about creation and AI

hmmmm, i have read 2 straight pages on the post "Evolution for those who care" and i wanted to post my 2 cents worth here since the other post is way too long.

ok first off i do not beleive in god, and i hope sometime in the near future everyone else will drop religion as i think it gets in the way of science and many other things.

hmmm where to begin? i dont think we were created by random, we evolved out of who knows what by a long period of time. things evolve because the environment changes around them so they must adapt. im sure from whatever we proceeded from, that animal had to change its life styles to survive, and after a few thousand or maybe million years we evolved finally. i do think it is a slow and gradual process, and mutations dont really effect evolution because when a "mutant" animal mates with a normal animal, the baby still has a chance of being normal, but if wide spread mutation occures, than the whole species can be drastically altered.

i also think every single person who posted their thoughts about science and everything, is most likely wrong because time and technology will advance to be so great that it will answer so many of our discussions in this forum. there is no such thing as "random", something always happens because of something else. its sort of like that newton theory "for every action there is a equal reaction" or something like that. meaning when something in the universe blows up, such as a star, then it effects the surrounding planets, then those planets effect all the life forms on it and so on, it is a chain reaction.

i know what im saying sounds weird, its because i really suck at explaining and when i went back to read what i wrote, it didn't come out right so please bare with me.

i dont understand how people beleive in god. how can a "spirit" just wave his/her/it's hand and create something? that seems like the stupidest thing humans have ever thought up, there has to be chemical reactions, fusion/fission, etc etc to create whole planets and solar systems, not a wave of some non-existing entities hand. i know you guys are saying "how can you prove there is no god?", well obviously i can't, but using my common sense, i think there isn't a god.

back to the thing about randomness, for something to be TOTALLY random, there has to be NOTHING effecting the outcome of the thing being random. meaning no outside force has meddled with the outcome, which is (in my idea) impossible. but again all of my thoughts (and your guys thoughts) will be proven wrong or correct as time reveals more secrets of our surrounding.

about AI, i think it is VERY possible to create a totally sentient being. not now, but soon enough (if we dont kill each other off) we will find out how to, i am so sure about this, although i cant prove it. we will indoubtably create a machine NOT greater than us, but can think for itself to some extent. i cant say when this will happen, but im sure if our human race can live another tousand years, we will be doing some unimanginable things. to us it seems almost impossible to create something that will react to its surrounding without any outside input, but then how do we think for ourselves? once we firguer out how our brain actually works, all we will have to do is recreat it to some extent in machine form and it would be able to think for itself. as of right now, an AI is a series of if's and then staements. "IF this happens THEN do this", and the best AI in the world is just a HUGE library of IF and THEN statements, thats all. it just has so many if statements that it can react to many of its normal surroundings, but if it is put into foreign surroundings where there are no IF and THEN statements to be true or false, than this machine will not function as intended, but a true AI will be able to think for itself. I consider current AI to be first generation AI, when a machine will be able to create it own IF and THEN statements without a programmers input, then i would consider that second generation AI.

also about a "creation" can never be greater then its "creator". i think that is false, but there is some truth to it. a "creation" can not be created greater than the creator but it will have the potential to be greater, if the creator was good enough to create a sentient AI. but a creator CANNOT create something more intellegent then intself on purpose, only by ACCIDENT can it give a future to the creation which would make it smarter than him.

ok im very tired so ill stop blaberring now. BTW nothing came out as i intended it to, i just cant explain things worth sh*t. all that stuff i said sounds like 1sy grader talk, if you would talk to me in person, i would seem a lot smarter :) but all that stuff i said is really confusing i know. i just cant explain things really well...

please dont flame me for anything i have said

[kedaman]

i dont understand how people beleive in god. how can a "spirit" just wave his/her/it's hand and create something? that seems like the stupidest thing humans have ever thought up, there has to be chemical reactions, fusion/fission, etc etc to create whole planets and solar systems, not a wave of some non-existing entities hand.

First: hes not a spirit, there no such things as ghosts and spirits. He didn't wave his hand and we didn't create something. WE didn't create anything. Nothing can be created out of nothing so we can't create, so that's why we can't use the create word. It's like saying 1+2=4 because it's not true inside our universe. Instead we use the create word for making modifications in an original way. That's why we have that word. God created everything that is needed for Bigbangexplosion/whatever that started this universe. God created us in that meaning that every atom in us are his creation, and time is his hand to modify us to what we are (evolution illusion). There's nothing stupid about this theory, because it's zillion times more likely than yours. Not nessesarily logical in that part god is outsider to our universe so he don't need to obey this universe rules, but if we have that part everything makes sense, everything is correct. Nothing is leaved to chance. Your theory is logical, but leaves what science can't proove and the cause of universe existense, unexplained.

Relgion bullshit can't explain things correctly. How did he create universe?

Well lets assume there are rules like 1+1=2 in this universe. In another(if) there could be 1+1=3. Outside these/this universe we don't have any rules at all. 1+1=whatever you want. There's also no rules that says that matter can't be created out of nothing. So god created universe by saying things, or whatever, because for him everything is possible for him. This is what I call logical in both inside and outside our universe.

Also science and technology is built up based on our universe, so it won't explain this. People who come up with theories that are slowly accepted by science, but they're nessesarily not always true, because something is not logical, a part is missing. I have come up with a theory that's not missing any parts. And it's logical after all.


back to the thing about randomness, for something to be TOTALLY random, there has to be NOTHING effecting the outcome of the thing being random. meaning no outside force has meddled with the outcome, which is (in my idea) impossible. but again all of my thoughts (and your guys thoughts) will be proven wrong or correct as time reveals more secrets of our surrounding.

Randomness can either be chaotic or an illusion caused by our stupidity. I think we're going to find out this in the future. All theories can be prooved that are not using outside universe logics, so by time we will know almost everything, maybe everything in this universe except it's source. You can't proove my theory. many will try but noone can. The only thing I can do is make this clear for people that this is a logical possibility.

We can't create AI but we surely can evolve it. IF THEN is not AI, it wont learn anything, it just functions the way it is programmed to. Althought making selfmodifyable IF THEN library will be AI.

[SteveCRM]

In science, matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, just changed in form.

I am somewhere in the middle between kedaman and hdem2.

But Riddle me this: Who created God? Did he just will himself to exsist? Not possible. I beileve in God but i am also curious about the scientific point of view. About 4.6 billion years ago, the Earth was created and Life evolved from a single cell from chemical reactions. You need to have the perfect weather conditions to create a cell from non-living matter. Some people say God crated life, others say that he didn't.

But look at it this way. Way back then, people were to puzzled to think of solutions of how we came to be so they could have (i'm not saying they did) made up a guy and say he created everything.

[kedaman]

SteveCRM, I know that, all should know
Megatron, If you believe in God, you don't actually need to drag him into our universe, his not a thing, a statue or a man in our meaning. His outside universe, where we cannot know what, but surely he have the ultimate power to do anything he wants, theres no rules out there.

So there is even no rule about time: nothing needs to be created or destroyed, so in other words we could say that God always have and always will exist, but we can't. We don't know how God's livingroom is like, although the bible have gived us some screenshots but they aren't really reliable. God maybe have "time", but I doub't. It would just disturb him and stress him IF he have time to think about us all, which what I think, he must have. This is kindo highabstract to think about things explaining a connection between a timeless "Gods-hyperspace" and our "time-space" universe, but I think god have some API calls for that. Maybe he subclass or somthing.

hdem2, I don't like you splitting up this in more threads, people maybe post some not related post or ask things about parts of whole theories, things will mess up this way. Anyway I'll post the links to the two other threads on this topic

Grey Vbworld (http://forums.vb-world.net/showthread.php?threadid=13820)
Evolution for those who care (http://forums.vb-world.net/showthread.php?threadid=14521)

In the beginning there was unending nothingness. Whether this lasted for the briefest moment or countless eternities, it is impossible to say because time did not exist.

If you can't create anything, how do you create something out of this unending nothingness. When was the real beginning? Has the universe always exsisted?

[Sam Finch]

The universe has existed since there was time for it to exist it, before the universe there was no space and no time. So the Idea that god cannot exist because he couldn't create himself out of nothing implies that the universe doesn't exist. Personally I don't care wheather god exists or not, I really don't think it matters. It's probably a bit of both.

It can't be both. It's one or the other.

[noone]

My main problem with the whole notion of god has already been mentioned. If god created the Universe, who/what created god? The idea of god always existing is just something my mind cant grasp. If god always existed, why cant the universe always have existed?
I do think that true AI is possible but probably not in our lifetime. True AI will have to learn to react and adapt to situations that its creators never programmed it to react to.

Wouldn't it be interesing if people ccould program "feelings" into robots. So if you do something bad to them, they'll blast you.

But since you are the creater of the robot, you would alos be able to deactivate it. Sure it could do math problem and other stuff better than you but you are still the creater of it, thus you know it's every move.

[kedaman]

Megatron:
According to my theory Universe began at a point, and will end at a point or will lose its meaning while time seems stretched out to unlimitedness, which is what i think is the same. (if u reacted at this then before posting, answer this: What is time without movement?)

God is not a part of this universe, his the module in the project. Universe is the form. God is the sub_main. He creates an instance of the form, wait until it runs trough, and then kill it or wait it until it get killed. The form will run in a certain time interval, the module is independent.

The real beginning ure talking about should be when project is executed, but, that's not applying for my theory. There's no real beginning, because the word "beginning" needs the "time.dll" to run. It will show a "missing dll"-message. Hehehe, hope you got my metaphor.

Why would God need to be created? He needs that time.dll to be that, then who created that one? Answer is that God is. Or whatever (our language doesn't support the God-hyperspace dimensions).

I believe that time travel and altering of time is possible. That's what the 4th dimension is all about. As a ship's velocity approaches the speed of light, the flow of time decreases. If you and me are both born at the same time and I was put at a rocket travelling 250,000Km/s and you were stationary, you would have aged 20 yars in 20 years whereas I might have only aged about 3 years. the speed of light is a univeral speed limit. No partical that has a mass can meet or exceed it, thus light is a constant. If someone were to travel at the speed of light, they would never age. Time will stand still for them. If you exceed the speed of light, time will run backwards. Time flows relative to an observer. You'd not notice anything when you are traveling but to an observer, you ae either miving really slow (a little below the speed of light) or you are stationary (spped of light) or you appear to be doing thing "backwards" (exceed speed of light)

So what's the big deal with all this time travl stuff? Well this proves that time can be altered and or stopped. This means that time is still there. It will always be there.
Just sometimes, it flows at different rates. Hence, we do not need a time.dll, because time is like the rectangle around the Form. It's always there.

[Cbomb]

Einstein did prove all of what you just said. But now with Quantum Sciences coming about they find that light can only be the speed limit in this dimension.

An experiment was done where they split a particle and then using mag fields they altered one particle. The other (a copy of the one being changed) was down a tube 5 miles away. And yet displayed the exact changes at the EXACT same time. (Proven by synchronized atomic clocks) This leads ME to belive that the "change" information is moving at some instantaneous speed through a different dimension.

I find this intriguing. Imagine we can build something that transports matter instantaneously! Vega here we come!

[Sam Finch]

It was actually proved a few days ago that the universe isn't going to end, it'll just keep on expanding, but slowing down just enough so it'll "stop" after an infinite period of time (I know this doesn't make sense but you know what I mean)

[Zaphod64831]

I think that trans-dimensional theories could be the explanation to everyone's question of where our universe came from. Consider this, God is God, but not the only God, he is a sentient being from another, parallel, universe that has created this one to study and interact with. It is quite possible that someone with a seemingly infinite life-span could gain enough knowledge, with help from the others of His species, to affect time and space. If they were able to do this then they could transport the beginnings of enough matter and energy into one single point in our universe. This could create the "Big Bang" effect which has been intriguing our scientists for so long. They would also, theoretically, be able to create the sparks of life. Probably as simple as bacteria, or any type of single-celled organism. This would eventually evolve into some sort of higher life form. And, being able to manipulate time, they could easily have our universe pass by in a wink of an eye, stopping in whenever it suits them, explaining why something major hasn't mappened in the last 2000 years. Also, they would also be able to study our universe with extremely fast computers, considering their time manipulation they could create computers that actually process information an instant before it is given the command, thus explaining the "all-knowing" characteristic.

Of course, I've just been letting my mind wander with possibilities, so don't attempt to take any of this seriously.

[Cbomb]

Like A calculator that "thinks to you" the the answer. Sounds like Star Trek, H.G. Wells, and Superman all in one :)

[kedaman]

Megatron:
I didn't mention what time.dll does: It just give universe a possibility to change, not putting a time dimension into it that is constant to everything. Exceeding c does not nessesarily make time go backwards, if you don't do it directly (because thats one real impossible). Warp technology is next to AI, i'd say

SAM:
I know exactly what you mean, and it makes sense too. I've just told about that theory, but how the heck did they proove it?

Zaphod:
Like in THGTTG, hehehe, except that universe is the experiment, not earth. Remember, 42

[Sam Finch]

do you mean the one about the univere coming to a stop, I don't understand exactly what they did, they took loads of measurements from the north pole.

[Zaphod64831]

kedaman: Actually, I got the idea from an old Star Trek novel called "The Wounded Sky by Diane Duane."

It's about the possibility of an infinite number of universes co-existing in a single, larger universe. Sort of like a bunch of REALLY slow-moving bubbles in a soda. In the book a strange, glass-spider-like creature discovers that it can manipulate physics through what it calls "creative physics." A theory where physics aren't fixed, but defined through the people and ideas that limit them. Just as Newton "discovered" gravity and applied some rules to them, thus the limits were set. Until a more precise limit was set later on by more aspiring physicists.

Anyway, back to the main topic. These "bubble" universes exist in the larger universe. The larger universe is unlike all the rest in the sense that it is the EXACT opposite of a vacuum. It is filled with a material called "de sitter space," a super-condensed matter which is described as follows:

Imagine a black hole, now compress that black hole to the size of a pinhead, now fill an entire universe with these pinhead-sized black holes, then compress that universe down to the size of a pinhead. Repeat about a googol times.

In short, this material is so condensed that when they brought a SINGLE particle of it into our universe the planet on which they brought it was sucked into it in exactly ZERO time. Less than an 1/1000 of an instant.

In the book one of these universes in the de sitter universe bumps ours and begins to open a rift. This rift can only be closed by entering the other universe. When the Enterprise and the glass spider creature enter the other universe they find that it has absolutely no physical limitations, including matter, gravity, and light. But through their new "spirited" selves they discover that there is a single entity in the other universe, that universe's God. The other entity, being alone for who knows how long before, has no sense of self or others and has no idea how to perceive the fact that there is something other than its own mind, which it has yet to discover even exists.

They end up communicating to it through telepathy, attempting to teach it years of knowledge about the fact that it even exists in just a few moments. They end up teaching it about itself by "inventing" pain, which ends up working as they are able to attack it psychologically. They eventually teach it about the predicament they are in and end up fixing it. But the "God" ends up learning loneliness and asks them what it is to do when they leave, with no one else to talk to for the rest of eternity and the knowledge that there is someone else out there. They teach it about creating life and living through those lives.

Anyway, my point is, our universe could have been created in this sense. Someone from another universe could have penetrated whatever barrier lies between universes and spawned ours, or created it in some sort of laboratory. Someone with that ability would have no problem with creating "miracles" and such.

But again, I'm just letting my mind wander.

[kedaman]

Zaphod, I surely need to read that book, sounds interesting. Again this definition of universe(s) goes far from standard and I can't find any ways to agree/disagree with you. But one thing I found very hard to agree with:

In short, this material is so condensed that when they brought a SINGLE particle of it into our universe the planet on which they brought it was sucked into it in exactly ZERO time. Less than an 1/1000 of an instant.

You just said exactly Zero time! If you stop the clock in a universe, there's no movement out there. I think if you put one single particle of anti-vauum into our universe it would in a second collapse the whole universe, eating up exactly everything making everything go so fastbackwards when every particle speeds up zillion times c. We will end up with GIB GNAB as fast as almost ZERO TIME.

What is an anit-vacuum?

[Zaphod64831]

That may be true, but it's still a great book. I had to change a couple of aspects, by the way, because if I hadn't I would have ended up having to write the entire book.

And Megatron, a vacuum is absolutely nothing in a spot. Anti-vacuum is absolutley everything in one spot. I'm afraid that's the best that I can explain it as, but with a little imagination you should be able to figure it out.

[Gen-X]

Someone mentioned here correctly when they said "We must understand intelligence first before we can make a computer to USE it".

We cannot even come to an agreement about :

1. The size of the universe
2. Who created it
3. Does God exist?
4. Do we really see things?
5. Is there randomness?

And about another billion things...


If we cannot even get THOSE explained where we ALL agree then how on earth will we EVER be able to all agree on what intelligence actually is?

Until we can do that we cannot create AI.

[Sam Finch]

This is my favorite Gen-X argument so far

We will never achieve artificial intellegence because a group of amature VB programmers can't answer 5 of the hardest phillosophical questions of all time.

[Cbomb]

And I was so sure you guys could pull it off. ;) But really by exchanging beliefs and information back and forth like this, and with a programmer's analitical style of thinking we learn and accept or decline ideas slighty faster. Bringing everyone to the answers to the 'top 5' more quickly. :)

[Edited by Cbomb on 04-30-2000 at 05:40 PM]

[Gen-X]

Sam *big sigh* :(

I am struggling here not to say "are you that SHORT sighted"

[Heck, I just did... Oops]

When I say "WE" I am talking about humanity as a species. The collective of ALL of our best minds.

And when I say "and about a billion others" I am talking about things like :

1. We cannot agree if neural nets approximate our brain
2. Psychology now even REFUTES Freuds concepts of Ego
3. What goes into our decision to pick chocolate over caramel
4. What are the factors effecting a decision
5. Heck! What IS the decision making process.

We can't even work these things out and yet we are supposed to be able to PROGRAM them into an AI?!?!?

How about you actually answer one of these questions for once Sam instead of just giving me the "Oh I love this classic Gen-X argument"?

Answer me JUST this :

How can we program an Artificial Intelligence to do something we do not understand ourselves?


I'll give you a chocolate if you can at least answer me this ;)

[Zaphod64831]

By seeking out a more powerful being, hence the gods in all the religions. By seeking these beings we are attempting to find these answers. The answers provided by the gods of all these religions eventually lead to understanding, and understanding to AI.


And make sure that chocolate isn't a cordial cherry, I hate those.

[Zaphod64831]

And by the furthering of technology. As we advance in our current understanding of technology we will eventually be able to probe the human mind through a much more organized and definite means.


Make that a box of chocolates. :)

i have always thought this, but gen-x brought it up. an AI cannot be totally independant of it's "creator" or programmer untill the programmer himself totally understands how the noodle in his head works. Gen-x is saying, how can you program a machine to do something that you yourself dont know how it works, such as how to make a decision on your own. a scientist cant program that into a machine if he doesn't understand what your brain is doing along the way to come up with your dicision. thats all, its just a basic concept. can you program anything you wanted in VB? no because you must learn those code words before you can use them right? same thing when you try to create an AI, you must know the "code words" in how to create a dicision before you can complete your program.

you might able to do something like this later in the future by taking the software from DNA and converting it to digital information.

[Zaphod64831]

I agree with Gen-X too, I'm just saying that once we get to a high enough level of technological understanding we will eventually be able to understand our own minds better.

and we might be able to program a robot to have "a mind of it's own"

[Sam Finch]

Don't insult me just because I wear glasses, ok, you're question
How can we program an Artificial Intelligence to do something we do not understand ourselves?

I don't know where you pulled this Idea that we have to program it ourselves, some major advances have been made in AI by using progras written by a process mimicing evolution, although we havn't tcreated an einstein, we have created creatures that can accomplish simple tasks in an intellegent way, simulations of a fox chasing a rabbit, for example, pot a 100th generation fox against a 40th generation rappit the fox will always catch it, and nobody knows how they work, I actually have seen these in action and they do display signs of intellegence.

I'm not saying that we definatley can create AI, but I don't see your objection as valid, you are dismissing most of my arguments on the grounds that they are mathematical, and that maths is based on itself, wheras you've pulled some ideas out of a hat, nameley

We must program the machine outselves, this Idea of software "evolution" cannot work

We can never understand the process of human thought.

where have these ideas come from?

well i dont understand your idea how a machine creates other AI's and not a programmer. well how is a NON sentient machine going to be able to program a SENTIENT machine without having emotions, feeling pain, feeling worried, etc when the machine it self doesn't feel those emotions? it is impossible, some scientist who figuered out how those nuerons and other stuff in your brain works has to create the first sentient being, than MAYBE that first generation of sentient creations can create more complex models of itself. i hope you understand what im saying, basically im saying you got to feel what your making and you just cant put all this math together and hope that your machine feels some emotion. it isn't math that makes us happy or sad, scared or brave, its something else that no one knows quite sure what it is. so once we do, then we can duplicate it in machine form some how.

we have created creatures that can accomplish simple tasks in an intellegent way

your talking about some robot that serves you breakfast or something, that machine has no emotion. it was programmed not to run into walls, and how grab things, thats all. i hope you dont think that it will get scared if you pointed a gun at it, that machine has no clue whats going on, it just grabs stuff and puts it down at a programmed location. i am talking about being sentient, not a machine.

[Sam Finch]

it's not done like that, I think it's done by programming chips, completly random programs are put into the chips, the best few programs are then combined, a bit like mixing DNA, this gives the next generation, then the best are taken from that and combined, with fast computors and simulators you can do this very fast, if you have an algorythm for measuring success, I think you have to design the framework very well so that the programs can be combined without destroying them.

[SteveCRM]

About all this about everything happens for a reason...I know this sounds silly, but maybe everything does happen for a reason. If someone has a Bible handy, they should read the first book, Genesis. That has some interesting things on Creation. Wow, this is one of the deepest posts I've ever read.

if you want deep, check out the post "Evolution (for those who care)". that post has all these kinds of posts times 3.

also SAM, i understand what you mean, but a computer chip wont make a sentient being. this is what we are talking about when we talk about AI. sentient means you are AWARE of your surroundings without any outside input, such as a computer chip or a programmer. all animals, humans, dogs, birds, elephants are sentient to some extent. meaning they fear for their lives, and they know right from wrong, to some extent. when you do all that complex algorithym, its just programming and the machine doesn't feel any emotion. we are discussing how to create the ultimate AI, which thinks on its own without chips.

[Sam Finch]

Sorry, I've missed something here, why aren't we allowed chips, how can you have any sort of computer without chips, without coung back to calculators the size of wardrobes.


If we continue to evolve thes machines to accomplish more complex tasks they will become self awar, just like animals did, it's a natrual step in evolution, wheather we can know if our machins are self aware or wheather they just seem like it is a very interesting question

you guys should really check out the post "Evolution (for those who care)" post. there are some really mind bogeling theories out there. this is the stuff that really interests me, when you talk about time traveling and the universe. not in the kid way though, like in star trek and junk, i think all those shows are bull. but that thread is very intresting, not kiddy theories, so check it out. thanks for all your posts guys, i like talking about this stuff

[Gen-X]

1. You can't replicate DNA Digitally
The whole reason our DNA actually works is because of the material it functions in... organic matter. if you try to digitally replicate DNA to a non-organic substance it will fail. Don't forget... part of DNA determines how much seratonin is required to be chemically injected into a neuron to cause it to send a bio-electric pulse to its organicially graphed brother...

Simply replicating this WONT WORK.

2. Create something simple that will create something more complex

Think about what you said...

Lets create something simple : "An AI Dog"
It will create something more complex

Mmmm... I know that I am smarter than a Dog. So I could come up with something better than an AI Dog before IT could.

So I make "An AI Parrot"

Mmmm... I STILL think that I could make something better than an AI Parrot.

It goes on, and on, and on... until I get to the point where I have had to construct something that is NOT simple, it is as complex as me... and yet it is STILL not complex enough because it only has what I gave it.

Does that make sense now?

3. Sam's Spawning AI Life Principle

Sam. Your theory of constructed intelligences that "mimic" sentience such as the robots and other mechanisms utilize AI theories such as Genetic Algorithms, Expert Systems, Natural Language Processing, Neural Networks, Fuzzy Logic and a lot of other things.

