Debate What is fourth dimension?

[Orpheus Rex]

so rex..what's your opinion on time travel

The best advanced research publicly released on Time Travel is that there is no solidly evidenced reason as to why it's impossible. There may be natural phenomena related to Time Travel, and indeed, while Time Travel may be 'discoverable,' it may not be 'inventable.'

Time travel here inclusive of backwards time travel, and not just relativistic means of slowing time to get into the future.

As for my sources, I've probably quoted them on threads from years ago, but I don't quite remember the names off the top of my heard.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

The best advanced research publicly released on Time Travel is that there is no solidly evidenced reason as to why it's impossible. There may be natural phenomena related to Time Travel, and indeed, while Time Travel may be 'discoverable,' it may not be 'inventable.'

Time travel here inclusive of backwards time travel, and not just relativistic means of slowing time to get into the future.

As for my sources, I've probably quoted them on threads from years ago, but I don't quite remember the names off the top of my heard.

there are ways to travel past the speed of light, and inventing is the process of discovering methods to do something, correct?

 

[Orpheus Rex]

there are ways to travel past the speed of light, and inventing is the process of discovering methods to do something, correct?

Don't know. I am neutral about the constancy of the speed of light. I am skeptical of FTL. The means of FTL may or may not have application to Time Travel, depending on however it's done.

I'm using 'invention' and 'discovery' in a mutually exclusive way.

 

[Orpheus Rex]

I think multiple worlds is a fiction, although I do find 5D Chess to be interesting.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

I think multiple worlds is a fiction, although I do find 5D Chess to be interesting.

one thing cannot exist without all the others correct? every cause "needs to know" what not to cause, which means everything must exist for one particular thing to exist the way it does, every cause needs a cause, correct? Things can be broken down into an infinite amount of smaller parts in every way therefore every thing must interact in every way to stay contained within the object those parts make up, correct? one directional object hits another causing it to move in another direction, but there must be something before causing the object to be hit in the direction it was moving and so on, correct. believe that logic can prove the many worlds theory

 

[Orpheus Rex]

one thing cannot exist without all the others correct? every cause "needs to know" what not to cause, which means everything must exist for one particular thing to exist the way it does, every cause needs a cause, correct? Things can be broken down into an infinite amount of smaller parts in every way therefore every thing must interact in every way to stay contained within the object those parts make up, correct? one directional object hits another causing it to move in another direction, but there must be something before causing the object to be hit in the direction it was moving and so on, correct. believe that logic can prove the many worlds theory

No.

First, I think that relies on assumptions that are not falsifiable, but entirely mythological in nature.

Second, not every cause needs a cause.

Third, not everything can be broken down into an infinite amount of smaller parts. In fact, it's possible that nothing may be broken down infinitely. Either way, it's a fallacy as it ignores the existence of wholes. Wholes are not reducible to parts, if you atomize a human you don't continue to have a human. If you have an infinite regress of parts, you have nothing. I'm not sure if it would be categorized as a kind of mereological nihilism.

Fourth, I don't think the logic works. If there were to be worlds that aren't logical so that there is 'knowing' allowing for a world for logic, then firstly these could never be interacted with as interaction would mean that logic would apply them. And there would be no means for properly discussing such as the word 'exist' (def: 'to stand up from') doesn't apply. As such, there is not kind of 'access' that would exist for the 'needs to know' assumption.

I've heard better critiques, but that's off the top of my head.

 

[dimension-1hacker]

No.

First, I think that relies on assumptions that are not falsifiable, but entirely mythological in nature.

Second, not every cause needs a cause.

Third, not everything can be broken down into an infinite amount of smaller parts. In fact, it's possible that nothing may be broken down infinitely. Either way, it's a fallacy as it ignores the existence of wholes. Wholes are not reducible to parts, if you atomize a human you don't continue to have a human. If you have an infinite regress of parts, you have nothing. I'm not sure if it would be categorized as a kind of mereological nihilism.

Fourth, I don't think the logic works. If there were to be worlds that aren't logical so that there is 'knowing' allowing for a world for logic, then firstly these could never be interacted with as interaction would mean that logic would apply them. And there would be no means for properly discussing such as the word 'exist' (def: 'to stand up from') doesn't apply. As such, there is not kind of 'access' that would exist for the 'needs to know' assumption.

