Do you have a belief in supernatural that isn't god?

[PapaG]

Actually the universe is four dimensions (at least) - proponents of string theory say many more but that is unproven.

Short answer, no. Of course there are the things that go bump in the night, so to speak, that make me nervous but I recognize it is just older parts of the brain playing tricks. There are things that are not known but all that means is they are not known; it was not until the 1930s that we knew why the sun and stars are hot. Doesn't mean it was some mystical something and certainly doesn't meant they were cold; we just did not have the information. Currently we do not know if there is life on other planets (probably but still no evidence), what dark matter/dark energy actually is, whether there is extinct life that was not DNA/RNA based, how Neanderthals became extinct - although not entirely since Asians and Europeans carry, on average, about 2% Neanderthal DNA. And a ton more.

But no evidence any of those unknowns cannot be explained materially.

Oh yes, not Christian. Jewish by culture and tradition but I "made my decision for atheism" at 13 and never wavered. Won't until I see some evidence for the god hypothesis.

Actually, you have no fucking idea what the universe is scientifically.

 

[jlprk]

Actually, you have no fucking idea what the universe is scientifically.

Well, that about sums up your intellectual theory of the universe. Be a good boy now and run along.

 

[crowTrobot]

Just as there are an infinite number of 0D points in a 1D line, 1D lines in a 2D plane, 2D planes in a 3D space, and 3D spaces in a 4th D, there are many 4D superspaces in the 5th D. Our 3D space is in only one of those 4D entities, not all. So most 4D entities are indeed a different place from where our 3D space will ever be.

this is really cool stuff to trip out on and all, and it sort of works mathematically, but there are technical reasons having to do with degrees of freedom that physicists don't expect this type of conceptually simplistic view of higher spatial dimensions to work in the real world (string theorists think higher dimensions if they exist must be 'curled' up on the scale of subatomic particles).

also the entire framework you are describing is definitionally physical. the concept of space itself implies physicality regardless of number of dimensions. 'non-physical' is an unrelated philosophical concept you are just tacking on ad hoc.

The definition of physical as meaning 3 dimensions is pretty standard. As in, "Basketball takes its toll, mentally and physically." Physical means the corporeal body, as opposed to the mental, spiritual, and imaginative dimensions.

have to be careful not to confuse everyday figures of speech with scientific definitions. they are often competely unrelated.

 

[crandc]

i'm sure cran was referring to time as the fourth dimension as in GR.

Yes. Exactly. Relativity showed that space and time were not independent entities.

 

[jlprk]

The definition of one word is the least of my concerns. You can have the distracting word; it's yours. If "physical" has been officially defined in science, it's news to me. Other than the "physical sciences."

My philosophy of dimensions requires new definitions or new words for 30-50 words, as I recall, and I'm carefully not using any of those technical terms here so as to be understood. So far I haven't even covered Page 1 of 2000. This isn't the space, uh, place or time for it.

 

[Eastoff]

Thanks everyone for responding to my bored and useless thread!

 

[jlprk]

That's it? Just like that? Well, I can take a hint!

 

[crowTrobot]

The definition of one word is the least of my concerns. You can have the distracting word; it's yours. If "physical" has been officially defined in science, it's news to me. Other than the "physical sciences."

My philosophy of dimensions requires new definitions or new words for 30-50 words, as I recall, and I'm carefully not using any of those technical terms here so as to be understood. So far I haven't even covered Page 1 of 2000. This isn't the space, uh, place or time for it.

cool. i was just pointing out that science itself doesn't fundamentally distinguish between the corporeal and non-corporeal. it necessarily treats everything that we know exists from rocks to brain activity to spatial dimensions as part of/emerging from the same 'physical' existence. differentiating between a physical dimension and a mental/spiritual dimension is more of a philosophical exercise, not something you can meaningfully relate to the scientific notion of limits of 3D perspectives in 4D spaces.

nerd out

 

[jlprk]

I'll note it in the preface to the thousand-page tome I will someday write between posts to a certain addictive basketball board.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'll note it in the preface to the thousand-page tome I will someday write between posts to a certain addictive basketball board.

tl;dr

 

[TripTango]

differentiating between a physical dimension and a mental/spiritual dimension is more of a philosophical exercise...