You are right. We don't know how they work, they do "APPEAR" to show intelligence.

But guess what!?!?!

You have created an AI Aomeba!!! Woohoo!!!

If you want to create something that does this and it uses ITSELF to evolve then it would have to follow a similar path to ourselves in evolution.

This means it would require the following in order to successfully evolve :

1. Millions of years
2. A perfect environment conducive to evolution
3. ALL required resources
4. The EXACT stimuli at the EXACT required times

Now if it took the universe 65 billion years to do it right... and it did it NATURALLY... how on earth can we get the process to REPEAT itself electronically!?!??!

Don't forget...

WE decide its made of silion
WE decide to use electricity or light
WE decide to put resistors in it
WE decide to use copper circuitboards

What if artificial life was meant to use some OTHER substances? How can we ever recreate something if we are FORCING the materials used in doing it.

Its wasn't a CHOICE that we are carbon based and have 80% of our bodies made of water.... it wasn't even done on PURPOSE. Those materials were the most conducive and the most stable (Carbon is a double bond vailence with Oxygen) of all elements to be able to support life.


While maths might tell you that If you see the numbers :

1 2 3 4 5 6

That the next step is the number 7

The universe doesn't play by those rules. Humanity has been evolving, we compare ourselves to our ancestors of 1000 years ago and we say "We have improved". We see that it is a steady increase and we say "We KEEP improving therefor we will CONTINUE to improve".

In 100 years time we improve to the point where we have perfected Genoside and wipe ourselves out of existance.

PROGRESSION DOESN'T MEAN IT WILL CONTINUE.

You look at a robot that can dodge a wall and you say to yourself "One day it will be like us, it will PROGRESS as we have... therefor one day it will be sentient"

Very flawed logic

As for me "pulling them out of thin air"... My statments and beliefs are grounded not only in scientific theoretical study, but logical analysis with an incredible amount of existing scientific data to support it... I am one of those very "abnormal" people who enjoys reading published works on scientific discoveries.... None of it comes out of the "hat".


BTW, FYI... Doctors now believe that the brain actually DOES generate NEW neurons with age. Althought they are not sure if these new cells form fully fledged neurons they do create what they call quasi-neurons that form NEW connections between existing neurons of the brain...

The natural extrapolation of this is that it supports what we KNOW about people becoming wise with age.

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-01-2000 at 11:13 PM]

[kedaman]

I'm going to dig even deeper than Gen-x:

Actually I have done that already, but nobody seemed to answer me on my big big big big Q i posted in the beginning.
I give yuo 100 chocolate boxes even the most stupid answers to this.

Is there anything that is called "SOULS"? Is there anything that is not bound to physical behaivour in this world that is connected to LIFE

Believing in souls don't make this **** easier, im not saying believing in god is the same thing as believing in souls, so i suppose you can:
1. Think that we have souls
2. We don't have souls
This makes:
1. We have souls, we cannot be replicated, copied, our bodies cannot live without a soul.
2. We don't have souls, we can be copied, we are machines of meat and blood, our brains are computers, we respond, behave, think according to a system, that is our brain. We have no actual "INTELLIGENCE" so we cannot create ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE", or we have to redefine INTELLIGENCE so that what we have IS INTELLIGENCE, resulting in that WE CAN CREATE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Well, i didn't tell anything about AI in the first point. But what i think, this is most important thing, the lost root directory in the tree that Gen-x builded. The first one will go to Gen-x subdirectories

Now anyone want chocolate?

Bonus question, what is SENTIENT then? 20 chocolate boxes. Sam had pointed something about Genetics. Any clues?


if you want deep, check out the post "Evolution (for those who care)". that post has all these kinds of posts times 3

Hehe, Do you know who started this mess? :D If you do, and know why, you then should now why i'm offering that much chocolate

no i do not believe in a soul. i do believe we are totally able to be copied, we are just meat, bones, organs, etc... no "devine" substance lies within us.

about us being intellegent, i have never thought of that. are we created so that we will never be smarter than a certain point? i dont know, i cant answer that, but i am sure that we will one day be smart enough to create a partialy sentient being. even if its as dumb as a fly, it is sentient nevertheless. i dont even think it is that far away before we create a dumb life form that thinks on its own. give it another 100 years and genetic enginering will be able to do some pretty crazy things.

[kedaman]

I didn't see Gen-x last post when i was to post my last post so i have to post my replies into this post. Hope you got it.

But guess what!?!?!
You have created an AI Aomeba!!! Woohoo!!!

What's so funny about that. If we can create AI, we can make it learn zillion times faster than evolution, because of human input to that AI.
WE can give it:
2. A perfect environment conducive to evolution
3. ALL required resources
4. The EXACT stimuli at the EXACT required times
trough enough scientific researh we will learn to advance AI enough fast way so that we can look forward in having more intelligent AI than we are, in near future. I'm not refering to my last post, I'm looking from your aspect.


WE decide its made of silion
WE decide to use electricity or light
WE decide to put resistors in it
WE decide to use copper circuitboards

Now refering to my last post, i suppose we can make organic machines one day. Until then we can experiment with silicon.

The universe doesn't play by those rules. Humanity has been evolving, we compare ourselves to our ancestors of 1000 years ago and we say "We have improved". We see that it is a steady increase and we say "We KEEP improving therefor we will CONTINUE to improve".

I thought you didn't believe in evolution. Have you changed side or are you making another point from our view?

[kedaman]

Thanks hdem2, now im waiting for Gen-x to give his thoughts about "souls".

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

I believe that all forms of "sentient" life have an intangable and unquantifyable aspect to their existance that could be called a "soul". It is also called the spirit, Chi, Chakra and many other things to many other people

Your right... it doesn't have to have any religious connotation at all, in fact if you read the book "Ender's Game" that I mentioned to you before by Orson Scott Card you will find out his definition of what these souls are.

This doesn't preclude the ability for other sentient life from having them because they exist as a result of our force of WILL.

"I think therefor I am"

It is this statement that draws the essense of a human being to itself.

This then leads to what the definition of "Sentience" actually is.... Is a Dog sentient? How about a bird? A gorilla?

Basically my view is that sentience is an "AWARENESS" of your own existance, and the ability to effect that existance knowingly.

In this sense creatures like Dogs and Birds might NOT be considered sentient because althought they are alive they are purely instinctive creatures and their "intelligence" is instinct (or genetic) driven and NOT intellect driven.

Human beings are the ONLY species that has been able to ALTER the course of its own existance. We live in constructed buildings, we fly to the moon, we do things BEYOND our genetic programming.

THIS is sentience... simply wagging your tail, saving the young boy from drowning or being "sheepish" when you were caught chasing the chickens is only following the instinctual responses that were built in.


What's so funny about that. If we can create AI, we can make it learn zillion times faster than evolution, because of human input to that AI.


Ouch! What do you think happens to life forms that evolve zillions of times faster than they are supposed to? They DESTROY THEMSELVES!!!

Why do you think we took this long to get where we are? because that was the time required to make these dramatic changes. Sometimes Faster is NOT a better option


WE can give it:
2. A perfect environment conducive to evolution
3. ALL required resources
4. The EXACT stimuli at the EXACT required times


And how do we know exactly what the perfect environment is? or the resources? Don't forget WE made the choice of the materials it uses... who is to say that those materials are the right ones? Are we not now trying to FORCE life to exist against the natural laws of physics and the universe?

We don't even know what the perfect environment IS, or the required resources... so how can we give them to a construction of our own design?


Now refering to my last post, i suppose we can make organic machines one day.


They are called "clones"... and we are yet to see if a "soul" exists as a result of cloning a "sentient" form of life other than an instinctive one like a sheep or a monkey


I thought you didn't believe in evolution. Have you changed side or are you making another point from our view?


I said I don't believe in DARWIN's theory of evolution. I don't believe its mutation, and I dont believe its survival of the fitest. Don't confuse that with the fact that we ARE evolving... its just the trigger and the vehicle that I disagree with.

Evolution is as I said... a natural progression, the organisms pre-programmed response to the environmental factors around it.

This explains why an entire SPECIES gains a particular trait... because they are all influenced by that same environment. If you believe in Darwin, one Bat mutates Sonar and suddenly a million Bats mutate the same thing... I am surprised people don't see how absoulutely stupid that sounds.

[privoli]

i cant be stuffed reading so im just gonna spam and say hi

[Sam Finch]

I like Gen-X's definition of the soul, however I still don't agree, I think what you have missed out in your philosophy is that it's human nature to rebel and question, this can be attributed to our DNA, Also our parents are not the only influence on us, our freinds, teachers, people on the telly all influence us in some way, what forms us is this whole mixing pot of Ideas, nobody questioned the Idea of God in the Middle Ages because there were no influences to the contrary. The soul as I was told is the part of you that lives after you die, If we don't accept this, and I don't believe in the Idea of the afterlife, I posted my view somewhere on this thread. What is left for the role of the soul?

[Gen-X]

Sam... Throw the word "Soul" out the window.

Think of it as your "essence"... or "Chi" if you want to be Oriental, "Chakra" if you want to be Indian, "Mojo" if you want to be Austin Powers ;)

Basically its a word to describe that which is PURELY yourself. Something that your genetics says otherwise and something your entire influencial circle says otherwise.

Gallileo tried to tell the Catholic Church that the earth was NOT the centre of the Solar System. The use of his telescope showed him the revolution of the planets and that they were not around earth (I think he spotted Venus or something).

Before that he was DEVOUTLY catholic and the entire environment of the time was that of the Earth being Geocentric to our solar system.

It wasn't a "rebellion" that caused him to make the change, he didn't set out to prove something wrong for its own sake, and he certainly didn't just believe everything that had been taught to him and was passed via genetics.

What he did was have the perspicacity to actually realise for himself that DESPITE everything he knew and felt down to the very CORE of his bones was incorrect.....

THAT is the soul. THAT is what sets us apart from animals, why we have developed beyond then and WHY we do NOT just use instinct.

Look at animals.

You hit them every time they go to eat food, they will LEARN to be scared when eating food [THE MIND]

They are born with the knowledge on how to survive in their environment. It is their INSTINCT.... [THE BODY]

But they have NO soul... they can only act INSTINCTIVELY and with the knowledge they have gained during their survival (ie Dodge the water... nearly drowned, avoid the cave... bear nearly killed me).

Human beings have MORE than just that... heck, we have a Neo-Cortex after all!!! We can overcome things we KNOW to be dangerous and things even our BODIES know to be dangerous and still do them... Animals would never do that unless the alternative was death itself.

Surely even you can see the difference here?

True, but DNA does control most of this. Sure you have different personalities but all those personalities can be found in your DNA. Once your mind is used to a certian type of personality, it is easily accessable for your mind.

[Sam Finch]

I can't remember my history but Gallelao was renaisence right, and a mathematician, he had a great intelect (BODY) and views to challenge what he saw (MIND) it wasn't his soul, or his chi(a bodily energy at the center of chineese medicine, a substance which can flow from person to person and is not a unique personal thing) or his essence (a smell, or flavor) why as humans do we have souls and not other animals, where along the evolutionary ladder did we aquire one? your personality is purley a combination of nature and nurture, if there is such a thing as a soul I don't think it is this.

[kedaman]

Gen-x:

Identical Twins are seperated at birth and go to live in 2 totally different places. After several years they are brought together and amazingly they exhibit some extremely similar characteristics despite the fact they were in different environments.

Two identical twins are not identical. In fact's it's gramatically wrong, there can't be two identical things, by many arguments, and this one will fall because two "identical twins" had the same DNA but are different bodies. The DNA will never build up a person without being affected by either mutation or environment. So your DNA is not you.


"SOUL"
Basically its a word to describe that which is PURELY yourself. Something that your genetics says otherwise and something your entire influencial circle says otherwise.

I asked you about "SOUL" as a part that is not of physical character. did you misunderstand me or did you answer me? Is "Soul" just a a word like "Hate", "Love" or "Math", or do you think Souls have a particular existance? Is soul an illusion? (Refering to evolution thread)

[Gen-X]

Sam

Galleleo Challenging common beliefs is NOT the Mind. The Mind is what you have been taught to be true, your education, culture, society...

In that respect Galleleo would have believed the earth was the centre of the universe... after all that is what he was always taught.

Thus it was him going AGAINST his mind, AGAINST what he had always told was true that he came to his conclusions.

The capacity for his intellect was his BODY (DNA), but not the content itself. The content was STILL his mind.

We acquired our "soul" when we became self-aware. When another Animal has reached the ability to actually gain true sentience (Go look at a SETI site for the definition of this) then we will know if they have a soul.

I have to ask if you agree with this first, because of you dont' even agree with THIS simple concept then there isn't any use in continuing.

And seeing as you are now looking up words and applying the incorrect meaning to them (typical problem with the english language) how about trying to look up the word facecious :mad:

Magatron
DNA does NOT control most of this. I can exhibit ANY personality I want, neurons have NO chemical bonds in the neo-cortex when you are born.. it is your UPBRINGING that establishes those bonds.

DNA is a blueprint for FUNCTION. This means that it IS possible to have defects, mental conditions and the like in your DNA but it is NOT something that will tell you that you will be a stubborn person, or a jealous one, or a happy-go-lucky one... that comes from your experiences.


Kedaman
"Identical" in this means "Started with the same DNA template". This means that gentically at birth they are the same. Of course mutation can change this "slightly"... but it wont cause them to suddenly sprout hair or grow a tail now will it?

I know you do not natively speak english, which means some of the meaning behind it is lost. The tests were done to show that similar genetics can in SOME cases show similar personalities.. but not ALWAYS.

It was done to show that your DNA is not wholely responsible for what you are... just as other tests were dont to show that your upbringing wasn't wholely responsible.

They came to the conclusion that it was a "combination of both".

Its just MY theory that there is an esoteric part that there is a 3rd source and to my mind this explains why not EVERYONE who had an alcoholic father didn't become one themselves.

[Sam Finch]

Originally posted by Sam Finch
I can't remember my history but Gallelao was renaisence right, and a mathematician, he had a great intelect (BODY) and views to challenge what he saw (MIND) it wasn't his soul, or his chi(a bodily energy at the center of chineese medicine, a substance which can flow from person to person and is not a unique personal thing) or his essence (a smell, or flavor) why as humans do we have souls and not other animals, where along the evolutionary ladder did we aquire one? your personality is purley a combination of nature and nurture, if there is such a thing as a soul I don't think it is this.


sorry my bad, I didn't write what I thought I'd written

The Point Was that Galleleo was Part of the reneissance, every body was challening the views around them, that was the thing to do at the time. He was influenced by those around him.

The only example I can think of of your "Soul People" is someone who is mentally disturbed and acts irrationaly, Is this what you mean by a soul?

Gen-X: What controls your perosnality then? You feelings are different functions in your DNA. It has to be some form of matter that controls you.

[kedaman]

Simply put (what megatron said) Do you think "soul" is of physical character? Is there a code how of how you act? Or has "soul" no scientific explanation?

It must be some form of matter that has the instructions to influence your behavior. Therefor, if you're an angry person, your DNa will make your feeling of anger and rage more easily accessable than your other feelings.

[Gen-X]

Why MUST it be some form of matter that influences your behavior?

I agree that some people may have a genetic disposition TOWARDS a particular behavior (hereditary spouse beating for instance) but that doesn't mean you will do it.

Some people have the ability to OVERCOME what their genetics tell them to do.

Imagine this :

- A man's father was an alcoholic
- The man himself "feels" the lure of alcohol
- But the man doesn't drink... in fact he stops himself


This has shown that even with a genetic weakness towards that area he can MENTALLY overcome that weakness.


This is how people sometimes CURE diseases like obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), gambling, smoking and drinking... They train their MINDS to overcome what their bodies are telling them.

While I agree with you Mega that the body DOES contain some of these behavioral traits, it doesn't mean that EVERYTHING comes from genetics... the mind and the construction of neural pathways can completely ALTER a persons personality, behavior and even bodily function (See Stigmata... its where the MIND believes so strongly it can actually cause itself to bleed).

[Sam Finch]

Your example of the alchoholic, I've seen cases like this, the son doesn't drink because He has learnt from his Father's mistakes, I still don't understand where the Soul part of your psychological makeup comes in.

Is stigmata like an extreme example of the power of suggestion, I've done some hypnotism in my time so I'm seen some lesser examples, (I've had people seeing Pink Elephants and stuff, and I had a guy walking backwards for half an hour asking everybody why on earth they were walking forwards) But Bleeding!! I'd be very impressed if someone managed that (or scared probably) Can it really be done?

[kedaman]

Gen-x, i was asking of what nature "soul" could be. Can you answer me?

Gen-X:

ALL of the instructions for you you are in your DNA your body thakes those functions and uses them! It's not some soul that does it. How can this non-matter soul affect a form of matter??

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

Read between the lines... I dont KNOW where the soul comes from, what it is... all I know is that I can see a distinct difference between matters of the mind and matters of the body that I personally put down to what I call a "soul"

Megatron

You really are not grasping this concept are you? I can understand it is your philosophy to think that a human being is a complex organic machine.. right down the the very last. That every single thing about us is pre-determined and that at some point in our future we can completely copy and recreate human beings like they were clumps of proto-matter.

Taking that into account I can see perfectly why you refuse to see anything other than that.


Imagine a car. The car is a machine that has all of the "functions" as you like to call it built in. It contains everything you need to drive, each of the components interact with each other and work...

But it has no DRIVER... without that driver it is simply a machine. You can turn it on, you can even point it in a single direction but it wont respond. You need something controlling the body.

The human body is made up of 2 different types of responses... Autonomous (heart beat, breathing, reflexes) functions that you do not control and that just WORK... it also has responses that you MUST control in order to function (walking, etc). Now we say that walking is a neural trigger from the brain to tell the limbs to move... but what tells the brain to send that impulse? It just triggers because a complex interconnection of billions of neurons just "happened" to come to the conclusion that I want to walk forward now?

That is what sentience is about... the ability to do something THAT HAS NOT BEEN PREDETERMINED.

Will I have a chocolate cake this morning or caramel? Mmmmm... I like both of them equally, I haven't had either of them in a long time.. Which to choose... which to choose.

Please Megatron.. tell me what my DNA tells me to pick?

Gen-X

Okay, I see your point now, and without a doubt, I don't think I can argue much further. But a soul is not a form of matter. How can non-matter influence matter? What happens to this soul after you cease to exsist? Even if this is true, does that mean that dogs cats and even protopla and bactera have souls as well?

[kedaman]

Read between the lines... I dont KNOW where the soul comes from, what it is... all I know is that I can see a distinct difference between matters of the mind and matters of the body that I personally put down to what I call a "soul"

Were' still on the same subject, same definition, YOUR DEFINITION. What is your "soul" that is not matter and interacts with it? OR DON'T YOU KNOW?


But it has no DRIVER... without that driver it is simply a machine. You can turn it on, you can even point it in a single direction but it wont respond. You need something controlling the body.

Of what nature is this driver? You can't missunderstand me one more time. You keep explaining what it does, and we all now it already, but you don't tell us what it is.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

For @*#$^@#& sake!!

How many times do I have to explain to you that I DONT KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!

I told you that I can see a distinct difference that is not explained by either mind OR body and I have put it down to soul. I can make any number of postulations if it will make you feel better :

1. Particles from another dimension called Philotes that entwine when passing into OUR reality causing the atoms to form together to create us.

2. The creation in another dimension of our "essense" aquired when we reach sentience and are actually aware of ourselves.

3. A self-determining trans-dimensional, para-neuraletic consciousness that attaches itself to biological organisms


If I ask you who/what God is I am sure you will give me similar answers... you dont know yourself you just know it exists.

Megatron


But a soul is not a form of matter. How can non-matter influence matter?


Is Time matter? Yet it influences us?


What happens to this soul after you cease to exsist?


Personally I think that it does whatever it wants to do... if you are a christian then it goes to heaven (or hell if that is what you have chosen), if you are bhudist you go to bhuda, if you believe in reincarnation then you get reincarnated.

For me it explains why people see what their religious beliefs have taught them to see at the time of death/near death... the white light and all that...

If you think there is nothing but oblivion beyond death then that is exactly where your soul will go.


Even if this is true, does that mean that dogs cats and even protopla and bactera have souls as well?


Like I said before... my personal belief is that souls are a result of sentience... TRUE sentience... not just animalistic instinct. So dogs and cats dont have souls because they are purely instinctual creatures, they don't have the brain capacity to be able to support a driver.

Think of the car example again... We say the car can have a driver... But can a single wheel have a driver? Or how about a grain of rice? That is like saying bacteria has a soul

[Sam Finch]

I told you that I can see a distinct difference that is not explained by either mind OR body and I have put it down to soul. I can make any number of postulations if it will make you feel better :

1. Particles from another dimension called Philotes that entwine when passing into OUR reality causing the atoms to form together to create us.

2. The creation in another dimension of our "essense" aquired when we reach sentience and are actually aware of ourselves.

3. A self-determining trans-dimensional, para-neuraletic consciousness that attaches itself to biological organisms


I think that'll keep Kedman happy, I think I see what you mean by the soul, do you mean that the soul is the personality itself, born from Nature and Nurture like a child is born from its parents, am I at least barking in the right forest?

Gen-X

If WE have souls, than every living being should have a soul. We are no differnet. We all have the 7 characteristics of life. If think that all this mumble jumble was created back in the old days when technology was not so advanced and people are crazy believers. These traditions carried on and some people still believe them.

If this is true. How did people first come up with the idea of a soul? Or how did someone come up with heaven or hell or reincarnation? Has anyone actually seen/experienced these things?

[Gen-X]

Sam

Your sort of in the right forest... but instead of it being a "combination" of nature and nurture I think it is something that is "neither" nature OR nurture.

Megatron


If WE have souls, than every living being should have a soul. We are no differnet. We all have the 7 characteristics of life. If think that all this mumble jumble was created back in the old days when technology was not so advanced and people are crazy believers. These traditions carried on and some people still believe them.


Maybe you should read again what I said about a driver... some "machines" just simply cannot be driven, they simply function based on the commands they were given (instinct) while others can actually have a driver take control and get them to do things that were beyond their mechanical abilities (sentience)

So in this respect we are VERY much different... firstly we (and the other primates) are the only creatures in existance to have a neo-cortex, which is the outer layer of the brain responsible for higher order functions.


If this is true. How did people first come up with the idea of a soul? Or how did someone come up with heaven or hell or reincarnation? Has anyone actually seen/experienced these things?


"soul" is just a name. In fact it is an anglo-saxon christianic word which they use to describe the spirit of a person that goes to either heaven or hell.

In oriental culture they are "ghosts", in the greek culture they are "spirits" or "avatars".

The point is that WE decided what they were and where they lead us. That was my point about people going where they WANT to go when they die... If they have decided you get reincarnated and they came up with the concept of what it is then for THEM that is exactly where they will go. Maybe that means another dimension, another reality, or just an infinate loop of proto-matter...

Heck... maybe OUR universe is a collection of "souls" that some other trans-dimensional species dreamed up as a place where they go when they die :)

[Sam Finch]

Sam

Your sort of in the right forest... but instead of it being a "combination" of nature and nurture I think it is something that is "neither" nature OR nurture.



I thought that was what I said, the soul is "born" from your DNA and your experience, kinda like I was born from my parents, I'm neither my mother nor my father but I'm still a combination of the 2 (don't push this analysis too far, the similarity probably ends quie quickly) Is that what you meant?

Is that outer part of the brain the place where the soul is created? No. Therefor, it doesn't matter if we have 100 layers. There are several different nerves in the brain that extract functions from your DNA and that helps you live.

The example with the driver and the car: The driver is like your nerves sending signals to yourself, not a soul.

[Sam Finch]

I don't think he means the soul is a physical thing, kinda like a computer program, a number or an Idea isn't a physical thing, it's known as an abstract noun. The soul is your personality itself, I think that's what he's saying.

Does anyone here get the station TLC? If so, there was a 1 hour special on this evolution bit. They said that at the beginning, an atom was created out of nothing. How is the possible?

[Sam Finch]

he he there still trying to puzzle that out, I don't think they're saying it was created from nothing, it was created from a singularity, kinda like a black hole in reverse.

