/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.15060603]

>physicists will just make up dimensions to make up for their bad math and shitty models

[Anonymous No.15060611]

>I am mentally disabled and don't understand why a d-brane generates a string that topological folds space 11 times

[Anonymous No.15060620]

>>15060611
Ah yes 84 genders

[Anonymous No.15061236]

>>15060603
I still haven't seen a good visualization of 4D. Those tesaract ones are gay. I think a good way to somewhat visualize it is that when looking at a 2D shape in 3D you can see all of the 2D shape, nothing is obscuring the view of any other thing. So if you imagine you're in a 4D world looking at a 3D cube you should be able to see all of it, like the front and the back at the same time

[Anonymous No.15061262]

>>15060603
>their bad math
I suppose you wouldnt have enough.....time, to see the answer. Thats a shame, it was just about to get good.

[Anonymous No.15061268]

if corals are 0D brains in water time humans are 1D memories in the internet

[Anonymous No.15061553]

>>15060603

Exactly as the Demiurge makes (up) the common dimensions to make up for his bad nature. The Catholic is far more cunning than you think.

[Anonymous No.15061554]

>>15060603
In a way, you are correct. Physics (by the very naming of the label, implying "nature", the natural world) should be describing our world as it is perceived by us. String theory (which is increasingly fading away nowadays) is problematic for that reason alone. Instead of trying to find an equation that fits reality, it is trying to bend reality to its own image. Of course, they are correct in saying "but the math adds up", they're just forgetting that mathematics isn't the same as reality.

[Anonymous No.15061601]

>>15061236
...thought I'd add some more to this. The last few weeks I've been thinking a fair bit of how to visualize 4D. I think I'm getting closer. The picture in OPs example is a common one, but all they've done is duplicate the cube and shift it a bit and it's hard to see what's going on. It makes sense though, because when going from 2D to 3D it's just a 2D plane shifting out to form a cube. If you were a person on that 2D plane and it started suddenly becoming 3D then I think it would look like everything is suddenly becoming wider in your vision. Going from 3D to 4D would be the same, everything becoming wider in your vision, but I think it's a lot easier to visualize as a 3D sphere becoming 4D. If you imagine a line from the center of a sphere to the surface, then imagine infinite lines from the centre of a sphere to the surface so it creates a solid sphere, and your head it's right at the middle of the sphere, then going from 3D to 4D would be like all those lines separating at the surface apart from one another, revealing volume between each line that wasn't there before, and that volume is the actual 4D space. I don't know of that makes sense, I'd probably need to make an animation or something. Picrel is the best I could do to describe it I guess, so the spikes are the 3D space and the space between them is the 4D space, but in our 3D reality all the spikes are right up against eachother

[Anonymous No.15061650]

>reality is only 3-dimensional because that's all my brain can experience!
lol

[Anonymous No.15061871]

>>15061650
>it's beyond human comprehension!
Literal theological argument.

[Anonymous No.15061888]

>>15060620
https://gender.fandom.com/wiki/Gender_Field_theory

[Anonymous No.15061892]

>>15061888
>This theory is a combination of the dimensional models (A Single Continuum, 2D Graph Theory, and the N-dimensional gender space) with Gender set theory and scalar fields defined in mathematics. Under this theory, your gender is a field that either collapses when observed like in Quantum field theory or doesn't. A scalar field associates a scalar value to every point in a space. In this case a gender space. In Gender Field theory assignment fulfills the equation: "Sum over all points = 1" or in other words it is a probability distribution. This field may collapse when observed as in observer interpretation of Quantum field theory or may be observable in its entirety.

[Anonymous No.15062193]

>>15060603
Think of it like this.

You have a square, which has 2 dimensions. You shine a light on its side, what is the shape of the shadow? A line, which has 1 dimension.

You have a cube, which has 3 dimensions. You shine a light on its side, what is the shape of the shadow? A square, which has 2 dimensions.

What would a shape with 4 dimensions be, which, if you shine a light on its side, has a cube as its shadow, which has 3 dimensions?

The answer is a hypercube.

Pic related to help you visualise how this works. If you can't see it then there's just no hope for you.