See, there you go again, pandering to the philosophers by telling then there are questions they can answer that science cannot.

 

[crowTrobot]

See, there you go again, pandering to the philosophers by telling then there are questions they can answer that science cannot.

yeah, got me lol. was trying to be a little too polite there.

philosophical exercise = acid trip induced wild speculation

 

[Denny Crane]

yeah, got me lol. was trying to be a little too polite there.

philosophical exercise = acid trip induced wild speculation

physimedical

 

[crandc]

Actually, you have no fucking idea what the universe is scientifically.

OK, Papa G. I guess you can't call this one hateful since no actual humans were referenced. But please show us your nonignorances. What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy? How did Neanderthals become extinct? Is there life on other plents? Is or was there non-DNA life?

And yes, unless you want to disown relativity as well as evolution and climate science, the universe has four dimensions. That is not controversial in physics at all.

 

[Denny Crane]

crandc

The 4th dimension is not time.

In a 3D video game, the software translates 3 dimensional coordinates to a 2D coordinate system and plots them. The 2D system is the screen.

They can translate 4D coordinates to screen coordinates as well. The result is a tesseract:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesseract

In geometry, the tesseract, also called an 8-cell or regular octachoron or cubic prism, is the four-dimensional analog of the cube; the tesseract is to the cube as the cube is to the square. Just as the surface of the cube consists of 6 square faces, the hypersurface of the tesseract consists of 8 cubical cells. The tesseract is one of the six convex regular 4-polytopes.

 

[crowTrobot]

crandc

The 4th dimension is not time.

it is in special relativity (one dimension of a 4-dimensional spacetime manifold), which is not based on the Euclidean geometry you refer to.

 

[crowTrobot]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

 

[Denny Crane]

It makes zero sense to consider time a 4th dimension. It is "another" dimension, but not a spacial one. You might as well call "temperature" the 4th dimension.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...laims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

FWIW

Of course, the fourth dimension is the portion of the space-time continuum which the DeLorean time machine was designed to utilize when travelling to the past or the future.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space

I know about Minkowski space. It's taught in Physics 101

It's not 4D space. It's 3D + 1.

It's 3 spatial coordinates and something like a vector.

 

[crowTrobot]

I know about Minkowski space. It's taught in Physics 101

It's not 4D space. It's 3D + 1.

It's 3 spatial coordinates and something like a vector.

i was just pointing out again what crandc meant. in relativity it does make sense to refer to time as a '4th dimension'. even if it is different than spatial dimensions it is still one of four there are. no biggie.

 

[Denny Crane]

i was just pointing out again what crandc meant. in relativity it does make sense to refer to time as a '4th dimension'. even if it is different than spatial dimensions it is still one of four there are. no biggie.

The math works because you make special case exceptions and math for the 4th dimension coordinate. Like I said, it could just as well be temperature.

Consider that a 1D universe would still have time, so 1D + 1
Same for 2D universe, 2D + 1
the + 1 makes time an added dimension, but not the "4th" and not a spatial one.

And I was giving crandc something to think about before making the kind of proclamations she did. For her benefit.

I thought the tesseract post was one of my better ones ever.

 

[TripTango]

It makes zero sense to consider time a 4th dimension. It is "another" dimension, but not a spacial one. You might as well call "temperature" the 4th dimension.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...laims-that-time-is-not-the-4th-dimension.html

After briefly looking into the work of the lead author mentioned here (Amrit Sorli), I would strongly caution against putting too much weight onto the paper cited here. He points out basic elements of physics theory, but layers a bunch of supposition and fluff on top. His papers are numerous, poorly edited, published in low-tier journals, and cited by almost nobody -- other than himself. All in all, he gives off a very "Deepak Chopra" kind of vibe.

A great line from his paper "Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion":

Here, the suggestive idea is proposed that the concept of the idealized time can be definitely abandoned and replaced with the numerical order t0, t1, t2, ... , tn of material change, which is measured with a clock.