[kedaman]

Is Time matter? Yet it influences us?

It does not, because without time nothing can influence nothing. So as definition says, Time is the reason for influence.



I told you that I can see a distinct difference that is not explained by either mind OR body and I have put it down to soul. I can make any number of postulations if it will make you feel better :

1. Particles from another dimension called Philotes that entwine when passing into OUR reality causing the atoms to form together to create us.

2. The creation in another dimension of our "essense" aquired when we reach sentience and are actually aware of ourselves.

3. A self-determining trans-dimensional, para-neuraletic consciousness that attaches itself to biological organisms


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think that'll keep Kedman happy, I think I see what you mean by the soul, do you mean that the soul is the personality itself, born from Nature and Nurture like a child is born from its parents, am I at least barking in the right forest?

I'm happy with what you have given me Gen-x, that's exactly what i wanted you to say. Now I ask you one more thing, if consiousness is not dependent of matter, created when new humans are born, and goes it's own way when they're leave the biological organism, what do you think is more fact, that we are, or that universe is? This causes a conflict in our universe, that physics cannot explain: Nothing is interacting with something, Hence we or universe cannot exist. Do you agree on this or not?

Also if no one else have an explanation for this, I say I have.

[Gen-X]

Actually they are kind of right when they say it was created out of nothing.... but you have to understand the "perspective" from which it was meant.

We have proved that particles "appear" inside a vaccum. This is basically the same principle.

All atoms consist of 3 Quarks and depending on whether its a proton, electron or neutron determines which of those quarks it is (I think there ar 7 types of quarks).

It is believed that Quarks exist in a "field" that is outside the perception or "existance" of our 3rd Dimension. Just like the Sun is a process of Hydrogen atoms colliding and fusing to form Helium (it doesn't happen so much that the entire sun is Helium... its a gradual process of conversion) some believe that the universe is a process of Quarks colliding and fusing into atoms... at which point they leave this "field" an phase into what WE consider reality.

So from the point of view of the person in OUR reality they would see "something... created out of... nothing"

I know that doesn't sit well with you Megatron... you like to think that every single thing in existance is completely and totally made of matter, that it MUST have some form and that it MUST come from somewhere.

Sam
No you still misunderstand what I mean by "soul". It is not something born of the two things... it is NOT something that comes as a result of the other 2...

I can't state it any more clearly than this :

I believe the soul has NOTHING to do with DNA and NOTHING to do with conditioning/education. It is COMPLETELY seperate from your mind and TOTALLY seperate from your body.

It is NOT something that sprouts from the combination of the two (and remaining distinct from either one), it is something that develops completely on its own.

The only thing that can change is which of the 3 components you follow most... MIND, BODY or SOUL. Some people might have a terrible experience in their life which causes the MIND to exhurt over the top of both body AND soul. That doesn't mean its changed.

Megatron
You can't see passed it can you?

If the car/driver is like your brain sending signals to itself that is like saying the car battery telling the car to drive. You need something EXTERNAL to a machine to get it going... it may have a power source like a battery and combustable fuel like petrol... but it is still only going to drive in a stright line.

I never SAID that it was our neo-cortex where the soul is born... I said it was the neo-cortex that gives US the ability to actually be sentient... and that it is the SENTIENCE that gives us a soul... whether that soul comes into existance as a result of our awareness or it "attaches" itself because our SENTIENCE is actually an anchor I don't know.

But I ask you this Megatron... Why is it that human beings are the only species that can SPEAK, WRITE, READ among other things... because we hare just highly developed instinctual animals?!?! We *ARE* different to every other form of life on this planet.

Think about Apes. We are told that they are our ancestors. Through evolution we were the end product of millions of years of evolution from Apes. If that were the case, then why are there no longer ANY of the inbetween steps from US to THEM? Surely if Neanderthal man was better able to survive (hence the WHOLE reason he evolved from apes) then HE would be here and THEY would not?

Hasn't it ever bothered you the fact that the ENDS of the evolutionary chain exist but the middle is strangely non-existant? I agree that our DNA makeup is the same, but then again isn't "most" life the same? 2 occular units, 1 heart unit, 2 lung units, rib-cage.. etc, etc. (I'm excluding crustatians, jelly fish and the like for the moment, their environmental stimulous for development is greatly different from ours). It isn't a co-incidence that ALL bipedal and quadrapedal forms of life share the SAME traits of existance.... it also isn't coincidence that homo sapien is the ONLY form of life with a neo-cortex and we just happen to be the only form of life that develops art, philosophy, literature etc...

You can't tell me we are just the same as animals in anything but a biological sense.

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-10-2000 at 07:36 PM]

[Gen-X]

kedaman

Who ever said "nothing" influences "something"?

That I say my personal opinion on what a soul is, does not constitute matter does NOT mean it is "nothing".

Perhaps by our definition of what "something" and "nothing" are you could say that but as you could read from what it might be, it could be like quarks... something that exists outside of our 3rd-dimension (has no substance) and yet because it exists in another place that has an intersection with our dimension (funny enough, right at the point where WE are) that it is the reason for us having control.

Now I am sure you have an explaination for what it is and where it comes from... I have known from the beginning of your questioning about my opinion that you have been wanting to head directly towards "God is the reason for our soul, it comes from HIM, HE controls it"... It has been so obvious from the moment you asked the question, as if you were trying to lead me in that direction form the beginning.. not because it was a natural direction to go... but because it was the direction YOU wanted to go.

If it makes you happy to accept my opinion but twist it to say that God is responsible for it then enjoy the rapture it brings you... but that isn't what I am saying and it certainly isn't the direction I would go.

So I guess I have to summarise for you my singular opinion as to why God does NOT exist.

- Assumption : God created the universe
- Requires : God to be omniscient and sentient
- Sentience is an exhibition of control
- It is an influence that can "direct"
- It is the antithesis of instinct which only "reacts"
- Our universe is about "reactions" not "anticipations"
- Therefor if God controls our universe he is NOT sentient
- If he is NOT sentient then is is not a "being"
- If he is NOT a being then he can only be a "force"
- Therefor remove the label of "God" because that is a being

I am not saying that the above statements are scientific in any way... it is a simple explaination of why I personally disbelieve in a creator philosophy, because for me the existance of a creator indicates a known and obvious existance in the universe.... and I do not need to function thinking there is any reason, purpose or "goal" to be achieved... if there is they are the goals we set for ourselves as human beings and as the human race.

I believe in ideas such as honesty, compassion, sincerity, honor, respect for life and everything else... but they are not qualities dictated to us by some supreme being... they are concepts that WE have developed and choose to follow.... just like "some" of us choose to follow the concept that they were created by someone else.

I just don't see why we are the only form of life woith a soul. Surely we are much more intelligent but that doesn't make a differnce. Bears and Lions are much stronger than us. Shouldn't that count as "special qualities"?

I like your example of the car and the driver but it just doesn't make sense to me that there is some form of Non-matter controlling me and telling me to write all of this. I belive it's a combination of nerve signals and functions from your DNA that make us up. There is no external source telling me what to do.

how do these "souls" get created? When do they get created. When we are a small zygote? embryo? half-born? How does this souce of non-matter attract itself to humans and when does it do it?

[Sam Finch]

OK, now I don't know what you mean by the soul, the way I see it you have your personality, the thing that makes decisions. This is shaped by Your DNA and outside influences on your personality.

Are you saying there's something else that influences it. where does this soul come from? your DNA and your experiences combine in a very complicated way, i'd say chaotic but it's probably not something maths and chaos can describe. the point is just because people don't turn out like their parents doesn't mean there's any other "Factor" to your personality if you look at the smoking thread ravcam is increadibly anti smoking because his parents smoked. I'm influeced more by my freinds than my parents. your personality is a combination of your DNA and all the influences around you, some of them you adapt to positivly others negativly. I don't think a third influence is involved, especially not one that doesn't seem to be accounted for anywhere.

[kedaman]

Now I am sure you have an explaination for what it is and where it comes from... I have known from the beginning of your questioning about my opinion that you have been wanting to head directly towards "God is the reason for our soul, it comes from HIM, HE controls it"... It has been so obvious from the moment you asked the question, as if you were trying to lead me in that direction form the beginning.. not because it was a natural direction to go... but because it was the direction YOU wanted to go.

No i'm not pointing at God. Actually i'm pointing at myself. This theory is clearly differing from my beliefs in God. I would say god created humans but i wouldn't say he created our souls, that's what differing my theories here: There was a will from the beginning, ONE will, it was god, and not telling you how it actually worked out but now, theres are billions of wills, all pointing in different directions, trying to change "universe", which is a shared illusion in that sense that god dreamed about this before all this, and after the split, we share that dream, because we're connected. I'm telling you that universe does not exist, that it's an illusion, that we control it and we are all parts of god. End of theory. Now you can't kick me for that because you have nothing to take logics from when they are illusions. Also, you can't kick out god from this universe because he already is. You can't apply logics from this universe, or this illusion on god because nothing says that he can only be this or that but this and that or none or/and both of them at the same time. In english: How on earth can you explain something that is not explainable. It has even been written in the bible

I can tell you that god' does not exist. Simple, true and fact, all at the same time because when we use exist word, we have always used, it, we refer to something that's not. Also "Nothing" was Nothing becase it's not in our universe. And whats not in an illusion can be true. Did you get my point? You told me about dimensions, i think there are just as much as we see them, because they are illusions, there can't be more than what we can't see. If we found more of them, they will be only added to the illusion.

From the other side, Universe exists. God does not, because he is not in it, and universe is definition for everything so if God isn't there then he can't exist. Simple, true and fact.

Now this theory is my explanation but that's not what i believe in, because i believe in God. If you think i'm so stupid that i would believe in him for stupidity then point your finger at the rest of religious humanity, including yourself because if you believe in universe then thats your stupid religion.

I'm totally sceptical to everything except myself, my "soul" the driver that is so blind, he have nothing to look at but he want it so much that he can see it: Universe

[Gen-X]

Megatron


I just don't see why we are the only form of life woith a soul. Surely we are much more intelligent but that doesn't make a differnce. Bears and Lions are much stronger than us. Shouldn't that count as "special qualities"?


What do "special qualities" have to do with it? It isn't STRENGTH that determines soul its the ability to do something external to your environment and your influences.

A lion is a lion is a lion... it never acts like a human or acts like a fish. The reason for this is that lions and bears are INSTINCTUAL. They do what they do because their genetics PROGRAMS them to do it. They eat, they play, they procreate, they die. Everything they do is based purely on the genetic memory that was programmed into them at birth... and as they grow up their parents "teach" them, what they have learned... MIND and BODY.

Humanity is different. It is our INSTINCT (Body) to procreate... and yet more and more people choose NOT to... have you ever known an animal to ABSTAIN from sex because it didn't feel like making babies?

Or a lion that turned down a deer even when it was ravenously hungry because it felt SORRY for the deer?

Of course not!!!! THAT is the difference between US and THEM. We can make the choice that goes against everything INSTINCTUAL and everything TAUGHT. (Are you reading this bit Sam?)


I like your example of the car and the driver but it just doesn't make sense to me that there is some form of Non-matter controlling me and telling me to write all of this. I belive it's a combination of nerve signals and functions from your DNA that make us up. There is no external source telling me what to do.


Now this is where you have it wrong. "IT" is "YOU". Its not telling you what to do... YOU are telling YOU what to do. Its still your brain, its still your body... but it is ALSO YOUR soul. Some people believe that the existance of this "soul" can be seen in auras when you look at people through radiographic spectrums... This "radiance" is far brighter in human beings than it is in any animal.


how do these "souls" get created? When do they get created. When we are a small zygote? embryo? half-born? How does this souce of non-matter attract itself to humans and when does it do it?


Ok. I am going to "theorise" here. Take into account this is jut off the top of my head.

How do these "souls" get created?
They are not created. They are just like Quarks. They are "particles" that all float around somewhere.

When do they get created?
When Quarks meet under certain conditions and there are 3 of them then they form an atom. "souls" are created when the conditions are met to bring them into existence... OUR existence.

When we are a zygote? embryo? half-born?
Here is the funny thing. Lets take a baby. It was born with instincts, the ability to breath under water etc, etc... It knows how to breath, it wants to eat, it wants to poop. At this stage it is purely instinctual. There comes a point when this "being" finally realises that it exists... it doesn't just LIVE any more, it doesn't just DO... suddenly it realises that it has its own existance, its own willpower, its own abilities. I believe at THAT point the soul comes into existance.

How does this souce of non-matter attract itself to humans and when does it do it?

Imagine this. We have a stream of water. In that stream are lots of weeds. The weeds continue to float down river. Suddenly there is a STICK in the river and a weed gets "caught" on it.

Now lets consider the fact that we exist in the 3rd dimension. At some point we come to TRUE sentience, and it is THIS sentience that creates a STICK in the river. Now lets say that the "conditions" under which the quarks form is that there is a STICK in the river.

At the point of our sentience we create a conduit, a "presence" in a higher dimension that is not VISIBLE to our own here in the 3rd dimension. As the contents of this other dimension are say "philotes" (for want of a better word), they are snagged on this new presence in their dimension and our "soul" is formed.

Now this "soul" can be shaped by our DNA and it can be shaped by our "mind"... its now connected to us symbiotically and so just as we can damage ourselves it gets damaged as well. If our mind is hurt it could hurt the soul.

(This ones for you Sam)

But it does NOT mean that the soul was CREATED as a product of the BODY and the MIND... if you have a particularly STRONG philote then it resists the effects of the body and the mind... in fact if it is THAT string it can sometimes CHANGE the body and the mind...

To challenge you Sam... lets take a family.

Father bashes his wife. His son grows up in an environment where his DNA tells him to bash his partner and his EDUCATION tells him to bash his partner...

How then is it possible that he will grow up to do something DIFFERENT when both his MENTAL and his DNA influences both tell him the same thing????

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-10-2000 at 11:11 PM]

[Sam Finch]

OK, I'll work this through for you.

The childs DNA doesn't say he is a wife beater, he might have got his Doa I beat my wife gene from his mothers side and that might be a don't beat your wife gene, but even if he get's it from his fathers side, it's unlikley to be a beat your wife gene, He'll probably loose his temper quite quickly, but he won't neccacerraly be pre-programmed to beat his wife, he could beat his temper by taking up yoga or some way of learning to control his temper. If we look at the Nurtur side, he could see the wife beating in one of two ways.

He sees wife beating as the done thing or

He sees how muich his mother is hurt by his father and goes against his fathers habits by not beating his wife, He has learnt by his experience, because his DNA tells him to.

also he could start out by seeing it happen and believing that this is what happens, but other influences could suggest this is wrong.

we do not need this 3rd influence to explain why people do not take ater their parents, there are so many influences and so many ways he could be influenced that he could turn out in any way at all.

They believe that the Universe first started as matter floating around. It then exploded. It's gravity was so high that it pulled everything back in and blew up again. There is proof that the Universe is expanding. They prove this by using radio waves. This is kinda what it would look like. If the Universe wasnt expanding "M". The Universe as it grows..."(\/)" the radio waves are longer and they are spreading farther and farther apart. Our moon moves away from Earth 1 inch every year. The Univese will prolly expand forever. It's very cool. Just wish we could get out there in Spaceships to explore. That means, ALL HUMANS!!!..sorry to sound smart and ****, but Astronomy and Space is my favorite subject :)

[Edited by Matthew Gates on 05-11-2000 at 04:04 PM]

Gen-X

Read what Sam had wrote. I think similar to hyim on this subject. There are millions of functions of your DNA. For example: You wake up in the morning and want to have either chocolate or caramal. You have tried them before so your body remembers and stores the tastes of both of them. So you like both of them. Your DNA functions will retrieve that information and select a choice for you. NOT your soul.

[Sam Finch]

Mathew, Dorry to ruin you're moment, but there was no before the big bang, there was no time at the big bang, it's quite hard to say why, time does funny things in gravitational fields like that, it's why you can't get out of a black hole, because there's no time in them for you to get out in.

Actually, Sam, theoretically, a black hole is like a Einstine-Rosen bridge. It is said that every black hole leads you to what is called a white hole. It's just the oppostie of a black hole. It throws everything out. Anyway, when you get sucked in, you are thrown out through a white hole and into a parallel Universe.

This may sound stupid but what is a Quark. From what I've head they are particals that when formed a group of 3, they form an atom...Someone else mentioned that in the beginning, it was a collisionof quarks that created the first atom. but how can that be. If in the beginning there was no particals, how could a quark have exsisted?

A black hole forms when a Super Giant Star explodes. It is then filled with negative atoms and mass. It gravity is so strong and heavy-weighted...it will crush you like a bug, if your talking bout the black hole of space. When you get out into space..dont go near a black hole :P.

Damn, all this bullshit talk...i guess that's why the board is called "chit chat."

:)

[Edited by Matthew Gates on 05-24-2000 at 08:53 PM]

[Sam Finch]

I think that's a science fiction theory, based on rotating black holes, rotating black holes have an inside which is as large as the outside, they have 2 event horizons one on the inside and one on the outside, when you go through the black hole is still a rotating black hole but the inside is where you came from, this sounds like a "White hole" but white holes don't make too much sense in physics, it could be another black hole which you managed to get out from by gaining enough speed going into it in the first place. I don't understand the physics of why you can't get out of them (Don't say it's because the escape velocity is faster than the speed of light, that's not it) so I can't really say. Or it could be the big bang of another universe as I have said time works in mysterious ways.

[kedaman]

Astronomy and Space was my favorite subject about 7 years ago. Now i have none. Everything's extreemly in favour thats debated around Science, Math, Philosophy and Religion. I've read that theory about universe expanding for ever and didn't like it. After say about 10^64 years we have not even black holes and neutron stars left, just distant distant particles.

For spaceships:

I don't think thats going to be a big thing if we can't pass space without having to use a whole star of energy to accelerate into a enough satisfying speed, ie 32c. I had posted my theory about starlanes of Warped space to transfer matter between planets but i only got some "that's only star trekky scifi"-replies. Now i have to post it again. Building starlanes of warped space that runs trough normal space around a set of habitable planets is a possibility in future. If we expand all over Milky way, we have a network of those, and with different warp speed, like speedlimits in traffic, or cables transfering data in internet. This isn't any science fiction i'm talking about, it's just a matter of time and we have the right tools to create this network.

what is a Quark. From what I've head they are particals that when formed a group of 3,they form an atom...Someone else mentioned that in the beginning, it was a collisionof quarks that created the first atom. but how can that be. If in the beginning there was no particals, how could a quark have exsisted?

[Sam Finch]

someone back me up on this, but I've said it several times.

There was no Before the big bang

it's one of these things that's hard to accept, but it has been "proved" I don't like having to put that word in quotes but otherwise Gen-X will have a go at me the theory of the big bang was worked out mathematicly, and the maths shows that there was no time before the big bang, it's part of the big bang theory.

Anyway, as I was saying, there just was the universe, as a singularity, which rapidly expanded into the early universe.

There is a wierd explanation in physics involving complex numbers but I don't fully understand it and don't have a hope of explaining it. Gen-X, got an explanation? :D

No matter how much we learn..we will prolly never ever find out the truth. It's just meant to be as is. There is the future. The past can only be guessed at, while the future, is what we control. At least, here on Earth, how we make of it. The Universe is automatic..does everything by itself and we cannot change that. Damn...had to get that out, i feel so much better :). Its nice talking about a subject I love for once. Some people that "understand". Alotta people dont take an interest in space enough to talk about it. But i forgot, i have people from all over the world who can talk about it that wonder whats beyond.

New Subject: Scientist believe we were first on Mars and came here by Asteroids (our molecules and stuff, that is).

Care to talk about that new subject now?

[Gen-X]

Megatron

You really, really can't get over this hurdle can you? Everyone else is jumping over and you keep hitting the wall :(

- Quarks exist
- 3 of them are found inside each proton, electron and neutron
- They have NEVER been found in singles
- If you break them apart they DISAPPEAR (NOT expend energy and change form... they just CEASE to exist)

To try and get passed your obsession with everything having to consist of matter...

QUARKS DO NOT EXIST IN OUR UNIVERSE AS SINGLE ENTITIES. THEY ONLY PHASE INTO THE 3RD DIMENSION WHEN IN COMBINATION WITH 2 OTHER QUARKS

Its like OXYGEN. When it is very cold its like a block of Ice... you can touch it and see it... but when it heats up it changes STATE to a gas. As a gas you can neither SEE it or TOUCH it. The molecule O2 has therefor "PHASED" in and out of the visible spectrum.

Some believe Quarks actually exist outside of our dimension and only come into it when in sets of 3... others believe that they exist in our dimension but are "PHASED" such that we cannot see them until they resonate (which they only do as sets of 3)

I really wish you would get over this idea that everthing has to be made of matter... All I need to do is say the word "Anti-Matter", point to the extremely Large Particle Accelerators around the world and give you proof that things OTHER than matter exist.

Sam
Of all the theories of the start of the universe I think the cyclic big bang is the most likely. If Einstein was right that Matter bends Time/Space then the Universe would have been a finite size allowing you to travel in ANY direction and still end up where you started.

As the matter expanded so did the amount of "space" inside this universe. Things are not actually "getting further apart" as it were, they are instead getting "MORE SPACE BETWEEN THEM".

I know its hard to understand but it does show everything perfectly.

To "get further apart" means you have something to GROW INTO. The universe has nothing to grow into... there is nothing on the other side... you wont REACH an end just like you never reach the end of the world if you are keeping to the surface. The capacity for size within our universe is increasing but that is as a result of the matter dispersing, causing the bend in time/space to be less and less.

So to back Sam up, Time does not exist outside of our Universe, it wasn't there before the bang, and it wont be there when/if we come back in for another bang. Time requires 3 dimensions to function in, and those 3 dimensions are RULED by gravity and matter.

Anything outside of it just doesn't exist.

Gen-X

Let's get one thing straight here. I NEVER SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS MADE UP OF MATTER! WHAT THE IS LIGHT THEN? WHAT ARE THOUGHTS? THEY ARE NOT MATTER.

Here's another question I hope that you guys can answer. Did did the Universe exsist befroe the big Bag. If there was no time, it is impossible to say if it was that way for countless ages or even the briefest moment. How could it have exsisted without time?

Can't we just say, "God created it"?
Damn, if the Universe existed before..it couldn't of always been just matter always floating there. Something had to create it. A great great being or something, right? And when you die, if there is an afterlife, do you learn all the answers to life, or do you just keep wondering for all eternity?

[Edited by Matthew Gates on 05-12-2000 at 08:19 PM]

[Dayo312]

If you understood how GOD CREATED this
world, then your would be to his level.
He CREATED you to be lower then him so
therefore you dont understand.

Dont think you can understand everything
cause you cant.

[kedaman]

1. There was no Before the big bang

2. I NEVER SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS MADE UP OF MATTER! WHAT THE IS LIGHT THEN? WHAT ARE THOUGHTS? THEY ARE NOT MATTER

3. Of all the theories of the start of the universe I think the cyclic big bang is the most likely. If Einstein was right that Matter bends Time/Space then the Universe would have been a finite size allowing you to travel in ANY direction and still end up where you started.

4. Here's another question I hope that you guys can answer. Did did the Universe exsist befroe the big Bag. If there was no time, it is impossible to say if it was that way for countless ages or even the briefest moment. How could it have exsisted without time?

5. If you understood how GOD CREATED this
world, then your would be to his level.
He CREATED you to be lower then him so
therefore you dont understand.
Dont think you can understand everything
cause you cant.


(1,4,5). Exactly my point, In order to exist from a stage when we didn't, there must be time on both sides, before and after Bigbang. And That's not fact, because Universe have "always existed" in our terms, starting from big bang to now, and before Bigbang is nothing because "everything" is defined to everything inside Universe, and the logics of "There's nothing outside universe", "There's nothing before Big bang" is correct. Therefor we cannot apply logics on what's differing Universe from outside. We can never understand how, but we can always try.

So, as god is on a higher level of existance, outside logics of universe, there's nothing that stops him from knowing everything about our universe, contradicting that we are on a lower level, wherefrom we just can see our world and lower levels.

