[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 7 KB, 271x186, Nebula.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560545 No.5560545 [Reply] [Original]

I sometimes hear physicists talk about different dimensions (12th dimension, 4th dimension, etc). What do they mean by this? Can dimensions be a place beyond our known universe or what? What can we know about these dimensions?

>> No.5560549

Bump

>> No.5560552

fuck off

>> No.5560558

>>5560552

I don't see what I did wrong.

>> No.5560565

Anyone?

>> No.5560571

Width, depth, and height are examples of dimensions. Dimension doesn't mean "alternate universe."

>> No.5560572

They mean that there may be different 'directions' things can move in e.g. gravity leaking out into higher dimensions resulting in its weakness in our experience in 4D (3 spatial, 1 time) Minkowski space.

If you want an easy going, non-techinical introduction to higher dimensions, read Edwin Abott's Flatland. It should allow you to get a feel for what is meant by the 4th dimension and what adding extra dimensions mean.

Just a side note, dimensions aren't places beyond our known universe. If it makes it easier: Think of 3 dimensions meaning we have to assign 3 numbers to something to know its position. At any point in space, you just need 3. If we have higher dimensions, odds are they're coiled up very tightly and are too small to cause a problem. That doesn't mean they're a portal to an alternate universe with aliens and shit, just that everywhere but undetectable since light and matter is unable to permeate it.

Gravity, since some theories indicate that it 'leaks' into the higher dimensions, does cross over so that may be our way to understanding the properties of higher dimensional space.

>> No.5560574

>>5560571

Right but why can't 4 dimensional objects exist in our universe? How do we know that 3 dimensions aren't the maximum dimensions that can exist? If higher dimensional objects do exist where might they be?

>> No.5560582

>>5560572

Thank you for that.

>> No.5560586

>>5560574

If the universe has 4 spatial dimensions, every object is 4 dimensional. But the 4th dimensional value of our everyday objects would be invariant

>> No.5560603

>>5560586
Unless you approach the speed of light, or make a time machine.

>> No.5560612
File: 473 KB, 500x500, mindfuck.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560612

>>5560545
There are no multiple dimensions. Stop watching the pop-sci blabbing media monkeys. Dimension is a term only used in maths and computer language. There are no dimensions in real life. You can't see a 2D object in reality, because dimensions don't exist. If you must boil it down to dimensions, there would be two, which is space and time. Nothing more.

>> No.5560617

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oextk-If8HQ

>> No.5560633

>>5560612

ignore this guy, someone is science-buthurt

>> No.5560656

>>5560633
You have to stop living in the fantasy world kid. Multiple dimensions don't exist, and you have to get over it. You can't just call anyone butthurt who happens to tell the truth contradicting to your dreams.

>> No.5560664
File: 232 KB, 100x100, 1361424347794.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560664

It's not that they do or don't exist it's they're literally the generalities upon which the limitations of our language are built and therefore it makes very little sense to speak about them at all.


They do /exist/ but since we do not experience reality in the sense of its absolute nature(our experience of reality is an approximate experience(if you find this a strange thought then consider this: you can never experience all objects in the universe, because you are a three dimensional object, there will always be a 'behind' object, and even if you used something which is analogous to a 'mirror', this would still generate some type of preclusion(this is basically what Gödel's theorems say on a physical level)))

So, yes, there are different dimensions, perhaps an arbitrary number of them in terms of theoretical physics, but for all intents and purposes, if you want to reconcile that sort of idea with the level of human understanding, it necessarily becomes a sort of mathematica metaphor, because the totality of our experience is simply lesser than the totality of science.


The best thing to do is to not question it because it's been proven that you literally will never get anywhere outside of negation(and that statement of negation is the one which has been explicated here). Leave it to people who've spent their entire lives studying this exact thing.

>> No.5560671

>>5560664
Biggest bullshit I've read in a looong time. Thanks for that.

>> No.5560679

>>5560574

How would a 4 dimensional space-like object exist in a 3 dimensional space-like universe? We only have 3 degrees of space-like freedom in our universe. A 4th dimensional object would require 4 degrees of space-like freedom to exist in our universe, which we don't have.