[Anonymous No.15062210]

>>15061871
I didn't say that, no wonder an illiterate retard can't grasp higher dimensions

[Anonymous No.15062237]

>>15062210
>>reality is only 3-dimensional because that's all my brain can experience!
So, do you experience 4+ spatial dimensions?

[Anonymous No.15062281]

>>15062237
I don't experience them but I can understand them with mathematical models. I'm sorry you're too stupid for that

[Anonymous No.15062291]

>>15062281
Christians claim to understand the divine through the bible, too.
Can you show me a tesseract in the real world, 4 spatial dimensions and all?

[Anonymous No.15062300]

>>15062291
>bro show me a movie at 60fps where I can see the individual frames turning on and off
>you can't, you brain doesn't detec-
>I'M SORRY BRO THEN THESE "MOVIES" YOU CLAIM TO WATCH ACTUALLY DON'T EXIST IN REALITY!

[Anonymous No.15062315]

>>15062300
Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM
Can you show me a tesseract with 4 spatial dimensions in the real world now?

[Anonymous No.15062331]

>>15062315
>using an instrument to see in slow motion things our brain can't?
>good!
>using a mathematical instrument to visualize higher dimentions that our brain can't?
>bad!
you can project any 4d shape into 3d. if you can't understand it then it's your problem

[Anonymous No.15062336]

The world is so vast that we will never be able to make sense of it.

[Anonymous No.15062345]

>>15062331
Mathematics is a tool for thought, yes. I don't deny that 4d shapes are an idea.
But there are many ideas that aren't manifested in the real world, like unicorns.
If you can show me a real world tesseract, I'll be convinced that they are more like a 60fps movie and less like unicorns.

But you can't, because you admit that
>our brains can't visualize higher dimensions
so you "know" higher dimensional shapes like Christians know their God, i.e. it exists entirely within your head.

[Anonymous No.15062348]

>>15061236
You can’t visualize 4D

[Anonymous No.15062353]

>>15062345
>he thinks scientific models are more "real" than abstract maths
good to know you're another retard who can't separate the map from the territory.
come back when you can tell me what an atom really is, and maybe you'll realize it's just a concept like 4d space

[Anonymous No.15062355]

>>15061871
Anyone who claims humans can apprehend everything is wrong. It’s like saying ants could, in theory, apprehend everything humans have done, if only they try hard enough.

[Anonymous No.15062365]

>>15062355
>>15062353
So how was I wrong? How is defending the independent existence of "concepts" any different from defending the existence of a god that can't be seen, heard, felt?
It's a literal theological argument. "They are beyond human comprehension!"

[Anonymous No.15062369]

>>15062365
There is so much beyond human comprehension that you may as well call it “god” if you should so desire.

[Anonymous No.15062370]

>>15062365
chairs don't exist in real life. they are a concept. and yet you use it because it has a meaning.
so is it theological?
fuck off

[Anonymous No.15062372]

>>15062370
I'm sitting on the physical consequences of the material configuration that manifests the concept of a chair.
I'm still waiting for you to show me a proof of a tesseract that wouldn't also prove that Harry Potter is a real person.

>>15062369
If you're fine calling it theological then we don't disagree. At least you're honest about it.

[Anonymous No.15062376]

>>15062372
I am absolutely fine with calling “the unknowable” “the unknowable”. Anything beyond this is semantics.

[Anonymous No.15062377]

>>15062372
>I'm sitting on the physical consequences of the material configuration that manifests the concept of a chair.
what a word salad you just wrote. that's a very bad way of coping with the fact that in the end everything is beyond our comprehension and "theological"

[Anonymous No.15062381]

>>15062377
My ass is still factually being held up by a chair and not a tesseract.

[Anonymous No.15062384]

>>15062381
>a chair
prove it's a chair

[Anonymous No.15062387]

>>15062377
If you sit on your chair long enough (try trillions of years) you may fall through. That’s a fact. Facts are the opposite of word salads. You just did not understand what was being said.

[Anonymous No.15062389]

>>15062384
It looks approximately like this. I'm sure you have personal extensive empirical evidence of similar objects.

>>15062387
I'm probably going to stand up in a few minutes. Where's the tesseract in that?