2. Fotons are particles, which is also what matter is.

3. That is another crazy theory Gen-x, You can't base everything on Einsteins theory of gravity and at the same time having autodynamics unsolved, they're conflicting and a lot tells that Einstein was wrong, but that was your idea from the first beginning.

Matter is anything that takesup wieth and space.

Picture a room full of photons. Are you going to be able to NOT enter it because there are to many photons? No. They don't take up space nor do they have any weight.

[kedaman]

Actually they have both, and they won't stop you from walking in to a room, because they will 1. be absorbed into your clothes or 2. reflect

But they don't take up any space nor do they have any weight. You can ask any scientist on this one.

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X



I'm midly confused about your quark Ideas.

you say singular quarks exist in another dimension?? That doesn't make sense, do you mean they exist in another hyper-plane of some kind of 4D space, err I don't know how to explain that in English Basicly a couple of feet in a direction that we can't go in. I don't know what you mean by something existing in a dimension, a dimension isn't an object, not even an abstract object, (try pointing to the 3rd dimension.)

If we're talking about the first Idea(the one which makes sense) then why exist in our hyperplane in 3s, surely there's an infinite number of others, it's pretty unlikley they should choose ours.

(If anyone's lost me at this point, Imagine an infinite number of parralell universes, arranged in a line so that every point on the line is a different universe (this line is a 3rd dimension of space, you can't picture it, just imagine that for every number there is (including fractions and irrational numbers, but nut including complex numbers) there is a universe. so between any 2 universes there is an infinity of other universes.) Gen-X is suggesting that quarks move through these universes in the same way as we move through space) When I refer to a Hyperplane in 4D space I mean one of these universes.


now, there is no next hyperplane to ours, between ours and any other hyperplane there is an infinity of others inbetween, how do the quarks Jump across these planes (remember, they are moveing as if through space) and how do they exist in ours and ours alone, if they exist in several then they must be a spherical ended hyperprism, ie they are the same size in all the hyperplanes they exist in, therefore they are a finite size in one hyperplane and not in the next, but as I have said, there is no next hyperplane, there is no way it could work this way, or any other way that I can think of.

I can think of a different explanation, essentially the amplitude of the particles probability wave is complex (most probability waves are in fact imaginary, it is the negative of the square of its displacement that in fact gives its probability of being there (that's true I believe)) the colour of a quark represents the amplitude can be any of 3 values R, G, or B which are complex numbers sutch that

R^2, G^2, B^2, (R+B)^2, (R+G)^2, (B+G)^2 are imaginary and
(R+B+G)^2 is real, ie only when the quarks are in a three do they have a real probability of being anywhere

I havn't bothered trying to find solutions to this, I dopn't even know if there are any I also can't think what an imaginary probability would do but still, this way makes a bit more sense.



Megatron

If there wer enough photons in a room they would prevent you from going in, experiments have shown that light exerts a force, just not a very big one, NASA are investigating wheather it would be possible to power a space rocket by shining a powerful laser or maser on it.

[Edited by Sam Finch on 05-13-2000 at 11:05 PM]

[kedaman]

Sam:
I thought parallell univeses where disconnected from each other in room, just time connects them, and in one way, splitting one universe in infinite ones every moment. Or am i wrong? Either way, i don't believe in parallell universes becauses it bases on that universe has to be random.
Meg:
E=mc^2, that's what a scientist would say, you can calculate the weight by yourself: m=E/c^2=h/(lambda*c) where h is planc's constant, c speed of light and lambda the wavelength of the photon. I'm don't have the values here but a photon is a particle so it has a size.

I believe that how you act is based on the functions in your DNA, thus there is no need for a soul.

[Gen-X]

Megatron

Haven't you ever heard of "Solar Sails"? It is an attempt to use photons in space like we use wind on the high seas. They DO have both size AND weight.

Oh and about your DNA thing again.. why repeat it? If you have MORE to add then by all means restate and "ENHANCE"... but just simply restating your believe (ie no support or examples, reasons or anything else) is like someone trying to convince themselves something is true.

I *am* a mushroom... I *am* a mushroom... I *am* a mushroom

:D


Sam

I don't think you have grasped what I am getting at with "other dimensions"... Think about our own for a moment. Dimensions are contained "WITHIN" dimensions.

LENGTH
This dimension doesn't really exist as far as we are concerned... its kind of imaginary. Its a vector and it has a direction... Lets say X=3. This gives us a straight line but if we look at it from the perspective of the 1st dimension it is EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as X=2 as far as X=3 is concerned...

Its only when we introduce the 2nd dimension that the 1st dimension exists in more than just one thing. Now we have X=2, X=3, X=4.5, X=<infinate>. Its the "WIDTH" that allows us to now say something like X+Y=3.

So as far as the 2nd dimension is concerned it "CONTAINS" a 1st dimension... That doesn't mean that the 1st dimension exists purely in and of itself... that ALL matter has 1 of its 3 sides in the "SAME DIMENSION". What it means is that for each 2nd dimension there exists inside it 2 1st dimensions...

Now lets look at the 3rd dimension. Inside it there are 1st dimensions and 2nd dimensions... OR there are 3 1st dimensions.. Basically one contains the other.

Now lets add Time. The 4th dimension. For each existance of a point in the 4th dimension there is a fully complete set of the 1st 3 dimensions.

Are you starting to get the picture now?

So lets just say that quarks naturally exist in the 5th dimension. With US being in the 3rd dimension, and activated by the 4th dimension (without time we would be static), we don't see these Quarks because they exist outside of what we know and can see.

[Example : You are a 2-dimensional being. You look around you and see nothing. Suddenly a hole appears infront of you out of nowhere!!!! What you don't realise is that this "hole" was created by a person sticking a pencil THROUGH a sheet of paper. because the 2-d being cannot "see" the 3rd dimension of "depth" he cannot see the pencil coming... he can only see the END RESULT]

So something happens that causes these Quarks in the 5th dimension to form a CONNECTION to our 3rd dimension... a union of 3. Perhaps together they set up a resonance wave that draws them into the 3rd dimension.. or perhaps it is an "echo" of their existance in the 5th dimension...

Either way they are not anywhere we can see or tell because we are limited to be beings that exist in only the first 4 dimensions...

Does that make sense now?

Gen-X

So technically, if there was so much light in a small room, I would be unable to enter it because there is too much light?

[kedaman]

Meg, if you would open that door you would be burned into ashes.

What's "Quarks"?

[Sam Finch]

Thanks for explaining what a Dimension is, now go and look it up, what you're describing is a space(a special type of Group)
.
a space is a set of points, one of them is the Origin.and an addition operator. we define a space as N-Space if you Need at least N Real Numbers to Identify a point, ie we live in 3Space we need 3 real Numbers to Identify a point in our space, given that an origin is defined.

Now We imagine your "5th Dimension" ie a 5Space we Define

O our Origin
X,Y,Z,T and Q four points in our 5Space

sutch that the Vectors OX,OY,OZ,OT and OQ are orthogonal and of the same modulus

we define the point (x,y,z,t,q) as O + x(OX) + y(OY) + z(OZ) + t(OT) + q(OQ)

(Basicly 5D space with its Dimensions called X,Y,Z,T and Q)

a Subspace is a Space contained within a Space, so that the 2 spaces both have the same origin

our universe is the subspace q = 0 ie every point that can be reached from the origin without moving iin the Q direction,

What we call "Now" is the subspace q = t = 0 ie every point that can be reached moving only in the X,Y and Z directions. T is our Time dimension

OK now we know what we're talking about. you were saying a quark is a line through this 5Space and for some reason it can only exist in our 4Space if it is a group of 3.

This Means that There is something special about our 4Space which I kinda object to. it also Implies that there is something special about all the points and directions in our 3space.


There's a load of things you'd have to fix about quarks and this 5th dimension, They'd have to be wierd shapes, they can only rotate about an axix R + lamdaQ (a line in the Q direction), It makes for a lot of extra rules governing these things, and in physics we like less rules.

[Gen-X]

For the love of @#(*$&(*&^ @#$ *(@#&$

Sam... WAKE THE HELL UP!!!!


I am NOT Talking about a "Space".. I am NOT talking about the mathematical RULES for Geometry.

Why can you NOT get out of your head the use of mathematics in this!?!??!


Read my example regarding the figure in 2D and the Pencil coming from 3D.


Explain to me using your Mathematical Geometry how this would work?

Explain how the 2D figure could NOT see the pencil coming?

And then explain to me why it is so hard for you to understand that something in a dimension "ABOVE" ours (which has the ability to intersect) is beyond our viewing and requires so much "complexity"?

Is it because it doesn't fit neatly into your mathematical equations? Because it doesn't MATCH your Geometrical calculations?

I have already proved to you beyond ALL doubt that Maths is flawed.

1 + 1 = 2

1 lump of clay + 1 lump of clay = 1 BIGGER lump of clay


MATHS DOES NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD SO STOP BLOODY WELL USING IT

It makes some nice estimations, we build rules INTO mathematics that explains phenomenons, we can even "approximate" some mathematical equations to explain velocity, gravitational pull, acceleration, Work, Torque... WHATEVER!!! But all of them are FIXED examples that CANNOT have outside influences...

Its like building a tower out of playing cards... It can be done when you are sitting in a nice quiet and closed of room but try to do it in the real world and it will never work.

*I'M* talking about the real world here Sam... If you want to talk about the imaginary world of Mathematics then please go and talk about it elsewhere...

WE are NOT on the same wavelength.

[kedaman]

1 + 1 = 2

1 lump of clay + 1 lump of clay = 1 BIGGER lump of clay

You're wrong Gen-X! 1 lump of clay + 1 lump of clay is always 2 lumps of clay, never a bigger lump of clay.
The "+" doesn't mean you have to move those clay lumps together because then you need space to do it, and time to have it done on. Consider math to solve this also.

MATHS DOES NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD SO STOP BLOODY WELL USING IT

MATH WORKS JUST PERFECT IN THE REAL WORLD BECAUSE WHAT WE SEE AS "REAL" IS JUST WHAT APPLIES IN MATH. THAT'S WHAT MAKES MATH RELIABLE.

And you're certainly not talking about Real world, because you know nothing about it. Just changing the definition of "real" to REAL here. so don't mix it up.

I'm going to put those definitions here so that we all can agree on them:

"Real", Real - What we "know" or actually believe that it is real. The subjective vision by humans and science.
REAL! - The actual Real, the actual truth, that is what's is objective truth to everything both inside and outside all universes.

[Sam Finch]

What do you mean Maths can't describe the situation, you can't describe the situation without maths, that's where you're going wrong. Maths describes perfectly why the Idea of quarks only existing in another dimension makes for some ideas which go against the grain of normal physics. you've decided on the existance of this 5th Dimension but you seem to have no Idea how it works. something like this is where you need maths because you can't picture 5 dimensions without it. now stop, think, and you'll see why the Idea of this 5th dimension is unlikley.

[Gen-X]

Sam

Answer me this :

Man in 2D world suddenly sees a hole open up in front of him. Because he is in 2D and NOT in 3D he could not see the pencil coming in from "DEPTH".

Explain that mathematically and I *might* listen to what you have to say.

Kedaman

Your not thinking are you...

The whole idea of the "+" is that you no longer have 2 numbers... If I were to use YOUR idea of what the plus symbol meant I would do

1 + 1 = 1 + 1

Because I have 2 objects on the left and 2 objects on the right.

The whole USE of plus is because :

1 + 1 = 2

2 objects on the left and ONE object on the right.

Thats the concept of addition...

Now if we were to assign something like X and say that X = mass we get

1x + 1x = 2x

1 lump of clay + 1 lump of clay = 1 bigger lump of clay (or 2 lumps of clay)

Wow! Suddenly maths holds up... why? Because we have DEFINED everything there is to define.

But PURE maths... 1 + 1 = 2... It only exists in a non-real, controlled and bland environment.

THAT is what you can't use it in the real world.. because with Maths you have to assign every factor involved... and we know in the real world that is NOT possible.

It is the WHOLE BLOODY reason why Maths cannot and will NEVER be able to predict lotto numbers.... because it cannot count, quantify or qualify all of the factors involved in them bouncing.

Why can't you accept that?

[kedaman]

Gen-x, math is math, not what you think it is.

1 + 1 = 2

2 objects on the left and ONE object on the right.

Thats the concept of addition...

No that's not the concept of addition, [i] in math [i/]
That's the concept of equation, while addition is just a operation.
Try in immediate window:

?(1+1=2) 'An equation
True
?(1+1=1+1) 'Also an equation
True
?(1+1) 'Calculation of an equation: x=(1+1) -> x=2
2

And you see what i mean.



Wow! Suddenly maths holds up... why? Because we have DEFINED everything there is to define.

But PURE maths... 1 + 1 = 2... It only exists in a non-real, controlled and bland environment.

THAT is what you can't use it in the real world.. because with Maths you have to assign every factor involved... and we know in the real world that is NOT possible.

It is the WHOLE BLOODY reason why Maths cannot and will NEVER be able to predict lotto numbers.... because it cannot count, quantify or qualify all of the factors involved in them bouncing.

Why can't you accept that?

Actually i don't accept it, but you're forcing me to define two types of math:
General math - Calculations where all possible factors are involved
Classical math - Calculation where all relevant factors are involved
Also you're involving physics (the lumps of clay and lotto numbers) and the then we need to declare phycal calculations the in the same way. But the most horrible thing you're doing is involving religion (lotto numbers) the way universe works is nothing but you're beliefs: If universe is random, there's probably only probability calculations that gives results, and that's also math. So, Gen-x You can't have a world without math.

[Iain17]

Right. I am back tracking here a bit, but i have only just realised that Gen-X has been allowed to get away with some sweeping statements that are way off the mark.


LENGTH
This dimension doesn't really exist as far as we are concerned... its kind of imaginary. Its a vector and it has a direction... Lets say X=3. This gives us a straight line but if we look at it from the perspective of the 1st dimension it is EVERYTHING. There is no such thing as X=2 as far as X=3 is concerned...

Its only when we introduce the 2nd dimension that the 1st dimension exists in more than just one thing. Now we have X=2, X=3, X=4.5, X=<infinate>. Its the "WIDTH" that allows us to now say something like X+Y=3.


What is this? I really can't believe this one got past everyone. I really though you had more brains than this Gen-X. Especially as you have the gall to ridicule people over little mistakes they have made.

I agree with you that Length (now referred to as x) is a vector. It can have a value of anything from -Infinity to +Infinity. What i do not agree with is the rest of the statement. I am now talking in strictly 1D. If x=3, there still exists x=2, x=-10 and x=n.

Let me try and explain. x, as you stated is a straight line. This does not stop x having an infinite number of points on the line. Imagine a being living on this 1D world, albeit a very flat, thin, bored being. This being can exist any where along this line. If x somehow is limited from 0 - 3, then the being can exist at the points x=0, x=1, x=2, x=3. Other wise how could more than one thing exist in this world. If x=3 and only 3, then no other beings can live in this world.

x = 0 1 2 3 If x = 3
1D world _ _ _ _ Gen-X's 1D world _
Being . . . Being .


By your reasoning, a 2D(x,y) world will only allow you to have an Infinite number of points for x, and 1 point for y. How do i come to this conclusion, becuse there is no third dimension to contain the y dimnsion.

I can prove this wrong now. Imagine the screen you are reading this on is flat. There is, depending on your resolution, 800 possible positions for x and 600 for y. In Gen-X's 2D world you would be seeing a very thin line going across the screen. Going back to 1D if we remove y, we would have 800 positions for x.



Or even worse, this follows on from his reasoning in the quote above, and he chops and changes his mind over whether the 2nd dimension contains the 1st, or the 2nd dimension is just two 1st dimensions.

So as far as the 2nd dimension is concerned it "CONTAINS" a 1st dimension... That doesn't mean that the 1st dimension exists purely in and of itself... that ALL matter has 1 of its 3 sides in the "SAME DIMENSION". What it means is that for each 2nd dimension there exists inside it 2 1st dimensions...


So a 2D world is just two of the first dimsnsions put together. Well by your last bit of logic, this will mean that there is still only 1 point in this world. Lets assume that x=3 and y=4. This would be the only point of existence in Gen-X's 2D world, as each of the dimensions can only have one and only one value according to him.

Weird. I don't like the sound of your world very much.

[Edited by Iain17 on 05-19-2000 at 04:00 PM]

[Sam Finch]

Answer me this :

Man in 2D world suddenly sees a hole open up in front of him. Because he is in 2D and NOT in 3D he could not see the pencil coming in from "DEPTH".

Explain that mathematically and I *might* listen to what you have to say.



Oh For *****S Sake

no I can't explain this in maths, of course I can't, There is and can be one reason and one reason only why your 2D man can't see the pencil, It's because you decided he couldn't, that's not a math's reason. You give me a single example of something that lives in 2D space and Can't see in a 3rd dimension and I'll tell you why it can't using maths.

(I can describe the situation mathemeticly, I'm not going to because I have already and clearly you didn't understand it, but all I can say is that for some reason your man can only observe points in his subspace and not those points in the 3space in which his subspace is contained which are outside his subspace)

Now You answer me this without using maths.

What Does the statement "We Live in 3 Dimensional Space." mean?

Now I want a full explanation, If you use the terms length breadth and height I want to know what those mean, if you use the Idea of an Area or a volume I'd like to know what you mean By those. Remember, I only understand maths, so If you use a term and don't define it, i'm gonna look at it as a mathematical Idea.

[Iain17]

Answer me this :

Man in 2D world suddenly sees a hole open up in front of him. Because he is in 2D and NOT in 3D he could not see the pencil coming in from "DEPTH".

Explain that mathematically and I *might* listen to what you have to say



I'll do it for him.

First we need to define some values and rules.

x = co-ordinate where length starts
y = co-ordinate where width starts
z = co-ordinate where depth starts
b2 = 2 dimensional being
p3 = 3 dimensional pen


2 dimensional world :
x can be -ve Infinity to +ve Infinity
y can be -ve Infinity to +ve Infinity
z does not exist. but for reference to 3D world z will be 0 and only zero.

3 dimensional world :
x can be -ve Infinity to +ve Infinity
y can be -ve Infinity to +ve Infinity
z can be -ve Infinity to +ve Infinity


A 2 dimensional being (b2) exists at point :
x=1
y=1
and z = 0 for ref.

A 3 dimensional pen (p3) exists at
x=2
y=2
z = 3


At this point in time b2 can not see p3 because two z's do not match. Remember z doesn't really exist in the 2D world. b2 can only see things if it's z property = 0.

At a later point in time the co-ordinates of the pen changes to.
x=2
y=2
z = 0

Now b2 can see p3, but only that bit of p3 that exists at z=0. The rest of the p3 does not exist for b2.


Maybe an english explanation of the above will help. Imagine the 2 dimensional being as existing at the corner of a piece of paper. His world is the paper and only the paper. He can not see above or below the paper, only along it. Now hold a pencil above the paper. The 2 dimensional being can not see the pencil becuse it is not in his world. Now push the pencil through the paper. Not all the way through just so it is halfway. Now what the 2 dimensional being can see is the outside of a cross section of the pencil . Nothing more, nothing less.


I hope this is clear for everybody.

[Edited by Iain17 on 05-19-2000 at 06:03 PM]

[kedaman]

iain

What is this? I really can't believe this one got past everyone. I really though you had more brains than this Gen-X. Especially as you have the gall to ridicule people over little mistakes they have made.

I agree with you that Length (now referred to as x) is a vector. It can have a value of anything from -Infinity to +Infinity. What i do not agree with is the rest of the statement. I am now talking in strictly 1D. If x=3, there still exists x=2, x=-10 and x=n.

I must correct you for missunderstanding what Gen-x was babling about (and he was babling about pure math, and for some reason no one did notice that:))
1. What was mentioned: X is the length and if we extract x=3 as a dimension, we would have to range this dimension in ie:y values from -I to +I, so Xdimension is actually a range in y.
2. what you got wrong: was mixing up x dimension and y values.
3. As the rest of your post was based on this, i think you got it all wrong.
gen-x

Man in 2D world suddenly sees a hole open up in front of him. Because he is in 2D and NOT in 3D he could not see the pencil coming in from "DEPTH".

There's no connection between two different dimensioned worlds in reality. Any dimensions extraction from reality will create a lack of physical competense and will only work as a mathematical projection. As for the 5th dimensions not being seen by us, by removing our existance from it will remove us from all dimensions within the 5d world. So you'r theory doesn't make sence.


iain

I hope this is clear for everybody.

Of course it is, but you're eplaining a mathematical theory NOT REFERING TO reality.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman
THANK YOU!

You are obviously seeing this clearly.

Iian

Read what Ked said... X=3 is a dimension in itself, you cannot have a "POINT" on the line X=3 because that would mean you are NOT in the 1st dimension but actually in the 2nd Dimension... The whole reason why those in the 1st do NOT have y values.

Are you understanding this now?

If not then I suggest you throw maths away because like Sam it is your own pre-conceptions that everything in our REAL world is based on mathematics that is blinding your clarity.

Your comment on "The z values not being equal" is complete garbage. A 2D being DOES NOT HAVE A Z!!!!! ****, its 2D so it only has an X and a Y.

BUT!!!

The 3D person has a method of being able to "intersect" with the 2D because that specific 2D equates to the 3D space where Z=0. THAT is why the pencil can intersect the 2D being... and THAT is what the 2D being cannot see it.

Maths has no way of showing this and it falls apart completely because it BACKTRACKS to give other dimensions a width and a depth that it doesn't exactly have.

Sam

Funny that you cannot explain it using maths... I guess that proves my point perfectly.

As for me explaining to you using PURE maths... I can't!!! Thats my whole frikken point!!! YOU CANT USE PURE MATHS TO SHOW THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD.

[Edited by Gen-X on 05-21-2000 at 09:08 PM]

[kedaman]

I agree with you Gen-X but one more thing. There are no 2d beings. And of course how do you know we are 4d beings in a 5d world?

I guess you're just talking math yourself.

[Sam Finch]

Gen-x

[qoute]
ny that you cannot explain it using maths... I guess that proves my point perfectly.

As for me explaining to you using PURE maths... I can't!!! Thats my whole frikken point!!! YOU CANT USE PURE MATHS TO SHOW THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD.
[/quote]

did you read my post.

1 Your question

I can't answer this question at all because it's a stupid question and has no answer.


2 My Question

I didn't ask you you explain anything with maths, I asked you to explain without maths.






Lets look at your question

Man in 2D world suddenly sees a hole open up in front of him. Because he is in 2D and NOT in 3D he could not see the pencil coming in from "DEPTH".

Explain that mathematically and I *might* listen to what you have to say.



for a start I'd like to know how he sees the hole, or what the hole is in, I'd assume you mean he lives on a piece of paper and can only see the surface of that paper, and you are asking me why he can only see the surface of the paper???

Thats like asking why elves can't climb trees, elves don't exist, neither does your man, the only reason they can't climb trees is because it's assumed in the question.

Now, My question again (and read it this time)

What does it mean when I say "We Live in 3 Dimensional Space"?

No Don't use maths, and I don't want some arbitrary definition like "It takes at least four walls to bound an object in 3 dimensions" because I could give you all sorts of spaces where you need at least 4 walls to bound an object.

I want to know what it means.

[Iain17]

Kedaman

I agree with you Gen-X but one more thing. There are no 2d beings. And of course how do you know we are 4d beings in a 5d world?

I guess you're just talking math yourself.

Sam

Thats like asking why elves can't climb trees, elves don't exist, neither does your man, the only reason they can't climb trees is because it's assumed in the question.


I though the point of this thread was a discussion on our individual beliefs on various topics. I personally thought that using examples to help explain a concept was a perfectly legitimate way of furthering a discussion. I was obviously wrong.


If we are going to start resorting to the above, then prove this wrong.


We ourselves do not exist in the sense that we are human beings. We are all just a brain living in a bucket in outer space, imagining all that is going on.;)



*Sigh* Back to explaining One Dimensional space.

Gen-X

Read what Ked said... X=3 is a dimension in itself, you cannot have a "POINT" on the line X=3 because that would mean you are NOT in the 1st dimension but actually in the 2nd Dimension... The whole reason why those in the 1st do NOT have y values.

Are you understanding this now?