If a 4th dimensional object did come to exist in our universe, we wouldn't be able to fully interpret what it actually is, as we would only be able to observe a 3 dimensional cross section of the 4th dimensional object.

>> No.5560681

>>5560671

Lol a pleb on /sci/, how unexpected.

>> No.5560692

>>5560681
> endless ad hominems
> no counter arguments
Your friends called >>>/b/

>> No.5560695

>>5560692

So hold on you reply to my post saying it's the biggest mess of shite you've read in a while and you feel as though you can say this and be taken seriously without supporting it, yet when I call you out for being the pleb that you are, as is exemplified in your lack of ability to support what you've spewed, that's somehow an ad hominem?


Surely you're trolling. You can't be this stupid.

>> No.5560702

>>5560679

Which means that the object does not move in the 4th dimension. This qualification means that any of our everyday objects could exist in a multi dimensional system but due to their properties do not change or move noticeably in the others.

>> No.5560707

>>5560695
Seems the problem is your lack of reading comprehension. I'll assist you this time and point to the argument I already wrote. >>5560612

>> No.5560714

>>5560707

argument? more like an unsubstantiated rant.

>> No.5560720

>>5560707

Yet if you read what I wrote it you'd understand that it agrees with what you had said. If my problem is reading comprehension, then yours must be not reading at all! Or better yet, perhaps vice versa...

>> No.5560713

dimensions are sort of like the number of variables describing and object

you could have a cube with three dimensions describing the space it takes up, plus another dimension describing its color and arbitrarily assign numbers to different colors

>> No.5560725

>>5560714
Don't worry about it. Truth isn't for everyone.

>>5560720
Then why the conflict ?

>> No.5560726

>>5560707
>repeating myself without justification is an argument
lol

>> No.5560733

>>5560725

You're the one who said my post was nonsense mate.

>> No.5560730

>>5560713

True in some relative sense, but as has already been understood at least for 100 years, all of these different 'sub-dimensions' which are equivalent to the grouping of colour can really be generalised into the grouping which is the passage of temporality, which, as we understand through GR, is essentially speaking just a sort of 'backside' to the 4th spatial dimension.

>> No.5560739
File: 54 KB, 529x547, trol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5560739

>>5560730
> 'sub-dimensions'

>> No.5560745

>>5560739

So then you don't understand elementary set theory. That's great.... h-h-here you g-go..!

>> No.5560749

>>5560725

Maybe if you elaborated on your truth in a cohesive and logically consistent way, it would be.

>> No.5560752

>>5560733
Oh, I thought you implied multiple dimensions by giving the 'behind object' example.

>> No.5560748

>>5560745
10/10 that was perfect brah

>> No.5560755

>>5560749

In his defence if it was in fact truth(and I mean absolutely true as in the one absolute truth which is most true), it would be precisely that thing which would NOT be susceptible to logical explanation in an effective procedure type of way. This has been proven logically.

>> No.5560756

>>5560749
What didn't you understand from this ? >>5560612

>> No.5560759

>>5560612
How many numbers are required to describe an object in space?

>> No.5560762

>>5560755

Except that his points are nonsensical.

>> No.5560768

>>5560759
Describe what ? You need too many numbers to describe something to its atomic levels

>> No.5560771

>>5560762
> except that I refuse to use my brain
Thanks for clarifying that

>> No.5560775

>>5560768
You want to find the position of a particle in some coordinate system. You lay out a grid of rulers. How many rulers do you need to uniquely identify the particle?

>> No.5560776

>>5560752

Well I am saying that they do 'exist', but that we often confuse what exists for what we could possibly experience. We only 'understand'(this becomes a technical term) that which we could possibly experience, but we can in fact 'bring up' anything whatsoever. So this leads to problems in our explanations of things.


