show a difference between time and space, regardless of the value of x.

As for singling out one set of timelike vectors as being "forward," without singling out any quantity we could call "time," I never said time was a quantity. If one of the 4 spacetime dimensions is forward, and the others are not, then that seems good enough for me to say that time is not a spatial dimension (which was my admittedly naive argument).

>>2661469
That seems to entail that phenomenological facts also distinguish time from space.

>>2661504
>Again, I'm pretty slow here, but "time is x, space is not x," if meaningful and true (admittedly a big if!), does seem to show a difference between time and space, regardless of the value of x.

What would you say about "north and east are not up, but up is up"?

And there is a distinction between time and space. But not enough of a distinction for anyone to argue that the future and past are not places. The real clincher is that there is no objective way to define a boundary between the future and the past.

>>2661531
Well, yeah, up is the direction outwards from the center of the earth, while north and east are directions along the surface.

I do thank you for taking the time to work with me. You're given me material for thought and you've been patient. Obviously I don't have the background to appreciate your arguments fully. And I do recognize that time is not really the intuitively understood "thing" by that name, at least because of the failure of simultaneity to meet intuitive standards. But recall that what got me started was my reluctance to see 3D objects as shadows of 4D objects where one of the 4 was time. I'm happy to think of slices of worms, but they don't blow my mind.

>>2661567
Slices of 4-dimensional worms is accurate. OP's shadow stuff, not so much.

>>2661567
>Well, yeah, up is the direction outwards from the center of the earth, while north and east are directions along the surface.

I should add that it's pretty much the same for the direction we call "forward in time." Which direction you call forward in time depends on the velocity of your frame of reference.

Unfortunately, due to the timelike/spacelike sign change, you can't orient yourself so that the direction you call forward in time is along my x-axis. So there is that level of distinction between space and time. There's a set of forward timelike vectors, and only those can be thought of as forward in time. But any one is good as any other.

>>2661681
>Unfortunately
Yes, it does seem a shame....
Take it easy, teach.