No is the simple answer. Maybe i am not grasping what you mean by X=3, or maybe you did not actually READ my explanation. If you are saying that X=3, and only 3 then i get what you are saying. There is only one "POINT" on this line.

However, there is no reason why X should be limited to 3. As i stated earlier X can have an infinite number of points. I never referred to a Y value. I don't need one to describe any point on X. All i need is X=?. Look no Y value is ever referenced and i can accurately locate any "POINT" on this line with this formulae.



*Bigger Sigh* The 3D Pen and the 2D world. For the 3D pen to intersect the 2D world, the 2D world must be contained within the 3D world. Thus the 2D world can be assigned a Z value. Again i will try and explain.

Let us assume the 2D world can be infinitely long and infinitely wide. Agreed? It has no depth as such, but it can have a depth reference point in the 3D world that contains this 2D world. So what i am saying is that while it does not have a depth value, it can be assigned a depth co-ordinate, where the 2D world exists in the plane of the 3D worlds depth.

[Edited by Iain17 on 05-22-2000 at 05:05 PM]

[kedaman]

I though the point of this thread was a discussion on our individual beliefs on various topics. I personally thought that using examples to help explain a concept was a perfectly legitimate way of furthering a discussion. I was obviously wrong.


If we are going to start resorting to the above, then prove this wrong.


We ourselves do not exist in the sense that we are human beings. We are all just a brain living in a bucket in outer space, imagining all that is going on.


I'm not going to drag up Descartes again but if you do, you will get Sam on you :mad:

:) No you're not wrong, feel free to post anything you want, i was just pointing out that how can we ever break out a set dimensions from another, like we do in math.

[Gen-X]

Sam

Apologies for not reading your question... I am sure you can appreciate that this thread is getting so long with so many comments that occasionally missing one (Shamefully an important one) does sometimes happen...

But I will correct this :


What does it mean when I say "We Live in 3 Dimensional Space"?


To be absolutely and technically correct... we actually "live" in 4D space.

As we all know (or assume) nothing "lives" in the 1st Dimension, nor in the 2nd (My previous example was for illustration only, I could have said 4D seeing a pencil come in from 5D but you would not have understood it as easily).... It is only in the 3rd Dimension that what we consider "reality" has a presence.

At this stage it doesn't move, it is fixed... but it now has spacial integrity. So we "exist" in 3 Dimensional space. In order for us to become "activated" we require the 4th dimension... time. If you saw my model of what I believe the 10 dimensions are you would have seen that the 4th dimension causes us here in the 3rd dimension to actually take on life and move around... without it we would simply be fragements of infinately small time segments that don't actually do anything.

So what I mean by we live (replace with exist just for technical reasons) in a 3 Dimensional Space is that us as sentient beings have a physicality and an awareness that only influences and effects the 3rd Dimension.

We cannot influence Time.. it marches on regardless, We cannot influence LENGTH (as it exists in the 1st dimension) because it is an infinate vector... and we cannot influence WIDTH (again in the 2nd dimension) because it is in another dimension.

We can only influence the 3rd dimension.

Therefor "We live in a 3 Dimensional Space"

That explaination required no mathematics whatsoever, though it did rely on terminology that has been "quantified" in Mathematics.

Kedaman

How do you know for a fact that there are no 2d Beings? Their dimension would be an infinately THIN slice of our 3rd dimension and so you would never see them.

It is my SUGGESTION that we obviously exist in the 4th Dimension... as we are pulled along by the flow of time. The thing I am not totally sure on is exactly what the "width" of time actually represents.

I have given it some serious thought and bounced my ideas off other people and just like adding the 2nd dimension allows us to plot a "POSITION" along an arbitrary 1st dimensional resonance (ie X = 3) so does the 5th Dimension allow us to plot a "POSITION" along an arbitrary 4th dimensional time point.

So I am starting to believe that althought we exist in the 4th dimension being carried along its path without choice, we can in some ways plot our existance ALONG this 4th dimension chronologically and therefor must have some presence in the 5th dimension.

Iain

I love your sighing... very reminiscent of my own ;)

I share your skepticism about the validity of these discussions when people refute examples not with common sense and logic but instead with flawed statements.

I was always of the believe that if you put forward an example, others who see flaws in that example would state them and you would adjust your example (or your thinking) accordingly... If there was no sensible reason why the example was flawed it has the validity to stand true.

But obviously I was wrong (and all of science) as well

Take your example... you made the statement and I think it is POSITIVE to either say "I cannot find flaw in it" or to add something that may inspire thought.


We ourselves do not exist in the sense that we are human beings. We are all just a brain living in a bucket in outer space, imagining all that is going on.


In order for this to be true it would require the following :

- All minds to be "LINKED" in some way such that what I is seen by you just as what you do is seen by me

- Inanimate objects must also project into our mind as I can close my eyes in the dark and walk into a wall (If I did not IMAGINE the wall being there I STILL hit it)

But here is the conundrum.

If I do not imagine it it is not there? Then when I am "surprised" by something coming towards me, or it strikes me without my knowing then if the entire world was just my imagining why did I get struck?

To extend this... If I walk through the forest and find a pine cone on the floor... why did it fall in the first place if nobody was imagining it happening?

So as you can see... you have given an example and I have found flaws in it.. hopefully this means either the example is not a good one, or the topic it attempted to describe is not actually true. Either way it should cause a re-evaluation of beliefs as it has for me to now believe "what you say is not possible because of what I have said"

Now its up to you to come back with explainations that overcome the flaws I have described and we can look at it again

1 D Space

I did read your explanation.. and again I found it flawed. You are forgetting "relativity".

While it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly logical to apply some arbitrary Z value to the 1D space when your "perspective" is that of a 3D space it is NOT reasonable OR logical to say that the 1D space actually has a Z value.

This means that it is only when there is a COLLISION between these 2 dimensions that a Z value is created... but NOT for the 1D space but it has "come into sync" with the 3D space.

This explains why you cannot use mathematics here... because Mathematics cannot perform functions between 2 different dimensions... it MUST arbitrarily assign dimensions such that both sides of the equasion have the same number in order to do calculations.

THAT is the flaw.

X is not limited to 3... but the 1st Dimension of X = 3 IS. There is another dimension X = 3.1 and another X = 3.11... in fact there are an infinate number of 1st Dimensions... and it isn't until we get the 2nd Dimension that it is possible to actually CROSS these, ie X + Y = 3.

What happens at this point (in my belief) is that a new Dimension (WIDTH) describes the syncronization of all the existing 1st Dimensions...

ie : X + Y = 3 means that the 1st dimension X=1 is syncronized with the 1st dimension X=2, and that they run equivalent to each other based on this equation.

The same then applies for a 3rd dimension and so on... but when we reach the 3rd and successive dimensions it becomes increasingly hard for us to understand or comprehend.

must be contained

Why?

Why MUST the 2D world be contained within a 3D world for it to intersect?

Because the Mathematic formula and RULES for dimensions say so? Does that apply to us?

It only re-iterates what I have been saying all along... the longer we keep thinking in mathematical terms we will limit ourselves only to mathematical certainties...

Which the world is NOT. That is what the Uncertainty principle is all about.

How can an electron be both a particle orbiting a nucleus AND a wave that exists like a shell completely surrounding the nucleus? How can a photon be both a particle AND a wave at the same time?

Its because mathematics while being able to prectict it GENERALLY really cannot say for sure... It was because of this that we were held back for so long... Bohr's model for the atom took several years to be accepted because the scientists were too busy with Maths to see the forest through the trees.

[Iain17]

So much to reply to. I knew it was a mistake to join in these discussions.:p I don't seem to have any time to reply to actual VB questions anymore, but this topic is more interesting anyway.:)


Though i never actually seriously believed that we are brains in buckets, and did not think any one would actually take up that argument, Gen-X has made some good observations, so i will counter.


In order for this to be true it would require the following :

1 All minds to be "LINKED" in some way such that what I is seen by you just as what you do is seen by me

2 Inanimate objects must also project into our mind as I can close my eyes in the dark and walk into a wall (If I did not IMAGINE the wall being there I STILL hit it)

But here is the conundrum.

3 If I do not imagine it it is not there? Then when I am "surprised" by something coming towards me, or it strikes me without my knowing then if the entire world was just my imagining why did I get struck?

4 To extend this... If I walk through the forest and find a pine cone on the floor... why did it fall in the first place if nobody was imagining it happening?



1
Not necessarily. Imagine we are all separate brains, or maybe just one brain. What one brain imagines is his world. It imagines all the people and objects around him. In your world you may be imagining something completely different, still inventing fake people and objects. If this is my world, then i am imagining you are discussing a point with me. IF you even EXIST as a brain, then i needn't necessarily EXIST in YOUR world. It is at this point the English language makes a run for it.


2, 3
If we are taking this brain thing seriously then i would suggest this is what is happening. The brain in outer space has created you as the main character in this WORLD. You are a projection of this brains self image. All the other people are just NPC's. It has created a world for you (its imaginary image), and invented all the rules that govern this world. The world is like a gaming engine that is produced. The brain mainly concentrates on the things affecting your life, and another part of the brain, the subconscious?, runs the world. Even though you are the one that has produced this whole world, you can not know it all, because you cannot tap into the subconscious where the brain is making the world work.


4
Following on from the last two arguments, you made it happen. Everything that happens in this world is a direct result of your brain making you think it has happened.


Which conclusively proves that this argument can't be proved either way. It is not supposed to be able to be proved. It is just an example to get everyone thinking thoughts we do not normally think. Just like this whole thread really.


Onto the 2d - 3d world again.

must be contained

Why?

Why MUST the 2D world be contained within a 3D world for it to intersect?


If their 2d world was in a completely different set of dimensions from ours, then the pen would not be able to go through their world, as their world would not exist in our world. There may be an infinite number of 2d worlds that i am walking through all the time. I would never know. That is why maths can be used in this case, because the 2d world has a point of reference in the 3d world. If it did not the pen could never intersect the 2d world.

As you point out

This means that it is only when there is a COLLISION between these 2 dimensions that a Z value is created... but NOT for the 1D space but it has "come into sync" with the 3D space.


This is the only time when the pen can intersect the 2d world, when the 2d world is part of the 3d world.


1d Space
While sometimes i think we are arguing the same point from different perspectives, this is one area that we obviously have different views on.


X is not limited to 3... but the 1st Dimension of X = 3 IS. There is another dimension X = 3.1 and another X = 3.11... in fact there are an infinite number of 1st Dimensions... and it isn't until we get the 2nd Dimension that it is possible to actually CROSS these, ie X + Y = 3.

What happens at this point (in my belief) is that a new Dimension (WIDTH) describes the syncronization of all the existing 1st Dimensions...

ie : X + Y = 3 means that the 1st dimension X=1 is syncronized with the 1st dimension X=2, and that they run equivalent to each other based on this equation.


The above I think highlights our difference in thinking. While you believe that until the 2nd dimension is introduced to the equation, X is static. I believe that X is not static.

I believe that (X(1) = 1) + (X(2) = 2) = (X = 3). Where (1) and (2) are just two separate X positions. Obviously you can't cross to another dimension of X, because then that would require a 2nd dimension.

I believe that the 1st dimension is a dimension in its own right, and does not need the 2nd dimension for something to exist at any other than 1 point on the line.

If you define X=3 as a dimension, then i will agree that there is only 1 "POINT" on this line. However, if you define X as being able to have any value then, as i do, then it follows that we do not NEED a 2nd dimension to contain all of the 1st dimensions in your sense of the 1st dimension.

Imagine a piece of paper with a lot of lines running along it. All of these lines are separate 1st dimensions. Able to have a value from 0 to the length of the paper. To be able to cross between them we need to have the 2nd dimension, but to exist on one of those lines we do not.


Piece of paper

x-> 0 28
y -------------------------------
| 0 |_____________________________|
\/ |_____________________________|
|_____________________________|
|_____________________________|
4 |_____________________________|
-------------------------------

Key:
_______________ = x dimension

| and - deinfe the paper.


All of the X dimensions can exist as individual 1st dimensions. With points on the line from 0 to 28. Let us assume that Y is the number of the X dimension. You can not cross from Y = 1 to Y = 2, unless there is a 2nd dimension. You can however move from X=0 to X=28 without the need for the Y dimension.



And another thing.
I know i have only just started taking an active part in this thread, before i felt i had nothing to contribute to the arguments put forward, so why bother, but at the beginning of this thread there seemed to be a fair number of people putting forward their views. They all seem to have disappeared though. Where have you all gone?:confused:

[Edited by Iain17 on 05-23-2000 at 04:29 PM]

[Sam Finch]

Gen-x

I think you misunderstood the point of my question, the reason I said 3 Dimensions Is Because it's much easier to explain 3 Dimensions than 4 or 5. I don't want to know anything about the world, I just want to know what the term 3 Dimensions means.

Ignoring time for a second (hmm, how much sense does that make?) just imagine our 3 dimensions of space, what do you mean by 3 dimensions, when I hear the words 3 dimensions I imagine the purely mathematical idea of a 3Space.

Explain to me without using maths, why we describe our space as 3 dimensional.


I think I've been giving you a bit too much leeway on this maths idea, especially when you say things like this

This explains why you cannot use mathematics here... because Mathematics cannot perform functions between 2 different dimensions... it MUST arbitrarily assign dimensions such that both sides of the equasion have the same number in order to do calculations.

I think you're mistaken, read any book with the words linear algebra in the title.


Oh yeah, this too.

It only re-iterates what I have been saying all along... the longer we keep thinking in mathematical terms we will limit ourselves only to mathematical certainties...

Which the world is NOT. That is what the Uncertainty principle is all about.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA Ha :D

ok Gen-X while you're doing the dimensions, where I admit it is debatable whether or not dimensions are entirely mathematical I would love to hear your explanation of the uncertainty principal without using maths. I don't want the crap explanation about deeding to hit a particle with a photon to find out where it is, that explanation doesn't wash I want the real reason. why can't I know exacly where a particle is if I know its momentum? why can't I know its momentum If I know its position?

[kedaman]

GEN-X

How do you know for a fact that there are no 2d Beings? Their dimension would be an infinately THIN slice of our 3rd dimension and so you would never see them.
[/code]
Quite selfexplaining. A 2d being cannot influence or be influenced with 3d objects. Something with 3dsize passing it (the pen) will not ever pass it (paper) because none of all smallest 3d particles would be on one side of the dimension because you will never get anything inside the 2d area, as it has no depth to contain something in. So if you assume there are 2d beings, it's meaningless. You could say dreams are reality, they have influence on human life, but a 2d being will never have influence or be influenced from our universe. So actually the 2d world does NOT exist. It's just a mathematical thought. And we should consider the same thing for 4d<->5d as we could kick out all other dimensioned world theories out of reality. Nothing can be more or less 3d ever ever ever.
[quote]
It is my SUGGESTION that we obviously exist in the 4th Dimension... as we are pulled along by the flow of time. The thing I am not totally sure on is exactly what the "width" of time actually represents.

As time is relative, you can kick it out from your 4dimension world and make it 3d. "Width" of time is mathematical thought.


So I am starting to believe that althought we exist in the 4th dimension being carried along its path without choice, we can in some ways plot our existance ALONG this 4th dimension chronologically and therefor must have some presence in the 5th dimension.

Bullshit

IAIN

If their 2d world was in a completely different set of dimensions from ours, then the pen would not be able to go through their world, as their world would not exist in our world. There may be an infinite number of 2d worlds that i am walking through all the time. I would never know. That is why maths can be used in this case, because the 2d world has a point of reference in the 3d world. If it did not the pen could never intersect the 2d world.

more bullshit

[Gen-X]

It is becomming difficult to follow everyones answers and successfully reply to each and every one of them without upsetting someone in accidentally missing them...

But I will try :)

Kedaman

You just want to throw out everything that isn't 3d because that is how you want to view the world.

I want to include 4d and 5d because that is how I view the world.

I can accept your view though I admit it differs from my own. There is no point in arguing on "personal views" because there really isn't a right and a wrong and I have only been explaining how I see things.

Sam

"I can move forward, I can step to the right and I can climb a mountain. Therefor because I can reach any destination that I choose to be it above me, beside me or behind me I exist in a place of 3 dimensions"

(And before you shout, I am using dimension in the context of "an open space").

"I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw left and I can draw right. I can draw up and I can draw down... But I cannot draw IN and I cannot draw OUT. Therefor what I am drawing exists in a place of 2 dimensions"

(Yeah I know it has a 3rd dimension of 0 mathematically but it gives you the basic idea)

As for explaining the uncertainty principle. If none of the scientists or mathematicians can determine both momentum and position at the same time how on earth are you expecting me to do that? The whole point of the principle is "Sorry guys, Maths cannot calculate it both.. for some reason none of our equations match experimental results. Lets put it down to an ERROR factor and say we are uncertain. The closest we can get is a ballpark"

Ok Sam... Show me an equation from linear algebra that tries to plot a 2d point in only 1 dimension? Or perhaps a 1d vector in a 2d plane?

if you can do that without arbitrarily "creating" a dimension for the 1d side of the equasion I shall worship you as my God.

Iain

Have you ever heard of a 1 sided valve? Where something can go IN but cannot come OUT?

That is what a 2d existing within a 3d is like. You cannot come OUT of the 2d into 3d but there are points where you can go IN to a 2d from a 3d. That is the paper and pencil theory. If we can somehow "describe" what "making Z=0 for the paper" means in the real world you will know how to get there.

As for the "infinate number of X dimensions next to each other" you have described perfectly what Y is. To say they are lines next to each other says the 2nd dimension exist.

But why not look at it from the perspective of lowly little X=3. This poor little dimension is all alone, nothing is around it, nothing is next to it... it just IS. That is why it is called a singularity. Only when you look from a 2d perspective can you see the other X's (as you did when you listed DOWN (ie width) the page the different X values).

So what you have done is brought into a 2nd dimension called Y to create a connection between the various and infinate X dimensions.

[Iain17]

Sam

I don't want the crap explanation about deeding to hit a particle with a photon to find out where it is, that explanation doesn't wash I want the real reason. why can't I know exacly where a particle is if I know its momentum? why can't I know its momentum If I know its position?


You want the real reason, i will give it to you, and it does involve hitting the particle with a photon, whether you like it or not.

When we measure the speed of a car we use a radar gun. Radar waves are very similar to light waves, only longer. The radar wave hits the car and bounces back to a detector. We can then do a calculation on the change in frequency of the wave using the Doppler principle to calculate the speed, and position.

As you probably know, when particles collide they exchange energy packets called "quanta". When the radar wave hits the car it will pass on some energy to the car, very slightly accelerating or decelerating the car, depending on where it hits the car. Obviously the quanta exchanged when the radar waves hit a car is negligible compared to the mass of the car. We can safely ignore the amount of energy that is transferred, and still accurately give the position and speed of the car.

The same principal applies to particles. To detect the speed and position of a particle, we have to hit it with a photon. When the photon hits the particle it transfers a quanta of energy. The particle is so small that the quanta of energy that is received from the photon rapidly changes its speed and direction. Thus we can only calculate the speed Or the direction the particle is travelling in, because by hitting the particle with a photon we are changing the speed and direction.


Kedaman
I hardly think "Bullshit" is a valid argument. If you can back up your statement with proof that my statement is in fact the waste product of a bull then, and only then, will I agree.

[Sam Finch]

"I can move forward, I can step to the right and I can climb a mountain. Therefor because I can reach any destination that I choose to be it above me, beside me or behind me I exist in a place of 3 dimensions"
so you're saying what? that space is 3 dimensional because there are 3 directions I can move in? I can move in any direction I like thank you very much, not just 3, does this mean I'm an infinite dimensional being?


"I can draw on a piece of paper. I can draw left and I can draw right. I can draw up and I can draw down... But I cannot draw IN and I cannot draw OUT. Therefor what I am drawing exists in a place of 2 dimensions"

ah, so this is 2 dimensional because there are 4 directions I can move in. but I can still move in an infinate number of Dimensions, 0 degrees (up) 45 degrees, in fact pick a number between 1 and 360 I can go there (fractions and irrational numbers as well)

so I'm still not clear why you call it 3 dimensions.

As for explaining the uncertainty principle. If none of the scientists or mathematicians can determine both momentum and position at the same time how on earth are you expecting me to do that? The whole point of the principle is "Sorry guys, Maths cannot calculate it both.. for some reason none of our equations match experimental results. Lets put it down to an ERROR factor and say we are uncertain. The closest we can get is a ballpark"

That is totally utterly and completley wrong

The uncertainty principal was discovered way before experimental methods even got close to the limits of the uncertainty principal, and it was not discovered due to innacurate mesurements, it was predicted using maths, the uncertainty principal doesn't say that maths can't predict where a particle is, it says that if we know its momentum exactly it doesn't have a position. I want to know why this is.

Show me an equation from linear algebra that tries to plot a 2d point in only 1 dimension? Or perhaps a 1d vector in a 2d plane?

the first one's easy, z=3 that defines the 2d point 3+ 0i in the single dimension of the real numbers, a 1D vector in a 2D plane? well, I'm not feeing too original so we'll go with z=3 again, a one dimensional vector in the 2D complex plane.

I'll have to pass on the worshiping seeing as that was a very easy question indeed.

[Iain17]

Sam

3d space

Personally i think you know exactly what Gen-X means. You have proven in your other posts that you have some grey matter, and i get the impression you are good at maths, you're on a maths degree aren't you, so lets not get picky. I personally though he did a good job of explaining 3d space without using maths, which i think you will agree is necessary for describing dimensions.


N dimensional space is called Nd because i can move in that many directions. I am not an infinite dimensional being, because combining those N directions i can move to anywhere in that N dimensional space.

1d. I can only move along the line. 1 direction.

2d. I can move anywhere on a piece of paper. Using 2 directions i can describe anywhere on that piece of paper.

3d. I can move anywhere in the world. Using 3 directions i can move to anywhere in the world.


I seem to recall from my A-level maths that i do not necessarily have to use 3 straight co-ordinates to plot anywhere in 3d space. I think you can use a 2d plane and a line that goes through this 2d plane. I am sure there were other methods, but i was not that interested in maths at that time, i was more interested in programming. And yes I know its sad.

[Sam Finch]

ian,

Personally i think you know exactly what Gen-X means. You have proven in your other posts that you have some grey matter, and i get the impression you are good at maths, you're on a maths degree aren't you, so lets not get picky. I personally though he did a good job of explaining 3d space without using maths, which i think you will agree is necessary for describing dimensions.

of course I know what he means, but only because I know what 3 dimensions mean (if he offered your explanation I would havre been confused about what he ment by combining directions and tried to confuse him into saying four or six directions (you can't move absolutley anywhere by moving in in 3 directions, you have to be able to move backwards in them, which makes 6 directions, but you can also do it in 4)) as you say you need maths to discribe the concept of 3 dimensions, I'm trying to illustrate my point that dimensions are just a mathematical model of the space we live in.

oh, and I've just seen your post about the particles, that's the crap reason I was talking about, the fact is if we look at a particle with a laser we know the momentum of the photon we are hitting it with exactly (we don't due to the uncertainty principal but we can't use that in the argument) other than the uncertainty principal there is no limit to the accuracy and consistancy of laser photons, if we know the original momentum of the particle exactly and can measure the time and position it hits our sensor we can work out the momentum of the particle after the collision and the time and therefore position of the collision.


The actual reason for the uncertainty principal is my favorite piece of maths in the whole world (now that's sad) and it involves the Idea that a particle is in fact a probability wave of wavelength h/P (h is plancs constant p is the momentum of the particle)

we then define the probability of a particle being in a particular position as it's wave function divided by the integral of it's wave function, which for a simple sinsquared wave gives a probability of 0 for every position, however if we don't know it's momentum and we assume that there is an equal probability of its momentum being at any point between 2 bounds then we can simply integrate it's wave function with respect to P and then we get a partial differential with a finite integral over the whole of it's range, ie we start getting non zero probabilities of the particle being in various positions, if we integrate over the whole of the range of P (ie we don't know it's momentum at all) then we get a single probability of 1 that the particle is where we think it is.

that probably doesnt make much sense, it's quite hard to discribe something like that without graphs, but that is the reason for the uncertainty principal, it's just not the surt of thing you can require A level physicists to understand (we didn't even have to do calculus for A level physics, partial differentials of complex probability waves are quite hardcore (yes it's a complex probability wave, we have to square it somewhere in there t make it a real probability))

This is part of my point about maths, the non maths explanation, although a reasnoble model as long as you don't think about it too hard isn't the real reason for things, it's just an oversimplified version that "normal" people can understand, nobody want's to read that sort of maths out of intrest, they want a nice explanation about having to bounce a particle off of something, which is fair enough, as long as you don't argue that maths has no place in physics because it's all done with these simplified models.