Therefore when you say there are no dimensions, in terms of what we can actually 'understand'(a better word is apprehend as it implies a sort of capturing), yes, you are right, but we get an entirely different story from science. So scientifically extra dimensions do exist. It's simply that people have no yet learned that what we can in fact understand is a distinct set of objects from what we can 'bring up'(/say/, 'talk about' etc.). This is precisely the job of philosophy but what philosophy has discovered is that its own job is actually 'impossible' in some ways which would be futile to get into here. This is generally speaking why 1 - people immediately dismiss statements of the type which you said as nonsense, 2 - why philosophy has such a bad rap, and 3 - as an extension of 2, why philosophy never seems to make any progress.


Of course understood correctly what I just said is also nonsense and therefore I can predict(except not anymore because I've just confounded the prediction by explicating it(or did I?(pay attention))) that people will immediately dismiss all that I've just said as nonsense.

>> No.5560780

Somebody needs to take a visit to flatland

>> No.5560784

>>5560771

Waiting for you to use yours properly. Start by clarifying what YOU mean by dimension before you give a hand wavy description of bullshit

>> No.5560789

>>5560775
> in some coordinate system
since we're talking mathematical definitions, I'd need just an rotation value that tells the orientation of where its facing and just one ruler for the distance.

>> No.5560791

>>5560784

Your request for clarification is not possible, and if you only thought about why rather than asking for some sort of precalculated proof, you'd perhaps get a sense of why. What he has said is true, but it is unprovable, precisely as anything which is actually(cf. relatively) true would be.

>> No.5560797

>>5560784
Anything you say or babble is invalid and a joke, until you show me a 2D object. Since you can easily define 2D objects in an 3D space, you should be able to show me a 2D object in real life.
Cmon, take your time. I'm looking forward to see what you're going to come up with.

>> No.5560801

>>5560789
And you need 3 numbers to identify points, right?

>> No.5560802

>>5560797

I'm the one who's supporting what you've said, but just something to think about, can you show me time?

>> No.5560803

>>5560801
Yes.

>> No.5560807

>>5560802
Time is a measurement unit for change. So you can use your wristwatch to define time.

>> No.5560817

>>5560803
Your particle can now move. How would you fix the singularities in your coordinate system?

>> No.5560815

>>5560791

Then it's unfalsifiable, unscientific and useles..

>>5560797

Anything confined to move in a plane is 2D since it takes two numbers to specify its position. Your second sentence contains a logical mistep I'll leave to you to identify .You're mixing up the mathematical definition of dimension with the poetic/stupid definition

>> No.5560825

If our universe allows us to interact on in the 2nd and 3rd dimensions. Would it be possible for something on a higher dimensional universe to interact with ours?

>> No.5560826

>>5560807

You can use your wristwatch to show time precisely in the same way that you can use the abstract idea of 2 dimensions, or the representation of 2 dimensions by a flat surface, say, a sheet of paper, to show that it exists.

You cannot however /show/ me time, yet it is still commonly said to exist. This is because time does not exist technically speaking, in terms of human experience, but then again it also does exist technically speaking, in terms of the inventory of scientific facts. And this is the point I made earlier which I think a lot of people, even seasoned professionals, do not appreciate; that experience and science are two different things. And seeing as how our understanding of science occurs through our experience of our understanding of science, it is necessarily bound thus. But again what I have said is nonsense because if it were true, it would follow that it would be absolutely senseless to talk about.

>> No.5560833

>>5560817
with adjusting it with X,Y and Z coordinates.

>> No.5560844

>>5560815
Yes, agreed, but scientifically useless does not mean useless in a general colloquial sense. The trouble you're running into is mistaking science for a world view. You can't have science as a worldview because it doesn't exist at the same level of 'calibration', as it were, that your experience does.

Re the second thing you said: he's speaking of a philosophical definition, which from the perspective of a mathematical definition, might as well be a 'stupid/more within the realm of poetic' type of definition, but outside of the perspective of mathematical definitions, it is really quite equal. This is because naturally speaking, we cannot understand the mathematical definition like we can the philosophic one. This is the point I made earlier. People make the mistake of thinking that we understand science or mathematics or logic themselves when we can ever only understand an approximate sort of interpretation of them. This is a keystone theorem of model theory by Löwenheim and Skolem.