[Anonymous No.15062393]

>>15062389
>It looks approximately like this
a chair? I only see a black and orange doorstopper. please show me a chair

[Anonymous No.15062395]

>>15062389
Don’t stand up. You will die if you do. If you believe in Q anon superstitions, you will remain seated until you die.

[Anonymous No.15062397]

>>15061871
Once you realize that not everything is within the human intellect's grasp you will understand

[Anonymous No.15062403]

>>15062393
That's what's usually known as a chair. Can you show me an object that's arranged like a tesseract?

>>15062395
>two more dimensions
>trust the math
I wonder who really believes in the Q anon superstitions here.

>>15062397
>Once you realize that not everything is within the human intellect's grasp you will understand
>>15061871
>>it's beyond human comprehension!
>Literal theological argument.
>>15062210
>I didn't say that
Damn, I guess he really meant "beyond human comprehension" like I said then.

[Anonymous No.15062410]

I don’t understand why straight men, in particular, are so prone to superstitions.

[Anonymous No.15062413]

>>15062403
you can't see atoms, therefore atoms don't exist and are simply a belief
>b-but I can see it through the microscope!
so you trust microscopes, which are built on the imaginary theory of atoms, to experience atoms? how do you know what you are seeing isn't simply an illusion?
4D maths is used in physcis and computer science all of the time, not my fault you think it's fake

[Anonymous No.15062416]

>>15062403
Define “human comprehension”

You can’t even comprehend what comprehension is, can you?

[Anonymous No.15062425]

>>15062413
I trust evidence extracted directly from matter, yes, that why I would've believed you if you showed me a tesseract with 4 spatial dimensions, since you seem to believe that any mathematical concept must instantiate itself in the real world.
I never rejected 4d math as an idea, the same way I don't reject Harry Potter as a fictional character.
Some use the fictional story of Harry Potter as an analogy to state a point, so I don't see why I should prevent people from using 4d mathematics in analogy, since mathematics as a whole is founded upon analogy.
But I'll consider those who think that Harry Potter is a real person because of that to be retarded.

>>15062416
>you can't know nuthin'
>that's how I know that my mathematical imaginary friends are definitely real!!
Arguing like a theist almost point by point.

[Anonymous No.15062430]

>>15062425
u literally can’t know nuffin’ tho

[Anonymous No.15062433]

>>15062425
>I trust evidence extracted directly from matter
this sentence means absolutely nothing, I'm sorry you're this stupid.

[Anonymous No.15062436]

>>15062433
Bro I'm literally sitting on the chair.

[Anonymous No.15062444]

>>15062436
And you know this because...?
Ah yes, because a squishy biological mass of cells told you to. So scientific, so real!

[Anonymous No.15062445]

>>15062436
You will be the first to fall through

[Anonymous No.15062453]

>>15062444
So your imaginary friend, the tesseract, is more real than me sitting on a chair? lol

[Anonymous No.15062455]

>>15062389
Multiverse emulator.

Good luck, and if you never return to reality, good bye.

[Anonymous No.15062458]

>>15062453
it's exactly as real as you sitting on a chair, especially considering the fact that you could just as well be a bot not actually sitting on a chair.
maybe a tesseract is less useful than a chair, but that's another subjective matter that you far from even comprehending

[Anonymous No.15062471]

>>15062458
If it's "exactly" as real as me sitting on a chair, you should be able to show me a tesseract like you can show me a chair.
More things have to go "wrong" for me in order for the chair to not actually exist than in the case of the tesseract. They're not "exactly" as real even in principle.

[Anonymous No.15062473]

>>15062471
you just posted a picture of what you claimed was a chair but I only saw a doorstopper since that's what I use that object for.
maybe you should start by posting an actual chair

[Anonymous No.15062478]

>>15062473
Unlike you rejecting the everyday concept of a chair, I would've accepted any (material, 4 spatially dimensional) tesseract without inane semantic arguments though.

[Anonymous No.15062480]

>>15062478
Pilpul is at the heart of jewish physics.

[Anonymous No.15062484]

>>15062478
there are plenty of computer programs where you can manipulate a tesseract and see its projections in 3 dimensions.
why is it not material enough for you? why do you think looking at the screen of an electron microscope is more "real" than looking at the screen of a computer?