[kedaman]

Lain and Gen-x, sorry for having "bullshit" instead of "false" as an argument there. i was just coming up with that idea so that might have causen it.

Hmm, this is ignoration you was talking about Gen-x, i wrote a explanation there but I didn't actually get any feedback. Ok maybe I wasn't clear enough:

1. For a 2d world to interact with a 3dworld, we need there to be an interefering point or area, in this case a interfering volume.
2. In a 2d world contained in a 3d we have 2dmatter and 3dmatter outside.
3. An oject witout a size cannot exist, the size is in factors of it's dimensions>0 in it's reality.
4. 2d matter cannot have a volume, just an area, 3d matter cannot have a 0 volume or they wont exist:
5. All 2dmatter in 3d world have volume 0 so it doesn't exist.

Tada!

We obviously can imagne there are 2d beings in our universe, but as they can't interact with us in any way, there's no need of calling them "existing" as they live in a totally different universe and have totally different rules. If there are other universes, it's correct to call them "not existing" because a universe refers to everything existing, and what's not existing is "not existing". So this time i've not refered directly to reality as before but from our view instead.

And 4d-5d interaction fails also:

All 5d objects have a 5dvolume and all 4d objects have a 4dvolume. 4d objects 5dvolume is 0, so they cannot interact with 5d world.

This is so far purely dimensional perspective, if you look at your pencil drawing on paper, it's actually 2 3dobjects, that's why they can interact. If you have a paper with depth=0 no inc from the pen will attach to the paper. Also the pen will go trough the paper as it wouldn't exist. Actually the paper does not exist.

Quite an explanation, this time you surely have to give me some feedback (or this will mean you've given up on quarks existing in a 5'th dimension while we're in 4th)

One more thing, if you believe in a 4d world, then there's nothing wrong with it. You just can't have 5d or 3d objects interacting with it.

[Sam Finch]

Ked,

good argument but flawed.

I'll just describe to you a 2D world contained in a 3D world.

I'm assuming you know one of the following Games

Snooker, Pool or Billiards.

These are all basicly the same game, hard spherical balls bouncing around a green table

and we imagine a robot, with 2 "eyes" consisting of cameras mounted between 2 plates, like so.



Camera
/
K=========== <-------Light
/
Plates


so the robot can see light only if it comes parrallel to the plates which are parralell to the surface it stands on.

now the robot is standing on the table. (this robot is fully equipped with a concious mind and is trying to work out the world around it) it's eyes are parralell to the table and the same height as the centre of the balls. The cushons are perpendicular to the surface of the table.

As far as the robot is concerned it lives in a 2D world, it cannot see anything in the 3D world it is actually in, it is level with the centre of the balls which are perpendicular to the tables surface so no light can get to it from the 3D world, if there is no light source level with its plates its world is totally dark, It is totally in a 2D world contained in our 3D world.

as to the question why cant it see a pencil moving down to make a hole in the table, it's because in this situation the plates are in the way, (as it happens it won't see the hole, it'll just see an object apear)

as it happens this 2D world is bounded, ours isn't so that rules out the Idea that we're little robots on some crazy 4D pool table but you get the Idea.

so that kinda kils the rest of your argument, with the quarks it is the shape of the quarks and the laws governing their movement that I object to.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

Sam couldn't have explained it better. Your theory is flawed in more ways than he explained.

1. You use the term "exists" from our perspective. I was using "exists" from the perspective of the being itself. "We EXIST in OUR universe... They EXIST in THEIR universe"

You really have to stop focusing everything on US and OUR perspective. WE live, WE are here, therefor WE are the only source, WE are the only perspective, WE have the only universe, WE are the only reality,WE, WE, WE..

Think about things from other perspectives and your mind might open up. Imagine something that lives in TIME just like we live in REALITY. It can move backward and forward or sideways. If you can imagine that then you are on the track to actually thinking about something that does not centre around yourself ;)

Sam

Iain is right, you set out with a purpose and even when I provided an answer that BEAT the purpose you set out with you tried desperately to cling to it ;)


so you're saying what? that space is 3 dimensional because there are 3 directions I can move in? I can move in any direction I like thank you very much, not just 3, does this mean I'm an infinite dimensional being?


Hehehhe.. Even you know you were grasping at that one. No I am not moving in infinate directions, I am moving in extremely small portions of EACH of the 3 directions at once.

Oh and BTW, the term "Dimension" was not created by mathematics. Nobody sat down and studied their little but off and said "Eureka! I have discovered a mathematical equasion that I shall call... the DIMENSION". The word existed in the english language BEFORE it existed in the mathematical language. Therefor Maths decided to APPLY this term to rules it had come up with because the word closely described EXACTLY what the mathematic principle was for.

So I can use words like Point, Axis, Dimension, Line and not be talking mathematical. I knew you wanted me to use one of these words so you could go "Aha! You said the word Dimension", I'm not as stupid as you may think me... sarcastic yes... but stupid no.


the first one's easy, z=3 that defines the 2d point 3+ 0i in the single dimension of the real numbers, a 1D vector in a 2D plane? well, I'm not feeing too original so we'll go with z=3 again, a one dimensional vector in the 2D complex plane.


*sigh*
So you resort to imaginary numbers? How positively pathetic of you.

So explain to me. z = 3, a 1 dimensional vector. How then does it define the 2d point 3 +0i? I thought a "2d point" means you have to state an X and a Y?

Oh but you have only stated an "i". So I guess that is only 1 dimension you have quantified.

As for your second one you have perfectly described how a lower dimension is contained within a higher one. Using your own robot example the z=3 vector doesn't know ro see the fact it is in a 2D complex plane so there is no correlation. The 2D complex plane however must assign arbitrary X,Y positions in order to see it. Don't you agree?

If I asked you to describe z=3 in terms of that 2D complex plane what would you say?


Let me ask you something about your "frikken laser" :)

When you fire this extremely narrow beam of photons, does it somehow miraculously MISS every other particle on its way to the one you want? And how do you actually HOLD that particle in its path... and when it actually DOES stike that particle what are you using to RECORD where its position is? Some device that relies on a particle coming back to your detection device?

Oh and BTW, photons are effected by gravity as well... so if you do this experiment on the earth have you taken into consideration the slight pull of gravity on your particle? So you do the experiment in a vaccum, have you taken into consideration the fact particles appear in a vaccum, what if they exhurted a weak molecular force on either your particle or the laser? But then again what if the photon struck the particle when its electron was on the other side rather than on the side of the photon, perhaps this energy exchange effected differently.

The point is that there are so many factors and variable in this that you could not possible use mathematics to predict both.

[kedaman]

Gen-X you're driving me nuts, I explained by refering to outher universe perspective, you didn't understand anything, and so I explained the other way, from our perspective, Sam killed it and you're pointing me not to do it. Thanks :):( You drived me out.

Before I go explaining back again in outher universe perspective, I want you having this "WE" thing clear:
1.
By refering to "WE" I refered to all objects in our universe. That is our perspective. Their perspective is 2d-objects in a 2d-universe contnaining nonvolume existing objects.
2.
By refering to "WE" I refered to all 3d-objects in universe. That is our perspective. Their perspective is 2d-objects contained in 2d-plane contained in 3dworld, that cannot interact with 3d-objects


Think about things from other perspectives and your mind might open up. Imagine something that lives in TIME just like we live in REALITY. It can move backward and forward or sideways. If you can imagine that then you are on the track to actually thinking about something that does not centre around yourself

Actually i was going that subjective to make you understand, you know that i'm always objective otherways. Yeah I can image something that goes backwards in time, but what makes that "REAL"?
1.
It's because it lives it's own universe and to us it's not existing, as parallell universes do not.
2.
It's because it lives in another universe and it exists out of our contact as parallell universes do.


Now to Sam's argumentation:

Probably totally irrelevant, because it's an example out of 3dworld with a limited 3dvolume inside it.


so the robot can see light only if it comes parrallel to the plates which are parralell to the surface it stands on.

There's nothing parallell in universe, it's a concept of math. Light, a photon will travel to the camera as a 3d-vector with the camera-perspective as the x axis. The 3d vector has therefor irrational values and will not hit the camera as x is not 0.

Maybe you could find another example that handles parallell photons but i doubt, this doesn't actually explain anything, just making your example irrational.

Now for dismissing it, we need to look at the photon, it has a size. A width, height and depth. The plates are there to dismiss photons that's not parallell, they have to be infinitely close to each other, actually 0, as you could find any higher value i could dismiss it as it would make your example irrelevant. The photon has a depth so it can't travel between the plates, because it doesn't fit there.

If you come up with that the distance between the plates is the size of the photon and that it will travel there parallell, it's cannot apply in a 2d-world, which has no depth.

So back to my argumentation:

1. 2d objects have no volume
2. objects in 3d world with no volume cannot exist
3. 2d objects cannot exist in a 3d world

I have to modify the two last if you want a objective perspective not our perspective:

2. objects in 3d world need a volume to interact with each other.
3. 3d objects cannot interact with 2d objects

For you Gen-x:

4. 4d objects cannot interact with 5d objects
5. quarks do NOT exist in a dimension above us.

[Iain17]

All

The Uncertainty Principle

The actual reason for the uncertainty principal is my favorite piece of maths in the whole world (now that's sad) and it involves the Idea that a particle is in fact a probability wave of wavelength h/P (h is plancs constant p is the momentum of the particle)


Sam i have read that explanation, and have seen the drawings and graphs used to explain the uncertainty principle, and i can grasp the principle of it, though i will never be able to explain it using maths.

Isn't the uncertainty principle fun though. Because it i might go to sleep one night and "tunnel" to Australia. You can even calculate the probability of this happening. Apparently the time i would have to wait for this to happen is longer than the life time of the universe, so we can disregard it as a possibility. Though it would certainly save me the flight cost.

As i am sure you are all aware, this "tunneling" of particles has been proven. It seems particles can move through whatever they so choose. I can't remember the exact details of the experiment that proved this at the minute, i have so much information flying around my head at the minute it is easy to get mixed up.

Which brings me rather neatly to the Neutrino. This is another factor in the detection of the speed and position of a particle. Neutrinos, it seems can penetrate anything. Some of the experiments that have been conducted underground to detect particles still get interference from these Neutrinos because they penetrate the earth like it is not there.


Kedaman


4. 4d objects cannot interact with 5d objects
5. quarks do NOT exist in a dimension above us.


How about this for a theory then. String theory says that there are 10 dimensions. Every single piece of matter, i mean everything, is just a vibration of a string in a higher dimension. This means that everything actually exists in the 10d already. This means that 5d beings could interact with us, because we are both really 10d. All we are seeing is the effects of these strings vibrating in a higher dimension.

Though i believe this theory unnecessary to explain what happens anyway. As Gen-X has pointed out before, we can interact with the 2nd dimension, because we are in a higher one. They can not interact with us because they would need to develop planck energy to probe our dimension.

[kedaman]

quote]
How about this for a theory then. String theory says that there are 10 dimensions. Every single piece of matter, i mean everything, is just a vibration of a string in a higher dimension. This means that everything actually exists in the 10d already. This means that 5d beings could interact with us, because we are both really 10d. All we are seeing is the effects of these strings vibrating in a higher dimension.
[/quote]
yeah everything exist in 10d and that's all, don't go involve any 5d-objects then, because here's the point, the 5d objects (as you see them) are just a mathematical concept. If we live in a n-dimensioned world, we are n-dimensioned, and anything less is just mathematical projections.

Though i believe this theory unnecessary to explain what happens anyway. As Gen-X has pointed out before, we can interact with the 2nd dimension, because we are in a higher one. They can not interact with us because they would need to develop planck energy to probe our dimension.

Now you have to admid something IS wrong with your argumentation. You supposed 3d objects can interact with 2d objects but not the other way round. Where did you get that from? Every ACTION has a REACTION!

And before you state anything like that, just proove me how you can interact with an object with no volume.

[Gen-X]

Megatron... every thing we touch and see is comprised of 3 dimensions. We are descending into that dimension all the time.

Imagine a desk.

Look at the edge of the desk. That edge exists in the 1st dimension... its LENGTH. But there is an end to the desk, ot doesn't go on forever so you have intersected the 2nd Dimension (WIDTH). Of course you can swap the perspective between height, width and depth because in reality all of them are actually 1st Dimensions... it is only the 3rd dimension which provides a "resonance" to bring them together that we see their differing intersection.

If your not sure what I mean by resonance I will explain something that I read not long ago about atoms.

Carbonate (CO3)
Now don't quote me specifically on all of this because I am trying to use my photographic memory here and my camera occasionally only takes black and white pictures.

Carbon has 6 electrons. 2 at the inner shell completing it and 4 in the outer shell. Atoms like having their shells "filled" because its the lowest energy state for them to exist in. This means that the Carbon atom will try to attack itself to other atoms such that those 4 electrons in its outer shell are either lent to other atoms such that it either "appears" to lose them or it gains another 4 (or both... I'll explain later).

Oxygen has 8 electrons. 2 at the inner shell completing it and 6 in the outer shell. Therefor it wants an extra 2 in order to complete its pattern.

With the Carbon Dioxide Molecule of CO2 each of the Oxygen atoms form Double Covelant bonds (ie because both Oxygen want 2 each and Carbon has 4 to give it gives 2 to each of the Oxygen Atoms)


O
//
C
\\
O


Now Carbonate on the other hand has an overall charge of -2, which means "I have 2 electrons missing... please fill me up". This forms an Covelant Bond to 1 of the 3 Oxygen Molecules and Ionic bonds to the other 2 like this :


O-
/
O=C
\
O-


As you can see, the Carbon has still lent itself to 4 electrons completing its outer shell while one Oxygen is completed and the other 2 have a single electron each left "hanging". Now because of this they "WANT" to attach themselves to the Carbon bit it isn't possible because it is already full.. But it DOES happen.

What acutally happens is each Oxygen takes turns in being the Double Bond with the Carbon, while the other 2 have 1 electron each floating. This means it cycles between 3 different configurations :


State 1 State 2 State 3
O- O O-
/ // /
O=C -O-C -O-C
\ \ \\
O- O- O


The net result is that the Carbonate molecule "resonates", it switches between these 3 configurations at the speed of light which creates if you wil a "harmonic".

String theory tells us that we exist in 10 Dimensions and that in each of those dimensions we have a "resonance" to explain our presence there. For us our "awareness" is in the 3rd Dimension (dont ask me how) but we actually exist in ALL dimensions at the same time.

Personally I believe the fact that our molecules resonate like this and our dimensions resonating via string theory is to much of a coincidence to be just luck. This to me says how we are connected between the different dimensions.

The only way in which us as humans can "see" things, or "hear" things is through the vibration and bombardment of particles (photons, air via sound waves etc) which means we can only DETECT those things that exist in our own dimension. As each of these particles consist of ALL the dimensions below it (they have height, and width and depth) they get an "echo" allowing us to effect the lower dimensions but not the higher ones.

[Gen-X]

Sam
Your arrived as I posted my other one.


oh no you're not.let's go back to my box, how far is it from one corner to the oposite corner, if I have to go a really small amount up, then a small amount left then a small amount in I have to move 9+12+20 = 41 cm, if I move in only one direction I only move (9^2 + 12^2 + 20^2)^0.5 = 25 cm


Who said I was moving 9 then 12 then 20?

I am moving 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000001 in each direction. Why don't you add all of them up.... Guess what!?!?!? They add up to exactly 25 cm!!!!

Oh my... fancy *drip* that *drip*

I'm dissapointed in you Sam, even you know better than that, I could even take offense that you would begin to believe I would think that.


I genuinley don't know what a non maths axis is


Its an imaginary line through the centre of the earth to which we seem to move around.


What's wrong with imaginary numbers then, the're great.

I don't know exactly why you're objecting.

let's start with something I like to call proposition 1


Now your starting to get ridiculous.

If you have 0.i that means "I DONT FRIKKEN HAVE IT!".

0 means NONE, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO.

So you can't say z=3 is the same as 3 + 0i because you are simply saying z=3 is the same as 3

AGAIN another reason why maths can't cope... in REALITY 0 of anything means nothing so you can't have 20 nothings!!! And you cant have the Square Root of 1 nothings either

Whats your problem here Sam? This is DEFINATELY grasping at straws to start using Zeros and using LARGE numbers against Pythagorus.... Do you think I am stupid or something?


my experiment is in a vacuum in a perfectly closed bok falling freely due to gravity in another vacuum.


No such thing.
Vacuums don't exist, particles appear inside them regardless. Oh and Gravity is STILL there because we are feeling the gravitational effect from every star in our universe.

Sam 0 : Gen-X : 1


So, I have a perfect vacuum, With my particle in it


No you DONT have a perfect vacuum... No such thing exists.

What is this "vacuum" contained in? Titanium? Steel? What about the surface particles that are coming off of that surface? What about the neutrino emissions from it being above 0 Kelvin? The gravitons passing through it?


experiment at absolute zero apart from the particle


HAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Oh my frikken God!!!!

So everything inside is at Absolute Zero (Definition : Particles are unable to move in this zone because there is no energy to allow them movement) and yet the particle is NOT at absolute Zero? It isn't possible. Temperature doesn't simply EXIST at one point and NOT exist at another. To have something even NEAR absolute zero means that the space around it is at temperatures near that. Your vaccum would have to be the size of a pinhead to make sure everything inside was at the same temperate (accept for the particle for some reason of course)

Sam 0 : Gen-X : 2


Surely there's no limit to how accuratley we can measure our particle


What are you using to MEASURE it? The photon that is bounced back? But its Absolute Zero in there, the photon WONT bounce back. What is the photon hitting? And how are we reading it? What is our "equipment" that you speak of?

ALL of reality requires particles to DETECT anything... and not just ONE particle but MILLIONS of particles. As I said before... On a sunny day 10 billion billion photons strike the head of a pin in 1 second.


Your making about as much sense as Ked there


Sam, you say this without reading up on String theory, just like when I tried to explain the uncertainty principle without having read it clearly recently.

Just like you told me that I had it totally wrong (which I agree) you have this totally wrong because you don't have an understanding on string theory.


Photons are 2 Dimensional They are completley flat


Interesting. I have never heard of this before... what is your source on this Sam?


but in a 5th real dimension it's just too constricted for my liking


And thats the problem. its your "liking" that has to be satisfied... not common sense, not logic... not even "reason"... but if you dont LIKE it then you wont accept it.

It is believes that the 5th dimension is a series of tiny "loops" that fit within and between each particle and each quark. I cant explain to you the reasoning behind it but then again I think most human beings will find it difficult trying to even wrap their head around anything above the 4th dimension...


think we just answered this one didn't we.


Actually I dont think you did. Photons are particles and particles are made up of quarks. While we might be able to say "it has no mass" or "it is flat" it simply means "its mass is too small for us to calculate" and "its depth is too thin for us to calculate". That doesn't mean it doesn't exist it just means we cannot measure it.

A neutron is made up of 3 quarks as is a photon. Why then is the photon 2D while the neutron is 3D? Are you saying different "flavours" of quarks have different sizes and masses?

If photons are flat then what happens in your experiment with the laster when it strikes the particle with its "EDGE" as opposed to its "SURFACE"? Or some combination of the 2. Does the particle bounce differently? And how exactly does the photon travel? Edge first? or surface first?

If you dont know those things how then can you tell where the particle you are striking will end up?


Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 (closeup)
/
/O --O--> |O--> -----/--\
\ | |pt|
\ \--/\
\


Case 1 : The photon strikes it at an angle sending the particle off at an angle.

Case 2 : The photon strikes the particle with its edge it moves off directly away

Case 3 : It strikes it with its flat surface. Wouldn't it make the photon "spin" and the particle move off at an angle depending on the difference in masses?

Case 4 : A close up of Case 2 where hitting it with its "infinately small" depth but at a point that is NOT in the centre of the particle causes it to fly off at a different angle.

All of these things just prove even more that all this theory just doesn't hold together logically.

[kedaman]

Well, ok Sam, you're right then, but why didn't anyone tell me that in the first place, that there are no volume 3dobjects? Especially Gen-x. I'm am totally aware of what a dimension is, there was just one point I got wrong and it certainly wasn't you that pointed it out.

But have the irrational argument left Sam. I thought also we had photons as both
1. Particles
2. Waves

Isn't you refering to these waves now? We also have them as particles.

On more thing, the photons need to be angled to fit into the 2d dimension. This means they have to be perfectly parallell, can you explain that? Polaroid glasses does not makes the photons go parallell, just as near as possible. Secondly they need to have a direction parallell to the 2n'd plane.

Same thing for the quarks, how can we have them go in a specific angle and 5d-direction, how can they all match so perfectly? Talking about impossibilities like evolution.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your making about as much sense as Ked there
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sam, you say this without reading up on String theory, just like when I tried to explain the uncertainty principle without having read it clearly recently.

Just like you told me that I had it totally wrong (which I agree) you have this totally wrong because you don't have an understanding on string theory.

Well just answer me this before you tell me i'm wrong: Isn't parallell just a mathematical concept, just like dimensions are?

[Iain17]

Sam


Photons are 2 Dimensional They are completely flat


Now i am not saying you are wrong, but i to would like to hear where this one came from. Do you have a reference or a web-site i can look up?



Having thought about it, it does make some sense that quarks exist in complex space for some dimension, although this is entirely mathematical and if someone puts forward a better theory Ill accept that model, but in a 5th real dimension it's just too constricted for my liking.


I agree that 5 dimensions are too restricting, it has been proposed before, by Klazu Klein (spelling?). As you know Einstein was looking for a way to combine the theories of relativity, and gravity into one, Klein managed to do this by proposing a 5th dimension. Obviously his theory was dismissed for a long time. The thing was that 5 dimensions were not enough to describe everything in the standard model. This is where string theory came in.

With 10 dimensions we see that string theory contains Einstein's theories, Maxwell's theory on light, gravity theories and the standard model. When i say contain i mean this. From string theory it is possible to re-derive all of the above theories, they just simply pop out of the equation. This is the true beauty of it. All the theories that we take as proved, are automatically a part of string theory, which leads us to believe that we are on the right track.

I know it is hard to fathom how we can be the result of vibrating strings in higher dimensions, i don't even claim to fully understand how this can be, but i can accept it as a possibility.

This other post is relevant to string theory. It looks a little bit lost in the Scientific Proof Of God's Existance thread. More on Strings (http://forums.vb-world.net/showthread.php?postid=59013#post59013)


Gen-X


Are you saying different "flavours" of quarks have different sizes and masses?


This is a bit out of my league at the minute as i have not read up on quarks for a couple of years, and the book i have on them is at least 10 years old (probably out of date by now), but i thought the answer was yes.

I cannot say for definite, but i thought these quarks did have different properties. They certainly have different electrical charges.


Kedaman


Well just answer me this before you tell me i'm wrong: Isn't parallell just a mathematical concept, just like dimensions are?


Not really. Parallel just means running adjacent to, or equal distance apart everywhere. e.g. Railway lines are parallel, though of course it is a mathematical term as well.

[Edited by Iain17 on 05-26-2000 at 12:58 PM]

[Sam Finch]

I am moving 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000001 in each direction. Why don't you add all of them up.... Guess what!?!?!? They add up to exactly 25 cm!!!!

Oh my... fancy *drip* that *drip*

I'm dissapointed in you Sam, even you know better than that, I could even take offense that you would begin to believe I would think that.

of course you don't think that, you're not stupid, just slightly miguided by all those physics books you keep reading



you might not have thought that but you implied it.
No I am not moving in infinate directions, I am moving in extremely small portions of EACH of the 3 directions at once.
The point is as long as I don't admit to knowing what you're talking about and take you up on little mistakes like that you will have to resort to the mathematical ideas to explain what a dimension is.