>>5560825
Yes, but that sort of interaction we could never have any knowledge about whatsoever and therefore naturally in order to denote this type of interaction we use the term 'it does not exist' as its name. Think about it.

>> No.5560850

>>5560833
You would need a lot of these adjustments though, if you want to describe all of space, right? Let's say you collect all of the possible adjustments that cover your space needed to describe the position of the particle anywhere in the universe, and throw them into a bag. You setup transition functions between the adjustments so you are singularity-free. Good?

>> No.5560855

>>5560844

I liked it best when sciences were purely reactionary to the material phenomena, rather getting entangled in all this metaphysical nonesense

>> No.5560874

>>5560844

We're discussing the scientific merits of multidimensional theories on a science board. It's pretty fair to keep within the scientific definition of dimensions. Additionally, the trouble in understanding you're talking of is trying to 'translate' mathematical language into english which is always incomplete and difficult. This is because mathematics is a language to itself, describing the world and our experiences in a much more precise and descriptive way. People forget that scientific testing is an extension of our capacity to experience, not a seperate entity. Explaining the results of the tests in philosophical language is difficult because the English language is very limited. Understanding dimensions in context of mathematics is pretty easy once you learn the language

>> No.5560869

>>5560855

Yes because that way you don't have to actually think about anything, you're safe with the comfort of science explaining things all in an outright fashion. Though, if you ever want to arrive at truth, you must have courage enough to go above science, because science itself will never meet the truth for what it is. So it is nonsense, but only because you're outside and not inside of it(note that I'm not saying here a statement of the type: "you can't understand it only because... etc. etc.", what I'm doing is affirming that you are in fact correct when you call it nonsense, but just that in this I am also affirming that there are two different parts of reality which run contra to each other, and that in order for science to work, they must be assumed to be reconcilable, which they are not. This is the leap of faith you must make, to accept this fact.

>> No.5560884 [DELETED] 

>>5560850
Could nobody even find just a single 2D object ? Well..I guess that setlles it.

>> No.5560888

>>5560874

I know but presumably the underling premiss of us being here on a science board is because we want to have something to do with the understanding of truth, so that's where what I said comes in.

And maths is a language but we don't fully understand it. Otherwise it wouldn't be maths, it would be english(or any other language of that sort; natural language I suppose is the going term). Same exact thing with music.

So those definitions are precise, of course, but it does not follow that we fully understand them because the level at which we truly understand things is at the level of natural language. Oftentimes people don't see the significance of the idea of what we can and cannot technically 'understand' because it's not necessarily at all pragmatic, so this very important point is overlooked.

It's worth mentioning that I'm originally a mathematician so I'm not talking about something which I have no real clue over.

>> No.5560889

>>5560850
Could nobody even find just a single 2D object ? Well..I guess that settles it.

>> No.5560890

>>5560850 here.
I just need a yes back if you want to learn why physicists think dimensions exist.

>> No.5560891

>>5560844
>> Yes, but that sort of interaction we could never have any knowledge about whatsoever and therefore naturally in order to denote this type of interaction we use the term 'it does not exist' as its name. Think about it.

Thanks for the reply, excuse my ignorance but why could we never have any knowledge about this?

>> No.5560894

>>5560889
You make zero sense.

>> No.5560903

>>5560891

Because it is precisely that thing which defines the limitations of knowledge. If you're inside of an object, say, a sphere, you would never have a sense of its totality, that is, its existence as an entity of you were outside of it. So it is that one thing which does exist but which you could never have any knowledge of.

>> No.5560914

>>5560869

Science should not have ever been involved in the the debate of truth in the first place. Whether we interpret something as true or not is irrelevant. We can only observe how various processes in nature work and use that to our advantage.

>> No.5560916

>>5560894

He makes plenty sense. You're just refusing to think about what he's saying, which, is more often than not justifiable because you shouldn't have to think about it, the language should do that for you.

>> No.5560917

>>5560844
>Yes, but that sort of interaction we could never have any knowledge about whatsoever and therefore naturally in order to denote this type of interaction we use the term 'it does not exist' as its name. Think about it.
That's wrong. It would have infinitely many observable effects. It would generate infinitely many corrections to our existing physical laws unless it were properly described.