[Anonymous No.15062486]

>>15062484
I can interact with the world of Dark Souls, but John Dark Souls is not a real person.
>I'm still waiting for you to show me a proof of a tesseract that wouldn't also prove that Harry Potter is a real person.

[Anonymous No.15062491]

>>15062486
John Dark Souls is not a real person, but it's a real material thing existing in the universe

[Anonymous No.15062492]

>>15062491
You might want to take your antipsychotics then. That will make him disappear.

[Anonymous No.15062496]

>>15062478
>(material, 4 spatially dimensional) tesseract
Gravity is inverted matter, an "inside-out" dimension, or "counter-space".

[Anonymous No.15062498]

>>15062491
Damn bro, was /jp/ right all along then? If you kys do you really end up in Gensokyo?!

[Anonymous No.15062500]

>>15062492
>a collection of atoms in a game console?
>not material!
>a collection of atoms under my ass?
>material!
if you think the two are different then prove those two things are anything more than a collection of atoms

[Anonymous No.15062510]

>>15061236
how about this one?, is by the guy that did hyperbolica
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by8eAnez0i8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ad9y0FmQ9g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POzuXyuF9DQ

[Anonymous No.15062514]

>>15062500
A collection of bits in a game console isn't literally the thing it depicts on a screen, it's electrons.

[Anonymous No.15062529]

>>15062514
you are made of electrons, so?

[Anonymous No.15062534]

>>15061650
Reality is 4 dimensional. There are 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension.

[Anonymous No.15062546]

>>15062534
False. Tell me why.

[Anonymous No.15062834]

>>15062193
It's still not really showing the 4D effect though. Like if you're in a 3D world and you're looking at a 2D object then nothing is hidden, you can see all of it. If you're in a 3D world and you're looking at a 3D object then the back of that object is hidden, you can't see it. So if you're in a 4D world looking at a 3D object then you can see all of it at once, not just the surface but all of the interior too
>>15062348
You kind of can start to imagine some of it the more you think about it. I think one of the hardest things is actually explaining it and building up a mental model of what it might look like. The explanation I had here with the pink ball thing picture I think gets some of the way there
>>15061601
Another way I was looking at is the change from a flat camera lens to a fisheye camera lens like in picrel. If you imagine it's you that's becoming curved around the flat picture instead of the picture becoming more curved. I think there's a magnitude to it too, like if you were in a 2D space 1km x 1km and it started becoming 3D by stretching out in the new dimension but only by 1mm then you couldn't really move in that new dimension but your vision would be stretched slightly wider. So you should be able to slightly go into 4D too

[Anonymous No.15063159]

>>15062546
Time can't run backwards. In a one dimensional universe you can move back and forth on a line but time only moves forward.

[Anonymous No.15063179]

>>15062529
Pilpul. You're disqualified.

[Anonymous No.15063429]

>>15060603
They can make games with the extra dimensions too. Here's an arcade space shooter with 4 spatial dimensions
https://github.com/mushware/adanaxis/releases/tag/v1.5.14

[Anonymous No.15063443]

>>15061650
>reality has 894 dimensions because I said so on 4chan

[Anonymous No.15063470]

>>15063443
>he doesn't know about the 895th dimension
lmao look at this peabrane

[Anonymous No.15063654]

>>15063159
>Time can't run backwards
>What is Anti-Time
MF you havnt even attempted to solve Imaginary Time?....gtfo here!
Someone hasnt read the book....sheeeit.

And dont give that wikipedia pasted bullshit response. NO. The response back to that is NO.

[Anonymous No.15063864]

>>15060603
>>15061601
>>15062834
>>15062348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s4TqVAbfz4

This one is really really good

[Anonymous No.15063866]

>>15063654
Sci-fi with math-fi is still fi.

[Anonymous No.15063902]

>>15063179
/pol/pul, go back to your containment board

[Anonymous No.15064269]

>>15063866
>still fi
So is every word. Made up nonsense without historical context.

[Anonymous No.15064276]

>>15064269
Wrong pic
;_;

Multi-dimensional mathrmatics via hyperbolic perspective.

*click*
Always has been.

[Anonymous No.15065283]

>>15064276
good shit