I don't suggest we keep going with you trying to explain a dimension without maths, our posts are getting long and confusing enough already but do you see my point, it's very very hard to say what a dimension is without maths whether it's impossible or not I don't know, It's a bit like me trying to describe a cat in pure maths. I could give you some equations that gave graphs that look a bit like cats, I could give a time element to the eq and have the cat walk (this would take me years to work out and it's unlikley I'd be able to express the cat equations in Ascii)


complex numbers


So you can't say z=3 is the same as 3 + 0i because you are simply saying z=3 is the same as 3

you are saying that I'm wrong purely on the grounds that I'm right, that's the point of an equation both sides are the same thing

z = 3 + 0i = 3
what's wrong with that then?

if I say z = 3 where z is a complex number to anyone in the world who understands complex numbers (except you obviously) they will know what point in 2D complex space I'm talking about, the point z = 3 + 0i which is a point in 2D complex space. but it's also a point in 1D real space, so I've expressed a 2D point using a 1D vector


The Icredible battle of my frikkin Laser

OK, i'm changing my experiment, the walls of my vacuum chamber are at absolute zero, my chamber is perfectly spherical so it doesn't produce a gravitational field inside it (can't remember who's law that is but do the maths, the chamber doesn't produce a gravitational field on the inside.)

other than the uncertainty principal there is no limit to how close I can get the walls of my chamber to absolute zero.

my experiment is in a vacuum in a perfectly closed bok falling freely due to gravity in another vacuum.



No such thing.
Vacuums don't exist, particles appear inside them regardless. Oh and Gravity is STILL there because we are feeling the gravitational effect from every star in our universe.

Sam 0 : Gen-X : 1

you scored a terriffic own goal there

the reason vacuums don't exist is because particles create and destroy themselves inside it.

This is due to the uncertainty principal, if you use this as an argument against the accuracy of my experiment you are effectivly saying "The uncertainty principal exists because of the uncertainty principal" it's like saying "God exists because it says so in the bible"

I'll just quote this bit again because it amuses me
Oh and Gravity is STILL there because we are feeling the gravitational effect from every star in our universe

my experiment is falling freely under gravity, it is falling freely under the effects of every star in the universe hence it is not under the effect of any gravitational field (see general relitivity page 1)

so in fact that's

Sam 1 Gen-x 0

your second goal I'll allow, but I'm changing my experiment so that's OK

the walls of my chamber are made of hmm, plastic, maybe metal, I think Diamond's going a bit over the top, maybe lead, that blocks most particles so that gets rid of a few of them. (as long as the chamber is charged equally there's no electric or magnetic field either from it for the same reason as there's no gravitational field. oh and there at absolute zero so no particles are falling off on the inside.

OK, what's getting in
What about the neutrino emissions from it being above 0 Kelvin? The gravitons passing through it?

it's at absolute zero so there's no neutrino emmissions it's not in a gravitational field so there's no gravitons.

The only thing influencing my particle is the gravitational field from the laser and the detector.

so I'm going to make my chamber big enough so that the gravitational field from the laser and detector are negligable (this is one scource of error, but there's no limit on how big my chamber is so there's no limit on how small the error is)

err particles coming in from the outside, seeing as my experiment is so large it has it's own gravitational field strong enough to support a sea of cleaning fluid (the stuff they use to detect particles) there is no limit to how big my sea of cleaning fluid is so there's no limit to the %age of particles I can stop.

this may generate a little heat but I've got some clever devices to ship that out by Lasers, and I have enough lasers positioned on all sides of my chamber to producce no net accelaration on my experiment.

Now, I fire 2 photons, one strikes the particle at a time t and bounces on to my sensor, I can work out exactly the position of my particle, (because there's no limit to .....) then I do it a second time and work out the position again, so I knw it's exact position at 2 seperate times and can work out it's speed, so as I know what kind of particle it is and hence its mass I can work out its momentum going into the second collision, as I know the momentum of my photon going in I can work out its momentum afterwards as well.

This is what's known as a thought experiment, obviously I can't do it, and I'd have to be pretty lucky to hit the same particle twice (I'd have to be pretty lucky to hit it once in fact) but the only reasons we can't do it are practical reasons, so there's no theoretical limit to how accuratley we can measure it.

That is until we do some maths.


Flat photons


Interesting. I have never heard of this before... what is your source on this Sam?

I just made it up and assumned some physcist somewhere had suggested it

It goes on how poleroids work, light waves have an orientation (a wave is a 2D thing right, so if a light wave is in 3D space the 2D plane the wave is in must have an orientation.) a poleroid only lets through light waves with their planes parralell to the slits in it (did I mention a poleroid is a piece of glass with tiny slits in it.) If we translate these results over to the particle model we see that photons must be disc like travelling edge first. (this is just a model, obviously photons don't have a shape as such, a shape is a macroscopic thing)

Photons are particles and particles are made up of quarks

quarks not particles then? what about gravitons I thought they were quarks, I didn't think photons were made up of 3 quarks, what about electrons, are they made up of 3 quarks too?

I thought you of all people would readily take this on board as a model.

oh, and all your cases, the photon always flys edge first and case 4 doesn't really apply, because we're talking about particles which just don't act that way, you're taking your macroscopic view of the world and trying to apply it photons etc, I thought you'd be the last one to do this. :)

[quote]
I am moving 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000000000000001 then 0.00000000000000000001 in each direction. Why don't you add all of them up.... Guess what!?!?!? They add up to exactly 25 cm!!!! [quote]

No they don't

[kedaman]

Sam, Even though Photons have a 2-dimensional movement, they don't need to be 2-dimensional. A photon can hit a wall and be absorbed by it, how do you explain that with using math? YOu need an interference with the wall, but you can't get any without having a size of the photon.

Now talking about polaroid glasses again, if you need the photons to go parallell, you need the width of the slits to be the size of a photon, which is theoretically possible to manage at least two photon to go parallell if it had a size, but if it doesn't there's no slits to pass trough, it would be like saying "Photons can pass trough a wall".

Now give me another no-volume object, or we should have this quark-idea cleared out of this thread.

Sam:0 Gen-x:0 Ked:0

3d-space


if I say z = 3 where z is a complex number to anyone in the world who understands complex numbers (except you obviously) they will know what point in 2D complex space I'm talking about, the point z = 3 + 0i which is a point in 2D complex space. but it's also a point in 1D real space, so I've expressed a 2D point using a 1D vector

About complex numbers, do you know what the i stands for? Yes, imaginaire, sqr(-1). I'm sure you can't have that applying to reality. ALthoug 3=3+0i is a complex value, it's also totally rational, 3+sqr(-0) put it 3+1i, 3+sqr(-1) and you will get an error in your calculator. A 1d vector in another direction than it's base direction will just project it self on it's base vector. Remove the i, or we could have a million of dimensions out of 1, if you just want.

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

Isn't you refering to these waves now? We also have them as particles.


Read Quantum Mechanics. It describes how a photon can be BOTH a particle AND a wave at the same time.


Well just answer me this before you tell me i'm wrong: Isn't parallell just a mathematical concept, just like dimensions are?


As Iain described but I will give it to you without any mathematics.

"Parallel" means that no matter which direction I decide to travel, I can always reach out and find it at exactly the same distance away from me at ALL times.

Iain

I know it is hard to fathom how we can be the result of vibrating strings in higher dimensions, i don't even claim to fully understand how this can be, but i can accept it as a possibility.


Now that you mention it (thought I have heard all this before), the way you described it here makes me wonder if my theory of our "souls" being the presence of higher dimensional attachments to our physical presence seems more likely.


I know it is hard to fathom how we can be the result of vibrating strings in higher dimensions, i don't even claim to fully understand how this can be, but i can accept it as a possibility.


As far as I know, although they differ in properties, charge etc they are the same mass... Not quotable but that was what I can recollect.

Sam

of course you don't think that, you're not stupid, just slightly miguided by all those physics books you keep reading


As you are misguided by those maths books you read ;)
(But you still didn't credit the fact that I STILL travelled 25cm)


The point is as long as I don't admit to knowing what you're talking about and take you up on little mistakes like that you will have to resort to the mathematical ideas to explain what a dimension is.


Actually, the point is that there is no way I can explain any of this to you without mathematics because that is the only language you are willing to understand.

I could use terms as I have and other people would EASILY understand what I mean... as they all did. (And credited me with doing so very well)


z = 3 + 0i = 3
what's wrong with that then?


I have done complex numbers but it was a while ago. What is wrong with it is that with i = 0 there really isn't an i at all is there... so you are really saying z = 3 = 3

You conveniently overlooked and ignored this bit... obviously because you had no answer to it and would rather continue your calculations in ignorance than acutally admit that 0 of something is NOTHING and therefor doesn't really even exist in there in the first place... (You keep i in there because you INTRODUCE that dimension.. which is what I said in the first place)


OK, i'm changing my experiment, the walls of my vacuum chamber are at absolute zero, my chamber is perfectly spherical so it doesn't produce a gravitational field inside it (can't remember who's law that is but do the maths, the chamber doesn't produce a gravitational field on the inside.)


If the walls are absolute zero then how does your photon get INTO the chamber? When it attempts to pass through the wall it would cease to move because "the walls are absolute zero". Oh and if you say that "The place where the photon enters is NOT absolute zero" then I say "So there could be OTHER particles entering through this apperture


other than the uncertainty principal there is no limit to how close I can get the walls of my chamber to absolute zero


Oh for Christs #$()&@#$^ Sake!!!!

You are telling me that even though the probability of you being able to even get this thing to work being 1 in 1x10e99 it is STILL absolute proof that you can get BOTH position and momentum?

Grow a frikken brain Sam!!! You are starting to take what has been reasonable discussions and plausible possiblities into the realm of total fiction.

Based on the uncertainty principle I can catch a photon in my hand and let it go again...

So *I* knew its position and its momentum...


you scored a terriffic own goal there

the reason vacuums don't exist is because particles create and destroy themselves inside it.


Really now? So they create and destroy themselves inside it... So how do you know one didn't create itself directly infront of the photon's path?

Sam : 0 Gen-X : 1


This is due to the uncertainty principal, if you use this as an argument against the accuracy of my experiment you are effectivly saying "The uncertainty principal exists because of the uncertainty principal" it's like saying "God exists because it says so in the bible"


What I am saying is that there is just as much certainty as there is uncertainty. Therefor if the whole point of your expierment USES the uncertainty principle it works against you just as much...


my experiment is falling freely under gravity, it is falling freely under the effects of every star in the universe hence it is not under the effect of any gravitational field (see general relitivity page 1)

so in fact that's

Sam 1 Gen-x 0


Oh really? Now this is where I see what you have written as complete and total BULLSHIT and will happily say so.

First you write : "falling freely under gravity"
Then you write : "The only thing influencing my particle is the gravitational field from the laser and the detector"

and then : "it has it's own gravitational field strong enough to support a sea of cleaning fluid "

Hang on? Doesn't all that contradict itself. If it now has its "own" gravitational field doesn't that mean there are gravitons flowing through here?

Oh but its free falling in gravity... so there is nothing here... but hang on... it has the gravity of the laser and detector... but hang on, they have been cancelled out by the gravitational field of the chamber...

Oh my Sam... Now you are tying your head up in knots... Make your damn mind up if it has one or it doesn't...


this may generate a little heat but I've got some clever devices to ship that out by Lasers, and I have enough lasers positioned on all sides of my chamber to producce no net accelaration on my experiment.


How can it generate heat if it is in absolute zero? Oh and if you have enough lasers positioned on all sides of the chamber are they exhurting gravitational fields? If not why not?


Now, I fire 2 photons, one strikes the particle at a time t and bounces on to my sensor, I can work out exactly the position of my particle, (because there's no limit to .....) then I do it a second time and work out the position again


Here is where your ridiculous and unplausible experiment really falls down.

You do it a second time... So how do you KNOW where it is the second time? You struck it with a photon which means you altered the course of the particle... How do you know where the course was changed to? What is the maths to show its new course?


That is until we do some maths


No, no.. when you do some maths you crawl back into your little comfy world and start cooking the entire universe flowing the way you want it to make your own answers come true.

By your own admission they used mathematics to PROVE you cannot know both position and momentum... And yet you wont accept it even when your own "God" tells you.


I just made it up and assumned some physcist somewhere had suggested it


And you have just shown your ability to reason sensibly... Make up what you dont know to support what you WANT to be true.

Thank you so much for validating my opinions so thoroughly.


quarks not particles then? what about gravitons I thought they were quarks, I didn't think photons were made up of 3 quarks, what about electrons, are they made up of 3 quarks too?


The difference between a PROTON and an ELECTRON is the quark configuration.


PROTON : Q(+2/3) + Q(+2/3) + Q(-1/3) = +1
NEUTRON : Q(-1/3) + Q(-1/3) + Q(+2/3) = 0
ELECTRON : Q(-2/3) + Q(-2/3) + Q(+1/3) = -1


They are ALL made up of quarks as is everything in our universe... Neutrinos, gravitons, electrons, photons, mesons the whole lot.


oh, and all your cases, the photon always flys edge first and case 4 doesn't really apply, because we're talking about particles which just don't act that way, you're taking your macroscopic view of the world and trying to apply it photons etc, I thought you'd be the last one to do this.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! oh now you are just showing your ignorance of science sam!!!

What the #$*#@ do you think Einstien did when they discovered Quantum Mechanics????

They applied his frikken laws of motion to them and guess what!?!? They ALL worked! Laws governing macroscopic views of the world worked PERFECTLY on a microscopic (read that photon) level.

Of COURSE you can apply those rules, its the whole basis for Quantum Mechanics... Go and read a book and stop talking **** Sam... I know I make mistakes and incorrectly retrieve things (we all do)... but at least I dont just make **** up as I go along and do it just to prove myself right.

[Why do I get the feeling you wrote that purposely to provoke the answer you got?]

:mad:

[Sam Finch]

Gen-x

*Great big fat Sigh*

As you are misguided by those maths books you read
(But you still didn't credit the fact that I STILL travelled 25cm)

There's a difference between a maths book and a physics book

Physics book People buy popularized physics books to read because they are full of oversimplified models that poeple can understand unfortunately the price we pay for this is that they are wrong.


Maths Book Nobody would ever buy a maths book unless they were studying maths
Maths books are never oversimplified and are always right

the fact is if you travel in a little bit of each direction at a time you will alwayus move 41cm no matter how small your steps are, but a 25cm piece of string between the 2 corners can reach even though it can't stretch to 41cm. this is where the non maths breaks down.

I could use terms as I have and other people would EASILY understand what I mean... as they all did. (And credited me with doing so very well)

yes, they all credited you for making a very good attempt at the impossiple task of explaining the Idea of a dimension without maths


so you are really saying z = 3 = 3

that's exactly what I'm saying but by using z I'm refering to a point in the coplex plane ie a 2D point, but I'm refering to it in terms of the single dimension of real numbers It's a very simple Idea I don't see why youre objecting

If the walls are absolute zero then how does your photon get INTO the chamber? It's generated in the chamber by the laser, the energy gets into the chamber by a wir, which is only connected for long enough for enough energy to generatre a single photon

You are telling me that even though the probability of you being able to even get this thing to work being 1 in 1x10e99 it is STILL absolute proof that you can get BOTH position and momentum? I'm saying it's possible, if we do the experiment enough times, remember there is no limit to the number of times we do this experiment


you scored a terriffic own goal there

the reason vacuums don't exist is because particles create and destroy themselves inside it.



Really now? So they create and destroy themselves inside it... So how do you know one didn't create itself directly infront of the photon's path?

Sam : 0 Gen-X : 1
I know it's difficult but try reading a whole sentence at a time, sentences make more sense that way.


What I am saying is that there is just as much certainty as there is uncertainty. Therefor if the whole point of your expierment USES the uncertainty principle it works against you just as much...

you're missing the point of this, I'm looking for the reason behind the uncertainty principal, you cannot use the uncertainty principal to explain its own existance. You are saying that the reason we cannot measure a particles position and momentum is a practical one of having to use a particle to measure it, I have provided aan experiment which could measure them both if it wasn't for the MATHEMATICAL uncertainty principal (that one about doing calculus on probability waves)



Oh really? Now this is where I see what you have written as complete and total BULLSHIT and will happily say so.

First you write : "falling freely under gravity"
Then you write : "The only thing influencing my particle is the gravitational field from the laser and the detector"

and then : "it has it's own gravitational field strong enough to support a sea of cleaning fluid "

Hang on? Doesn't all that contradict itself. If it now has its "own" gravitational field doesn't that mean there are gravitons flowing through here?

Oh but its free falling in gravity... so there is nothing here... but hang on... it has the gravity of the laser and detector... but hang on, they have been cancelled out by the gravitational field of the chamber...

Oh my Sam... Now you are tying your head up in knots... Make your damn mind up if it has one or it doesn't...

Now you're just embarrasing yourself. If you're going to make sarcastic comments about peoples arguments then you should at least read them first.

you're getting confused between the Ideas of INSIDE and OUTSIDE

Inside the chamber the chamber itself exerts no gravitational field because it is a hollow sphere (either do the maths or try it, your choice either way there is no gravitational field inside)

Outside the Chamber there is a gravitational field equivilent to a point like mass at the center of the chamber. (this is the type of physics that's not in your books, it's only in the boring ones)

How can it generate heat if it is in absolute zero? Oh and if you have enough lasers positioned on all sides of the chamber are they exhurting gravitational fields? If not why not?

I only said this because you would have brought up the Idea that our sea of cleaning fluid being bombarded with particles would geerate heat, I am providing a meathod of shipping the heat out of my experiment and keeping at absolute zero, the lazers do not generate a gravitational field because there are enough of them positioned equaly around my sphere to keep the approximation to a sherical shell (which generates no gravitational field on the inside)

No, no.. when you do some maths you crawl back into your little comfy world and start cooking the entire universe flowing the way you want it to make your own answers come true.

By your own admission they used mathematics to PROVE you cannot know both position and momentum... And yet you wont accept it even when your own "God" tells you.

now clearly you have missed the pint of this rediculus experiment.

The point is there is no practical limit to the accuracy of my experiment, only the mathematical one, when we do the maths we fuind it is not possible too know both because it cannot have both, when we measure one the other disapears.


The difference between a PROTON and an ELECTRON is the quark configuration.


code:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROTON : Q(+2/3) + Q(+2/3) + Q(-1/3) = +1
NEUTRON : Q(-1/3) + Q(-1/3) + Q(+2/3) = 0
ELECTRON : Q(-2/3) + Q(-2/3) + Q(+1/3) = -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They are ALL made up of quarks as is everything in our universe... Neutrinos, gravitons, electrons, photons, mesons the whole lot.

This make protons and electrons the same mass. Please think about what you say before you say it :)

They applied his frikken laws of motion to them and guess what!?!? They ALL worked! Laws governing macroscopic views of the world worked PERFECTLY on a microscopic (read that photon) level.

Laws of particle motion yes, Laws of rigid bodies no, so don't try to apply the rigid bodies laws to particles because they don't work.

[Gen-X]

Sam

No point repeating myself to a brickwall.

Your not about to budge on Maths and I am not about to budge on reality.

So why even bother?

Your entire argument is based on RULES that humans came up with and my entire argument is based on the REALITY of what is around us.

HUMANS make mistakes... REALITY doesn't.

HUMANS only know what they have learned... REALITY knows all

MATHS is only as good as what they BASE it on.

Thanks for the talk... it was enlightening.

[Sam Finch]

Yeah, I don't think this is actually getting anywhere, what you've missed though is that reality is only what se can see and hear etc, everything else is just a model.

Sam's list of things that are real

The 3 Dimensions of space
Protons & Neutrons and Stuff that's made of them
Light and EM Waves (or maybe just visible light)


everything else is just a model trying to explain what's happening, nothing else is real, not even electrons, time, gravitons. etc. They're all just a way of trying to predict what these 3 real thing are going to do next.

Some models are pretty right, others are less right, the quantitative ones use maths, the qualitative ones don't, but there is no completley accurate model and I don't think we'll ever find one.

Other than that it's been a good argument, and it's good that the Science Vs Maths argument was much more interesting than the Science Vs Religion one.

N.B. I'll continue to use the word Proove as proove mathematicly, however this does not of course make it right but it is a strong argument and I will still pull you up If you say something that disagrees with the maths I love.

Remember any model you have is usually backed by maths or can at least be described by maths, maths isn't the rigid thing you seem to think it is, The right piece of maths will always produce the right results, it's just that we don't know which is the best bit to use.


Let's call it a Draw :)

[kedaman]

"Parallel" means that no matter which direction I decide to travel, I can always reach out and find it at exactly the same distance away from me at ALL times.

Distance - math, exactly - math. Hmm, you don't get it Gen-x at least that "exactly" part, because that doesn't fit in reality. Point me out an example just like Iain did with the railway (except that railways are not exactly parallell) and don't ignore gravity!

About a object being both 2 and 3 dimensional does only say one thing: It's 3 dimensional and act's 2dimensionally



Sam

No point repeating myself to a brickwall.

Your not about to budge on Maths and I am not about to budge on reality.

So why even bother?

Your entire argument is based on RULES that humans came up with and my entire argument is based on the REALITY of what is around us.

HUMANS make mistakes... REALITY doesn't.

HUMANS only know what they have learned... REALITY knows all

MATHS is only as good as what they BASE it on.

Thanks for the talk... it was enlightening.

Gen-x, how can you ever know what REALITY is? You're just refering to it and that makes nonsense if you go stating anything and tells it IS REALITY! Actually we could consider you as alien

Kedamans list of things that are real:

Me
What i see or what creates the illusion.
Math


Other than that it's been a good argument, and it's good that the Science Vs Maths argument was much more interesting than the Science Vs Religion one.

I would like to change that Science Vs Religion to Religion Vs Religion as Science is a religion, But when you have Science Vs Math, it's actually Theories Vs Facts, where Math is the FACT part.


N.B. I'll continue to use the word Proove as proove mathematicly, however this does not of course make it right but it is a strong argument and I will still pull you up If you say something that disagrees with the maths I love.

We should use the words proove mathematically and proove scientifically as prooving something real doesn't work. And a scientific proof is never waterresistant, but a mathematic proof always is, whenever it's not refering to science.

[Sam Finch]

Ked, Maths isn't real, it's the properties of the real number line, or the complex plane, or some group, ring or field, it's not real, it's just such a big subject that it can be applied to anything.

[kedaman]

Sorry, Math does not refer to reality, what i meant was math is true as it doesn't refer to anything else. Remove it from the list, it's in it's own category

[Gen-X]

Sam

*sigh*

How can we have a conversation when you contradict your own words :(


Yeah, I don't think this is actually getting anywhere, what you've missed though is that reality is only what we can see and hear etc, everything else is just a model.

Sam's list of things that are real

The 3 Dimensions of space
Protons & Neutrons and Stuff that's made of them
Light and EM Waves (or maybe just visible light)


So you have actually seen or heard a Dimension have you? Or have you only seen and hear what is INSIDE this dimension. By your own words that means the dimension itself isn't real because you cannot see it.

Oh and when was the last time you SAW/HEARD a Proton? Or a Neutron?

Now you say That you believe "light" but that you DON'T believe in electrons... Funny, because without electrons the protons/neutrons you BELIEVE in so much would never stay together. It is BECAUSE they know electrons are real that they can determine (even mathematically) which atoms will hold to which other atoms... PURELY by the number of electrons they have.

Yet you think they are just a "model"

Oh and when was the last time you SAW/HEARD/FELT an electromagnetic field?


N.B. I'll continue to use the word Proove as proove mathematicly, however this does not of course make it right but it is a strong argument and I will still pull you up If you say something that disagrees with the maths I love.


Why bother? If every time you held up an orange I said "Its an Apple" you would not understand the point... You have stated that the only form of proof you accept is mathematical (or has some relation to maths) which is diametrically opposed to nearly every scientist on the face of the earth.... Why pull someone up when what you are talking about is different to what they are talking about?


Remember any model you have is usually backed by maths or can at least be described by maths, maths isn't the rigid thing you seem to think it is, The right piece of maths will always produce the right results, it's just that we don't know which is the best bit to use.


*SIGH* You keep answering my own question and yet you don't SEE the answer you make yourself.