>> No.5560910

>>5560894
In computer language, you define a 2D object as a plane. Since you claim reality is 3D, you should be able to show me a 2D object. Show an object which has no thickness and exists only in 2 Dimensions. Come on already.

>> No.5560927

>>5560545
lern 2 math

>> No.5560924

>>5560910
You can take a collection of particles and confine them to appear as a sheet. It wouldn't be perfect however, obviously.

With high enough energies, you could excite space and create a 2 dimensional submanifold. We don't have the technology to do that yet.

>> No.5560932

>>5560914

So you are simply pragmatically minded and that's that. You see no value in absolute truth because it itself has no application. That's fine, but it is only true for you. For me, somebody who views absolute truth as intrinsically valuable regardless of its application, my truth is different. Usually what is true must be true universally but in this case it is different.


>>5560917
Yes and the fact that it produces an infinitude of effects evinces the idea which I spoke of where we could never have any knowledge of it. If infinity were properly knowable, it would not be infinity.

inb4 but infinity has a precise mathematical definition

You don't understand the definition or the idea of precision if you think it is precise or a true definition. That or you're just giving it the benefit of the doubt without realising it.

>> No.5560930

>>5560888

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree that understanding is predicated on a transpose to a natural language. English and practically all languages are incomplete and fail to convey understanding of all observed phenomena. There are many words that simplify too much, many that categorize too loosely. Math probably has similar problems at a fundamental level. It's just that there's more of the physical world describable by math then there is by english.

Out of curiosity, what area of mathematics did you work in? I work in physics but math is one of my little hobbies,

>> No.5560935

>>5560916
He replied to me with an irrelevant, schizophrenic comment. I asked him a question and he went off on a tangent. His question is completely unclear and and I can show him many "2D objects". He has yet to define what he means by "find" or "object". How am I supposed to understand him?

>> No.5560938

>>5560924
> Arranging atoms on a single plane makes it 2D
oh boy please don't be retarded. I'd rather be trolled instead of someone being so desperately illiterate

>> No.5560941

>>5560932
>Yes and the fact that it produces an infinitude of effects evinces the idea which I spoke of where we could never have any knowledge of it. If infinity were properly knowable, it would not be infinity.
You do not understand what I mean by this. Suppose we arrogantly thought gravity were to be described by Newton, contrary to experiment. I can add terms onto the Newtonian potential, but I would need infinitely many to match with experiment.

>> No.5560951

>>5560935
You are so desperate that it hurts to keep going.
Anyway. I guess a football would be an example of a 3D object. And I'm sure you have the mental capacity for posting the image of a football.
Now what you should do is to post the picture of any 2D object.
Clear ?

>> No.5560952

>>5560930

That's the thing, that's a huge problem in the study of meaning and language, you have to be /inside/ of the discourse in order for it to work. Though when you try to analyse it this distinction of internality or externality is lost. Like when you take apart a building to try to find its 'insideness'. Or like the difference between experiencing something and then talking about or remembering the experience. In retrospect, they are identical, because the possibility of language would be otherwise defunct. But they are different, it's just that this sort of difference is that which cannot be conveyed linguistically, and well, look what we're doing right now, talking through language, so we won't find much luck. In that case what you're saying is correct from a theoretical point of view, or, it ought to be correct. Under the prospect of rationalism it is correct.


I worked in foundations more specifically paraconsistent logics. Perhaps that's more philosophical than something like PDEs or algebraic geometry but what I meant to convey is that I have a technical background rather than not.

>> No.5560953

>>5560938
>> Arranging atoms
Where did I state "atom"? A "particle", in an appropriate spice of spacetime, is defined here as a perfect point.

>>on a single plane makes it 2D
Where did I use the word "plane"? I used the word confine. You could use an electric field to "shape" or "confine" them into a plane.

>oh boy please don't be retarded. I'd rather be trolled instead of someone being so desperately illiterate
Sure looks like you're the illiterate one here.

>> No.5560957

>>5560953
-99/10
you can do better, I believe in you

>> No.5560964

>You are so desperate that it hurts to keep going.
Nice projection.