Some other representative writings:
Sorli, Amrit S. "In what way are related psychological time and physical time?." Philosophical Papers and Reviews 2.1 (2010): 9-11.
Sorli, Amrit, and Ilaria Sorli. "Consciousness as a research tool into space and time." Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 2.6 (2005): 1-5.
Eternity is Now: The Theory of Atemporality

 

[crowTrobot]

I thought the tesseract post was one of my better ones ever.

i thought Tesseract had one of the best first releases ever. unfortunately their lead singer quit after that.

 

[Denny Crane]

After briefly looking into the work of the lead author mentioned here (Amrit Sorli), I would strongly caution against putting too much weight onto the paper cited here. He points out basic elements of physics theory, but layers a bunch of supposition and fluff on top. His papers are numerous, poorly edited, published in low-tier journals, and cited by almost nobody -- other than himself. All in all, he gives off a very "Deepak Chopra" kind of vibe.

A great line from his paper "Replacing time with numerical order of material change resolves Zeno problems of motion":



Some other representative writings:
Sorli, Amrit S. "In what way are related psychological time and physical time?." Philosophical Papers and Reviews 2.1 (2010): 9-11.
Sorli, Amrit, and Ilaria Sorli. "Consciousness as a research tool into space and time." Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics 2.6 (2005): 1-5.
Eternity is Now: The Theory of Atemporality

Agreed. The guy is a kook.

So was Carl Sagan.



[video=youtube;nRw0G3xakBg]

 

[Denny Crane]

I guess a better way to put it is...

If there is a 4th spatial dimension, we'd be able to perceive its projection but not the dimension itself. Just as Sagan demonstrates a 2D being can perceive and interact with 3D objects without comprehending the true nature of those objects.

The math works for Minkowski Space if you're oblivious to the dimensions beyond those we fully comprehend or perceive. The math works for euclidean space as well:

2D space: distance = (x1-x2)**2 + (y1-y2)**2
3D space: distance = (x1-x2)**2 + (y1-y2)**2 + (z1-z2)**2
&c

I'd also point out that crandc first posted that there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Then she posted that time is the 4th.

Finally, it still doesn't make sense to call time a 4th dimension. The 3 dimensions measure spacetime as width/height/depth. The fourth should also, but it IS (space)time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interestingly, a simple thought experiment seems to prove there is a 4th spatial dimension.

Gravity bends space time. It has to bend perpendicular to the 3 dimensions we're familiar with. So it has to bend in a 4th dimension.

Or what am I missing?

 

[Denny Crane]

Randall–Sundrum model

Answered my own question.

 

[crowTrobot]

Finally, it still doesn't make sense to call time a 4th dimension. The 3 dimensions measure spacetime as width/height/depth. The fourth should also, but it IS (space)time.

not that simple, or that easy to think about this stuff intuitively (unless you're einstein apparently). in physics dimensions aren't thought of as strictly measuring width etc; instead the space they describe is treated as a coordinate grid, and in special relativity time is essentially one coordinate on a 4 dimensional grid. in SR time is intimately tied to space in a way temperature (or whatever else you mentioned) is not, and the fact that we can directly measure time dilation with motion is evidence SR is at least an approximation of reality.

I'd also point out that crandc first posted that there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Then she posted that time is the 4th.

11 would have been referring to M theory (a variation/combination of string theories) which is based in 10 spatial + 1 time dimensions. you'd be right to note that it's entirely speculative at this point, though.

 

[crowTrobot]

Interestingly, a simple thought experiment seems to prove there is a 4th spatial dimension.

Gravity bends space time. It has to bend perpendicular to the 3 dimensions we're familiar with. So it has to bend in a 4th dimension.

Or what am I missing?

this is getting way over my head conceptually, but 3 dimensional space does not require a 4th spatial dimension in order to be curved. it might require a 4th spatial dimension in order to conceptualize it being curved, but again this doesn't seem to be a topic where simple intuitive thought is applicable.

 

[Further]

So I love this stuff but I don't know much. So today, I bought 'THE FABRIC OF THE COSMOS' by Brian Greene. It's going to take me some time to read, but hopefully when this topic comes up again in the future ill have some insight.