I've heard better critiques, but that's off the top of my head.

one, how so?

two, every cause that does not have cause has no cause to occur, a great tautology correct?

three, by definition something with mass can be infinitely mathematically divisible and by definition something that is made up of parts needs to have smaller parts to make up the bigger part to allow the part to do what it does, and every part needs more parts. logically, at least. correct?
True that infinite regress by itself means you have nothing but you are discounting the properties of substance that do not require mass to have an effect on mass, and you have not defined what solid is and why solid things are solid yet either. If there are an infinite amount of parts there are an infinite amount of types interacting in every way possible because everything interacts in every way to cause everything to be the way it is. all causes need a cause and those causes need a cause and they all break up infinitely to being caused in an infinite amount of ways and an infinite amount of types of causes. every action causes a different reaction and every reaction causes a different action, and to cause those two there needs to be reactions within reactions and actions within actions. each type has another type of reaction which has another type, each side has another side, every movement needs a counter agent because if nothing counters that movement nothing prevents the parts from not moving in a specific way.

four, What I mean by many worlds are the infinite amount of combinations of matter in between one to infinite amount of space, in other words a combination of everything. every cause needs a cause and every cause needs a cause to cause those causes to be the way they are, and to 'know' how not to do something all of those not things must physically exist somewhere to be recognized as a not. What is solid, when you see an object you see itself, but why is the object itself and not something else, what is it or else determined by? To be the way it is the object in question must know how to be what it is not because to be shape is determined by the objects ability to recognize itself and to recognize itself the object must be the sum of what it is not as nothing can be itself when it is shapeless. If an object is only one thing there is no difference between the object and its surroundings, there is nothing for its shape is relative to. Not at my best right now, but amagine a circle, the circle is made up of two halfs, without one of the halfs the circle is not a circle, without also being or containing the physical what the object itself is not it cannot interact in any way with other things as it cannot know what it is without knowing what it is not, or being the sum of all the potentials. Nothing cannot be anything without being the sum of all possible states the specific states only exist because mathematically each state is defined by the rest, the equivelent of one cannot exist without two and two cannot exist without three and so on. For the laws to be applied the physical thing has to be made up of physical parts or you could call them substance or forces.

for something to be known all possible known's physically exist as if not all physically exist not all is know about all that exists, and if nothing but all combinations exist somewhere not all possible combinations exist therefore not all possible combinations are known physically which means not all possible not's are known physically by the system itself. If that is true then the system does not understand itself, well in other words it all has to physically exist in every possible way because for one object to change shape is move in a different direction the system the laws of physics or philosophy, well for something to happen it already had to happen because without putting all factors including the physical into play the system itself does not know what to do next. to summerize. all the physical needs to exist, everything needs to exist in everyway for there to be laws for everything. To not know all of it is to not know what the individual object state is relative two, if one thing existed there would be nothing to compare it two and just be perceived as a shapeless mass. correct?

am a nihilist or think the philosophy is correct but is usually misenterpreted.
If you believe in nihilism, do you believe in anything? – Nolen Gertz | Aeon Essays

 

[Rudi]

I think philosophy (# 77) is wrong, complicated.
Earthlings like to philosophize.
The fifth dimension is very simple when you are time trapped in that dimension
there is no room for philosophizing.
There is contact with antimatter energies going on, and you are not aware of all this if you do not have your own still living physical body where you analyze it all together.
The fifth dimension is like the anteroom of the room you intend to enter and this larger room is called life in the physical body.

 

[HikuTechy]

The way I see it, there are 9 dimensions. First three relate to substance, next three to motion and the last three relate to sentience. This was extrapolated from this video; youtube.com/watch?v=0ca4miMMaCE and from a lot of other readings. As of now we're mostly aware of the first 4 dimensions, so we don't have names or symbols for some of the higher dimensions at this point. This is also but a measurement model which can be open to interpretation. This 9 dimensional template to me is what makes sense and seems about right. Nature is fractal, which is why it makes sense to structure the graphs of the dimensions in this pattern. You can argue that a point is also a dimension, but to me a point isn't a dimension. It would be more like dimension 0.

 

[NaturalPhilosopher]

topology is pretty dead

not even a single rumor of an appearance of a hypercube or hypersphere.
you'd think there'd be leaked stories from secret programs or something...but nothin'

only thing even close is ball lightning but still no cubes turning inside out.