>Anyway. I guess a football would be an example of a 3D object. And I'm sure you have the mental capacity for posting the image of a football.
How do you know it's a two dimensional object? There's an electric and magnetic field vector at every point in space. That could be considered an additional dimension. Define what you mean by dimension.

>Now what you should do is to post the picture of any 2D object.
What kind of 2D object? Is it embedded into another space?

>> No.5560959

>>5560932

Yes I'm saying that fellating over concepts such as ultimate truth is a waste of time and shouldn't be associated with the scientific method. Mainly because it opens the the hole for all sorts of word games.

>> No.5560969

>>5560964 should quote >>5560951

>>5560957
>too stupid to understand argument
>call troll!

>> No.5560970

>>5560935

No what he is saying makes perfect sense. He's asking you to find him a veritably two dimensional object, under the presumption that you will probably give him a sheet of paper or something like that thinking it's a two dimensional object when, properly speaking, it is not. His point is that because we exist in 3 dimensions, there can never absolutely never under no circumstances be any true 2 dimensional objects. And my point was that a person will often say to this 'no, because scientifically speaking we have found... etc. or been shown... etc.' and that what can be understood in science is not equivalent to what can be understood as in general human understanding. The former is bigger than the latter and therefore irreconcilable. But people often think that just because something can be written down in some logical manner that we have 'understood' it, when really this is not the case. It just makes no sense to speak of what we can and cannot 'understand' in this sense so it itself is illegal to talk about.


Fuck I have no filter tonight... srry guise I blame it on sleep deprivation.

>> No.5560974

>>5560612

>4th dimension gives you the third dimension from state to state
>we live in a cause & effect universe

>inb4 buttmad

>> No.5560981

>>5560964
> Defines dimensions with XYZ arrays
> Define dimension first

> Electric and magnetic field vector
> That could be considered an additional dimension

I give up. You obscenely try to avoid that you were wrong. Playing dumb like "hurr wats 2d objet, u dont kno if football is 3d" And I just can't go on. It's like watching a half-paralyzed cripple slowly drowning in a pool. It's tragic.

>> No.5560984

>>5560970
>His point is that because we exist in 3 dimensions, there can never absolutely never under no circumstances be any true 2 dimensional objects.
But that's wrong. There are solutions to the field equations that produce two dimensional excitations. They just require a fuckton of energy that we don't at the moment have.

>And my point was that a person will often say to this 'no, because scientifically speaking we have found... etc. or been shown... etc.' and that what can be understood in science is not equivalent to what can be understood as in general human understanding. The former is bigger than the latter and therefore irreconcilable. But people often think that just because something can be written down in some logical manner that we have 'understood' it, when really this is not the case. It just makes no sense to speak of what we can and cannot 'understand' in this sense so it itself is illegal to talk about.
Daww, a freshman philosophy major. How cute. There are much better examples than the one used in >>5560612, which is just wrong.

>> No.5560996

>>5560970
Don't lose any sleep mate. He's literally mentally handicapped. I thought he was playing dumb to avoid looking like he lost an internet argument, but I just figured out that he's actually a retarded individual.

>> No.5561000

>>5560981
>I give up.
Way to quit after being thoroughly disproved.

>You obscenely try to avoid that you were wrong
Where am I wrong? Please point out where I am wrong.

>Playing dumb like "hurr wats 2d objet, u dont kno if football is 3d"
Explain to me how I can show you a 2 dimensional object over an anonymous imageboard.

>It's like watching a half-paralyzed cripple slowly drowning in a pool. It's tragic.
What a pathetic insult. You are mentally defective.

>> No.5561004

>>5560996
How old are you? You have to be 18 to post here.

>> No.5561007

>>5561006
How does this address the valid point I made? Why do you shitpost in an immature manner just to avoid having to admit that you were wrong?

>> No.5561006

>>5561000
Ssshhh... only dreams now...

>> No.5561016

>>5560984

>But that's wrong.. etc.

Lol didn't I predict that you would reply in exactly that same form? Think about it this way, that type of energy is the type of energy which disassembles space and therefore it is tautological. In my analogy of being inside of the sphere, it would be twisting the sphere into itself as in a sort of klein-bottle, in which case, being as how you're not within the n+1 dimension that the klein-bottle exists in, you would simply be /outside of the bottle/, so it is tautological, this point of energy you bring up. Trust in this, it seems as though it were an 'only if' type scenario but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. It is always an 'only if' type of thing. Only if we could explain the God we don't understand through a metaphysical system. Only if we could explain the metaphysical system we don't understand through a universal characteristic(Leibniz). Only if we could understand this prospect of a logically perfect language through a paraconsistent logic etc. etc.

And lol freshman in philosophy. I guess to people who study science a doctoral student and a freshman are inevitably the same. But if I were to concede that much, you'd have to concede that you probably only used that as a means of evading understanding what I say to its full effect.

>> No.5561019

>>5560952

Fair point! Are these problems the kind encountered in your former field? It is very interesting to me, would love to do some research on the subject.

>> No.5561022

>>5560953

This man is right

>> No.5561046

>>5561016
>Lol didn't I predict that you would reply in exactly that same form?
Because you have no idea what you're talking about. You are an edgy underageb& with the "lol 36deep82u" attitude. I hope you grow up one day and see why you were wrong. Please stop posting now and stop violating global rule #2.

>Think about it this way, that type of energy is the type of energy which disassembles space and therefore it is tautological.
Your using the word "energy" incorrectly. Please look it up in a dictionary before spouting more retarded garbage.

> In my analogy of being inside of the sphere, it would be twisting the sphere into itself as in a sort of klein-bottle, in which case, being as how you're not within the n+1 dimension that the klein-bottle exists in, you would simply be /outside of the bottle/, so it is tautological, this point of energy you bring up.
Way to show off your lack of education. The "twisting sphere" seen in your higher dimensional space would induce a nontrivial metric to observers "on" the "twisting sphere". This would be measurable. Please learn basic science before making a fool out of yourself.

>Trust in this, it seems as though it were an 'only if' type scenario but it's a lot more complicated than it seems. It is always an 'only if' type of thing. Only if we could explain the God we don't understand through a metaphysical system. Only if we could explain the metaphysical system we don't understand through a universal characteristic(Leibniz). Only if we could understand this prospect of a logically perfect language through a paraconsistent logic etc. etc.
Oh look, babby is again trying to into philosophy. Your edgy garbage isn't even philosophy but pure anti-intellectual teenager drivel. You can't even provide a simple working example to explain your jumbled thoughts. LMFAO.

>> No.5561060

>>5561046

Sigh

>> No.5561072

>>5561060
>Sigh
Why? Because you fail at trivialities? Because you spam the science and math board with cretinous imbecility? My dog can do epistemology better than you.

>> No.5561073

>>5561060
stop feeding the troll already

>> No.5561090
File: 23 KB, 400x500, 1360915924293.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5561090

>>5561072

mfw I realise I'm on 4chan all over again

>> No.5561124

>>5561072

You know you'd make a better case for yourself if you didn't constantly insult him. When you do that all people see is you trying desperately to push something away rather than dealing with it.

>> No.5561194

Anon here that doesn't undertand what is going on in this post. When I try to make sense of dimensions, I simply think of the third dimension as an infinite amount of planes of the second dimension cohesively forming the third dimension in some mysterious way. How far is this from whatever the predominantly accepted truth is?

>> No.5561206

>>5561194

There is no predominately accepted truth of anything regarding this subject because it is precisely impossible to understand(see above posts). Science hasn't even bothered yet(because science has a sense of what it can and can't do internally embedded into itself).

>> No.5561214

>>5561206
So this is an post about something only accessible by opinion, on a science board? lol

Because people here care about what things actually are, that makes their opinions valuable to me. My opinion is probably laughable, yes I'm uneasy, it is that some lonely entity strained itself outward to create surroundings so it existed in relation to something. I'm pretty counter-culture when it comes to most religions, but I have gained more respect for people so I am less opposed now.

>> No.5561222

In laymen terms, what do you think is a fascinating truth about the function of existence? As stated, just the fact that someone cares makes it interesting, and correct or incorrect doesn't concern someone like me who feels humbled... at times.

>> No.5561225

>>5561214

Yeah you care about what things actually are, or more properly worded the way things actually are but what you're failing to understand is that there are some things which can not be explained in terms of how they actually are. It is either than science cannot even explain them or the science can explain them but consequently we can never fully understand the science.

All different things can be explained. That is, any given entity. What cannot be explained is /everything/, that is, the relation of any(including all) entities. This relation is exactly what space is(the a priori organising principle of the mind) and therefore it can never be explained, not even scientifically(we can only ever have concepts which approximate its existence like mathematically defined spaces etc.)

>> No.5561236

>>5561225
I suppose that religion is some sort of way to relieve cognitive dissonance. lol.
So the inherent flaws that people were mentioning earlier in math is that taking a fraction of infinity only gives us more infinity.

>> No.5561252

there are 42 dimensions
that's where the pop culture reference comes from
and yes it's beyond "our" universe
you could only go there by creating a wormhole (nuclear fusion)
think of our 3 dimensions as a box and next to it there is another box with other dimensions

>> No.5561256

>>5561252
lern 2 math

>> No.5561260

>>5561256
why? there are 13 other universes next to us

>> No.5561263

>>5561260
>Universe =/= dimension.
>P.S. ~ I think you mean multiverse.

lern 2 math

>> No.5561269

>>5561263
never said it would mean that
universe = 3 space dimensions and 1 time dimension
39 other dimensions = 13 other universes

>> No.5561271

I know that the 4th dimension is time, there's no debate on that. For different types of String Theory I've seen dimensions needed range from 11 to 23 (or 21? I get numbers flipped) and that those are dimensions coiled within our own dimensions. It's really weird stuff I hope to learn at some point in time as I plan to go into sub-atomic physics.

Watch a few documentaries is all I can suggest. Go to your local bookstore and look in the science part, lots of physics stuff.

>> No.5561272

>>5561269
Except that mathematically, you can describe infinite dimensions. Also, you're forgetting to take Minkowski space into account. Still more importantly, where in blazes do you get thirty nine?

>> No.5561276

>>5561272
that's what my calculations say
but by creating a wormhole inside of an another wormhole you could theoretically create 2 other universes
so yeah the number of the dimensions can vary

>> No.5561279 [DELETED] 
File: 11 KB, 275x184, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5561279

Let's see how good you are at arithmetic.
1 + 1 = 7
2 + 2 = 89
3 + 3 = 228
4 + 4 = ?

>> No.5561280 [DELETED] 

>>5561279
Nigga, I am gay.

>> No.5561281
File: 5 KB, 240x160, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5561281

>>5561276
>Facepalm.

Nice troll... 7/10.

>> No.5561299

So I read through the thread I found it interesting, but seriously
>>5560612
>Space
>Time
>Of single dimension

How did non of you point out that either glowing or malcomprised thought?

>> No.5561300

>>5561281
great job finally fucking noticing it
I was already about to write that light is affected by gravity

>> No.5561304

Dimensions are math constructs based on percieved directions. They don't actually exist but are dissections of the whole. Spatial dimensions are every direction to/from/in/on/away from a sphere, which is infinite. We simplify this into cartesian coordinates, which is an artifical reduction useful enough to produce maps, but too reduced to produce realism.

>> No.5561310

>>5561300
And its not?

>> No.5561313

>>5561310
Not in the sense that it has mass, no. Gravity affects the curvature of space, altering lights travel; it doesn't affect the light directly.

>> No.5561325

>>5561310
wait a second are you now trolling me?

>> No.5561338

>>5560910
something being 2D has everything to do with perception. I could argue that you don't see anything in 3D because it is constantly in a changing state and that would make it 4D ( assuming time is accepted as a fourth dimension), and seeing it in 3D is just an illusion. Close one eye, do you experience a lack of depth? You could say, in your own perception, the image your eye sees IS in fact a 2D image.

>> No.5561340

>>5561325
Oh, you got me

HUE