"it's just that we don't know which is the best bit to use"

Look at that statement Sam... READ that statement Sam.

Before you said that "Maths can be used to prove something". If this is true, that Maths can be an ABSOLUTE proof of something... then isn't the fact that you have just said "WE DON'T ALWAYS KNOW WHICH IS THE BEST BIT TO USE" mean that you cannot use Maths as proof because you could be using the WRONG Maths as proof.

You have just highlighted AGAIN why Maths cannot be used as proof... Because its CONSTRUCTED by humans and CHOSEN by humans. You suddenly decided to use complex numbers, pulled it out of the aether because it suited your argument. You cannot do this in science... it is either THERE or its NOT.

Please... at least agree to that much... you have said it yourself right here and right now... Don't back out on your own words at this point.

Kedaman

Distance - math, exactly - math. Hmm, you don't get it Gen-x at least that "exactly" part, because that doesn't fit in reality. Point me out an example just like Iain did with the railway (except that railways are not exactly parallell) and don't ignore gravity!


Oh Brother! Ked... I know your english is not good, I am making allowances for that. Terms like Distance, Point, Axis, Dimension, Space and Line were all used BEFORE mathematics... in fact the whole reason Mathematics USED those words was because it matched what they were trying to say.

Because I use the word "Distance" doesn't make it maths, it means I am talking about a concept OLDER than the concept of COUNTING... which is the foundation of maths.


Kedamans list of things that are real:

Me
What i see or what creates the illusion.
Math


Hehehehe... I think I understand now. How wonderfully ego-centric.

But tell me... Why do you include Maths in that list? You are real because you think, you can touch yourself etc etc... What you see is real (or the illusion) because it comes into your brain and you interact with it... But why maths? You can't touch it, you can't feel it, you don't see it... its something IN YOUR MIND.


I would like to change that Science Vs Religion to Religion Vs Religion as Science is a religion


Thats like saying Christianity is just a CLUB. Religion is something you believe on "faith", something that you are required to have ABSOLUTE faith in. Science by its own definition re-invents itself every time it disputes some of its findings. Religion answers "WHY", Science answers "HOW". The old cliche of them both answering the same questions is rather stupid.


And a scientific proof is never waterresistant, but a mathematic proof always is, whenever it's not refering to science


So doesn't that mean we should NEVER use a mathematic proof in science if it is never water resistant?

[Gen-X]

Kedaman

I have only one thing to say to you as I am tired of talking to a brick wall.


Science is a "METHOD", Religion is a "BELIEF".

I don't "believe" in science I accept its "methods", and I use them in order to understand the reality around me.

When Science comes up with something as "REAL" it allows itself to be disputed if more evidence comes to light. It re-invents itself because the "PURPOSE" of science is to discover more and to "GROW" as you learn.

Religion is the OPPOSITE of this. It requires you to accept IMMEDIATELY everything to be true, the ONLY truth and undisputable. Once you BELIEVE you stop growing, you stop learning, you close yourself off into a bubble and keep going over and over the same things.

Its why we consider incest BAD... in-breeding is the destruction of the species... Focusing on religion and just re-focusing, going over it again and again NEVER changing, NEVER expanding.... You are just speeding up your own destruction.

[Iain17]

Kedaman


Dimension is a totally mathematical concept, if they didn't have that word "math" they did still used it as well as we did. Point is also just plain mathematical concept, you cannot prove there is any point in universe at all, some for axis space and line, everything that is math, have no reference in reality.


So a dimension is a totally mathematical concept? HAH! Has no reference to reality. HAH! What about the dimensions of the room you are in. Do these have no reference to reality? If that is the case I guess the room must not really exist.

What about the point of the room you are positioned at? This point does not exist in the universe? Well I guess that means that you don’t exist in the universe because there is no point for you to exist at.

Lines are just mathematical as well. If that is the case you must be blind, how can you see without a line of sight?

Space is purely mathematical? So we were flying through equations to get to the moon? Astronauts kept seeing numbers flying past them? HAH! No space in reality. How do you fit into a room without space?

The word Axis has at least 10 definitions, I suggest you look them up.

[kedaman]

If it is Iain, why are you so ignorant and use sarcasm instead of prooving something, you keep looking for garbage around my statement while you leave the concept intact instead. Burn your garbage Iain and keep to the topic.

Let's have a look at your totally ignorant statements:

1. The room exists not if the dimensions of it has no reference in reality
2. Point does not exist in universe if it doesn't exist at all.
3. You can't see if lines are mathematical
4. You fly trough equations and see numbers if space is mathematical
5. "Axis" has at least 10 definitions.

Now Iain, this is exactly what you stated, without sarcasm, and look how silly it got now! This is totally bullshit in disguise, in other words.

1. The room exists only in your mind, with dimensions, your observation is applied to that concept in your brain. This means when they didn't have that word "math" they had it integrated in their brains.
2. Well that is like saying There is a glas on the table if the glas is there.
3. y=x+2 - that's a definition of a line - oh and now you can't see anything
4. Hehe, now Iain, look around you, do you see any numbers? Space is purely a matematical concept.
5. Possible, but why point the other out when we're talking about math? And why point all nonmathematicall definitions at all when we're not talking about them?

[Sam Finch]

I think we're all a bit confused here.


A dimension is just a mathematical concept.

Personally I agree with this, the non maths translation of the word dimension is measurement ie a box can have dimensions 10cm by 15cm by 20cm, this is 3 measurements so we live in 3 dimensions, this Idea is pretty meaningless however unless you're measuring boxes.

other than that the word dimension has no real meaning, gen-x will jump in and tell you about "the third dimension" and "The Fourth dimension" but he just has his terminoligy wrong, when he says "the third dimension" he means 3 dimensional space.

in maths n dimensional space is defined by the number of solutions to various vector equations that exist in that space, however 1, 2 and 3 dimensional space translate well to ideas in he real world, a straight line, a flat plane and the space we live in, but there's nothing we can do with these concepts other than maths.


point, line, axis etc

in maths a point is a 0 dimensional space, in reality it's pretty much the same thing, but it's closer to a physical object (you can point to a point) the 2 Ideas are very close but seperate, the same with a line (athough in maths lines are always straight) axes in maths are very different from axes in reality but there is still a slight parralell.


the moral of the story

in fact there is a mathematical version of reality, we havn't yet found it perfectly but most of the pieces are in place, in this mathematical reality we have the concepts of relitivity, string theory, quantum mechanics etc, in our reality we do not, the mathematical reality (called physics) is a model of reality which makes accurate predictions of our own reality, obviously there are parralelly between the 2 realities but it is important to keep the distinction clear.(it's like the word integer which has different meanings in maths and computing but the 2 ideas are similar if you use the mathematical Idea of integer in a program you risk getting an overflow)

that's my view on this, now watch gen-x half read it and take various sentances out of context.

[Gen-X]

Sam, Sam, sam....

So little faith you have in me ;)

I'm not even going to bother bantering with your concept... I shall instead attack it at its very heart.

What is maths?
Why was it invented?
When was it invented?

[Sam Finch]

Gen-x

Thanks for your questions,

1 Maths is the language of Logic, it is the method of quantitativly describing the world we see around us through the use of models.

2 It was not "Invented" as sutch, it was discovered. In its earliest form it was used to answer simple questions sutch as "Is my field bigger than farmer uggs field?" and "How much fence do I need to enclose enough land to feed four sheep. Later the concept of mathematical proof was used to provide definate answers to questions that had never been answered before and to ensure that equations used to calculate things were the correct ones.

3 It is not known when maths was first used by settlers, the ancient Babilonians used rudimentary arithmetic and was probably around the same time as the invention of trade.

I'm glad you're taking an intrest in the subject. :)

[Edited by Sam Finch on 06-05-2000 at 10:55 AM]

[Gen-X]

1 Maths is the language of Logic, it is the method of quantitativly describing the world we see around us through the use of models.


Question :

If Maths is used to describe the world around us, and the term "dimension" is a mathematical term... then doesn't that define a dimension as :

"A word used to describe the world we see around us"

So I ask you again... How can a "dimension" be a purely mathematical concept when the whole POINT of maths is to describe the world?


2 It was not "Invented" as sutch, it was discovered. In its earliest form it was used to answer simple questions sutch as "Is my field bigger than farmer uggs field?" and "How much fence do I need to enclose enough land to feed four sheep. Later the concept of mathematical proof was used to provide definate answers to questions that had never been answered before and to ensure that equations used to calculate things were the correct ones.


Discovered? Mmmmm...

Can you show me where in our world they "discovered" complex numbers?

And where did they "discover" 5-Dimensional Geometry?

Oh and while your at it... please show me where they "discovered" infinity?


3 It is not known when maths was first used by settlers, the ancient Babilonians used rudimentary arithmetic and was probably around the same time as the invention of trade.


So in other words, prior to this time people were "ignorant" of the fact that maths existed. They used "alternatives" to describe the things they saw and the nature of the universe around them because they didn't have a better thing (maths) to do it for them.

So they used stones and chips of metal or currency, having to "count" (thought they didn't know that was the word for it) them out individually to make sure you got the right amount for each animal you sold.

Amazing. This sounds very much like the belief in God. They were ignorant of the science around them and so they explained the universe and its nature with what they could understand.

The difference being that we have thrown away the abacus and the stone chips and replaces them with calculators and computers because we have "outgrown such ignorant things".... While we have kept our earliest concept of "religion" in tact and stated that the beliefs they held 2000 years ago HOLD PERFECTLY TRUE TO THIS DAY.

Now don't you find that just a TAD hard to believe?


I'm glad you're taking an intrest in the subject


Oh am sure you won't be so glad when you have to try and provide reasonable answers to these questions.

Perhaps now you may start to see why I say things like "dimensions are NOT purely a mathematical concept" and instead of just saying "they are" you can read your own words and realise EXACTLY what it is you are really saying to me.

I look forward to hearing your "explainations" and "flaws" that show your original statements hold true and everything I have said here is complete bullshit.

[Sam Finch]

1 Maths is the language of Logic, it is the method of quantitativly describing the world we see around us through the use of models.

I'm saying this again to see if you'll manage to read the whole sentance this time, I know quantitivly is a big word, and I did spell it wrong but you still have to read it It kinda changes the meaning of the sentence.
the bit in bold means that
if you wish to describe the world we see around you quantitivly then you must use maths, so If I want to know how far away something is but I know only its distance from the floor, its distance from 2 seperate walls then I can use the idea of dimensions to work out how far it is away from me (as long as I know where I am) If I don't use maths and therefore don't use any quantitive terms then the Idea of a dimension is meaningless.

I'll Put that into seperate points for you




1 in order to describe anything quantitivly you must use maths

2 Dimensions are used only to describe things quantitvly

imlplies

3 Dimesions are a meaningless concept outside of maths



onto point 2

discovered vs invented

imagine a nice easy arithmatic problem

I have n boxes

in the first box I put 2 apples, in the 2nd 2 apples, in the third 3 etc, how many apples to I have altogether.

once apon a time you would have to count all the apples, then it was discovered that the number of apples you have is n(n+1)/2, it was still n(n+1)/2 before but nobody knew this is why it was discovered, sometime later it was discovered that using complex numbers it is possible to find solutions to differential and discrete equations which were previously very difficult. and if you had a set of 5 linear equations with 5 unknowns the best way of solving it was to think of it as a 5 dimensional space. Infinity is just an interesting philosophical Idea and is used to prove that some mathematical methods are effective.

Complex Numbers and 5 Dimensioal spaces weren't discovered in the real world until quantum mechanics, and 5 dimensional spaces weren't discovered in reality until General relitivity.

as for question 3 we already have 3 threads devoted to theological arguments, I don't think we need a fourth, especially when you are essentially making the same point as in the others.

[Gen-X]

Sam

1 in order to describe anything quantitivly you must use maths
2 dimensions are used only to describe things quantitvly

imlplies

3 Dimesions are a meaningless concept outside of maths


I agree with what you said whole heartedly.

Now lets see if you can follow this.

Maths = "quantative description of world around us"

So If I re-write your final line...

"3 Dimensions are a meaningless concept outside of the quantative description of the world around us"

So you are saying that Dimensions are meaningless in any use that is not representing the "quantitative" nature of something within the world we see around us????

I see where you are coming from, but you are basically trying to put across that Concept A which was used to generate Concept B can not be described in terms of Concept A any more...

By this definition Maths is a SUBSET of the world around us... therefor to say it is "purely" mathematical is to also say that there is no existance outside of Maths for that item... Considering that Concept B was derived from Concept A that means concept A must have existed "OUTSIDE" Concept B... So this negates the original postulation that Concept B self-contains (ie "purely") something that existed in Concept A.

Just because we have labelled something "maths", such as the definitions for a line, axis and dimension doesn't mean that maths is the ONLY field it exists in or the only context it can be used in.

Do you agree that "Length" is a dimension?
Do you agree that "Width" is a dimension?
Do you agree that "Height" is a dimension?

They can all be measured and they all fit into a 3D space quite nicely.

Now I ask... is "Time" a dimension?

Well it CAN be measured... but we are unable to DRAW anything greater than 3 dimensions to explain this... We can place 2 points inside a 3Space and say that it took "time" to get from Point A to Point B but for the first time we have broken the original "model" which showed everything as having points.

Now I know that you have the "maths" that can fully describe a 4Space, 5Space etc... But considering that "maths is based on our observations of the world around us" and is used to "QUANTATIVELY" describe those properties...

Surely that means that 5Space is NOT maths because it has no existance in the world around us????


I have n boxes


Nice example. I agree with it completely.


Complex Numbers and 5 Dimensional spaces weren't discovered in the real world until quantum mechanics, and 5 dimensional spaces weren't discovered in reality until General relitivity


Can you do Maths on 6 Dimensional spaces? And when where they discovered in the real world?

I understand your point... but that doesn't mean maths can then take it and run PAST what we observe in the real world. Just because these theories hold true for Dimensions 1-5 doesn't mean it is right for anything more.

I suggested there were 10 dimensions... and you said "WRONG! There is nothing around us that suggests this and I don't like it". Now you tell me Maths is capable of modelling 6D space even though we can't see it.

That is a contradiction.


as for question 3 we already have 3 threads devoted to theological arguments, I don't think we need a fourth, especially when you are essentially making the same point as in the others


In other words you are telling me that they have never "discovered" infinity and that thought mathematics can describe it there is no basis for it in the world around us....

I thought as much... *sigh*... I was really hoping you might have been able to back up your statements.

[Sam Finch]

You're getting close.

Dimensions are a meaningless concept outside of the quantative description of the world around us"

That's actually the second line, The third line is just the 2 statements compined into the statement I'm arguing. (I'd say it was undisputable that if the first 2 lines are true then so is the third line) but yes, this is my second line.

What do you think a Dimension is?

I think it's a quantity that can be assigned a value in a continuous subset of the real numbers, ie length, width, mass, speed, energy, time, volume, force etc.

so statement 2 is true, If we aren't talking about something quantitive then the Idea of assigning something a quantity is pretty meaningless.

By this definition Maths is a SUBSET of the world around us...

no it's not. It's a way of describing the world around us.



Just because we have labelled something "maths", such as the definitions for a line, axis and dimension doesn't mean that maths is the ONLY field it exists in or the only context it can be used in. No, but it doesn't rule out the idea that it is a purely mathematical Idea, a line in maths is a very different thing from a line in the real world, as is an axis, a dimension outside of maths is an aspect of an argument or concept, which is a very different thing.




... but we are unable to DRAW anything greater than 3 dimensions

yes we can, we can extend the algorithm for drawing 2D and 3D shapes into 4D, it just doesn't look like anything because we can only see 3 dimensions of space.



Complex Numbers and 5 Dimensional spaces weren't discovered in the real world until quantum mechanics, and 5 dimensional spaces weren't discovered in reality until General relitivity


looking at it again I didn't put much thought into this, it's not even a real sentance. what I ment in the first place in

1 Quantities with complex values were not discovered in the real world until quantum mechanics.

2 A system of 5 spacetimelike Dimensions was not discovered until General relitivity.

for a 6Space imagine a white light made up purely of red, green and blue wavelengths. now shine it somewhere. every point has a position in 3space and a light intensity in 3space, which combine into a 6space. Tada.

I suggested there were 10 dimensions... and you said "WRONG! There is nothing around us that suggests this and I don't like it". Now you tell me Maths is capable of modelling 6D space even though we can't see it.

The reason string theory suggests 10 or 26 dimensions is that string theory is a beutiful theory which is very close to discribing the four forces as a single force but the maths only works in 10 and 26 dimensions, until there is a good explanation is found for these dimensions not being seen or some evidence of them I am sceptical obout there existance, you never know someone might find slight modification that allows it to work in 4D.

Now you tell me Maths is capable of modelling 6D space even though we can't see it.

yes.

hat is a contradiction

no it's not



what is English, it is a way of describing the real world, but it can also describe pink Dragons and magic wardrobes and all sorts of things, does this mean it is any less valid as a way of describing the world?

[Gen-X]

Sam

I am going to keep this simple...


SAM QUOTE 1
until there is a good explanation is found for these dimensions not being seen or some evidence of them I am sceptical obout there existance

SAM QUOTE 2
Now you tell me Maths is capable of modelling 6D space even though we can't see it.
----------------------------------------------------------
yes


Now you said you were sceptical of a 10D theory because there was no evidence of us not seeing it or evidence of their existance... and yet you are perfectly happy to accept Mathematics in 6D spaces.

I would call this a contradiction... but to be fair I will say only that it comes VERY close to being the same thing only one subject is pure mathematical theory while the other is scientific proof.

Now you obviously accept the mathematical theory because you can do the calculations yourself and come up with the same answer, use your rules of "proof" and validate them.

And yet you are sceptical of a mathematical model of the universe being in 10D not because you cannot prove it mathematically (because it is VALIDATED mathematically)... but because you cannot see it.


I get the impression here that your decision on which side of the fence to sit is based on whether it is mathematical in nature or scientific.

Therefor the SAME argument in each will exhibit a different response from you.

I put this down to your faith in Maths.

But of all of this... How then can you possibly believe in God????? What is the evidence you have been shown for this?

[Sam Finch]

Now you said you were sceptical of a 10D theory because there was no evidence of us not seeing it or evidence of their existance... and yet you are perfectly happy to accept Mathematics in 6D spaces.

I think you're a little confused

maths is a way of describing the universe, just because it can also describe other universes does not make it any less valid, it can describe a 6D space, solving any system of equations in 6 unknowns involves doing calculations in 6D space. any time we have 6 quantities we xcan assign a value to we have ourselves a 6space.

but the existance of 10 spacetimelike dimensions is very different from the existance of 6 things we can measure.

remember there was maths to describe the motion of the planets while the earth was considered the centre of the universe. All it takes is for one bloke (or woman) to say, Hang on, if we change thew nature of the string slightly and make.... then the maths works in 4 dimensions. then we don't need the 10 dimensions anymore, and future physisists will laugh at the early 21st century physicists and there multidimensional worlds in the same way as we laugh at the early 20th century physicists for their notion of the ether.

I'm not saying this will definatly happen, I'm not saying that there's definatly not 10 spacetimelike dimensions but I believe that something has been overlooked to make the maths work in 4D.

In the same way I'm not saying god definatly exists, I believe he exists because he has a medium through which to act and that medium is so beutifly hidden. As for the existance of an all loving god who helps the good and kills the evil and takes you into his house when you die. No I don't believe that.

If we look at 13th Century England when the church was not on the side of the common man Robin Hood, who probably existed but was just a bandit who was nice to people who weren't worth Robbing, was mad into some kind of god like figure in the same way as god is seen today (Yes there is justice in the world, Robin hood might come and kill the sherif and give uss all a big sack of gold) Just because the image of god has been glorified does not make it any less true.

[Gen-X]

Sam

1. Why would he "hide" it?

If God exists, if he created us and everything in our universe why hide the way he communicates?

So only a select few can hear him? How very elitist

2. 6 unknowns

You just highlighted the difference.

6 unknowns is in no way related to a 6 Dimensional reality. Each of the different dimensions have different properties and cannot all be explained in the same way. The first is a vector, the second a plane and the third a "space", the fourth gives it a "position" relative within this space and so on.

You don't like 10D and so you are hoping they will FORCE it into 4D... but why does it have to stop at 4D?

I find it too coincidental that the 4th dimension is EXACTLY like the 1st dimension in every property imaginable... with one applying to physicality and the other to chronology.

Considering our universe flows in patterns it seems to me very likely that this pattern would continue.

I base my "belief" in the existance of a 10 dimensional universe on a pattern i see... you base your "belief" in a 4D universe because it is ALL you can see.

[Sam Finch]

oh dear.

1. Why would he "hide" it? I don't know., maybe he's shy.


[quoite]So only a select few can hear him? How very elitist [/quote] Strange, I don't remember saying anything like that, maybe you just made it up to try and draw me into another agument that can't be finnished in order to switch the attention from the one you are so blatently loosing.

6 unknowns is in no way related to a 6 Dimensional reality. yes it is. It's almost exactly the same.

Each of the different dimensions have different properties and cannot all be explained in the same way yes they can. Maybe if you stopped thinking about individual dimensions and started thinking about n dimensional spaces like everyone else in the world then you'd understand.

You don't like 10D and so you are hoping they will FORCE it into 4D I'm n ot hoping anything, I suspect it will work in 4D and eliminate the need for the unexplained dimensions.

... but why does it have to stop at 4D? It doesn't, we need to introduce dimensions when we find out what they are and that they explain things, every version of string theory comes up with a different number of dimensions, when we get one with sensible explanations for what these are and why we've never noticed them before then I'll be less sceptical.

I find it too coincidental that the 4th dimension is EXACTLY like the 1st dimension in every property imaginable... with one applying to physicality and the other to chronology. how can a dimension have properties, why shouldn't they be the same. for that matter what the F***'s a dimension. in a 4D space you cannot distinguish between the dimensions, the one we call time is just the direction in which we are motiuonless, go and read a book on special relitivity (one with maths in it, not one of the **** ones that says mass increces and time slows down when you speed up, one that explains what actually happens) then you might see what people mean by 4D space.

Considering our universe flows in patterns it seems to me very likely that this pattern would continue.

I base my "belief" in the existance of a 10 dimensional universe on a pattern i see

go on then, what's this pattern? explain to me the pattern that says there must be exactly 10 dimensions, or even one that hints something about it.

If you can convince me that there is a patten and it's non mathematical and it explains stuff then well done, fame and glory awaits, you've won the argument and proved that maths isn't capable of describing the universe.

if not then all you've done is put up yet another post showing that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Gen-X]

You really cannot seperate 4D space with the 4th Dimension can you?

How about trying this.... leave maths at the door... forget about 4D spaces, 6D spaces or anything else.

Now concentrate on what is around you.

You can see the 1st dimension as it is represented in our dimension...

Its called LENGTH. Its a vector. If you followed the "length" of your desk you will see its a straight line. If you imagine this straight line continuing passed the edge of your desk you would conclude that it goes on forever and ever in both directions.

Now lets look at the 2nd Dimension. Its WIDTH. When the 1st dimension exists "WITHIN" the second dimension this vector (the edge of your desk) is now actually CHOPPED OFF.

Its the whole reason why it does NOT go on forever and ever... because the "WIDTH" has now produced for you a line SEGMENT. (I am sure your mathematical brain is keeping up with me so far).

So lets look at the 3rd Dimension... DEPTH. Now I can have an infinate number of these line segments which when placed together form an object as we consider it. Instead of just being "CHOPPED" along the line of its LENGTH the existance of the 2nd dimension in the 3rd dimension means you can "CHOP" its "thickness".

So now we have the 3rd Dimension...

Inside it exists many 2nd dimensions and inside that exists many 1st dimensions. The parts you see of the 1st and 2nd dimensions are what you can consider "resonance"... the echo of the portions as the 3rd dimension allows them to be seen.

But its all stationary.... nothing moves, nothing changes, nothing "lives".

This is because in order to move we require TIME to do it. Without the 4th dimension our existance would be nothing more than a SNAPSHOT with no way of getting to the next SNAPSHOT (the same way a 1st dimensional line segment couldn't "touch" the one next to it without being in the 2nd dimension).

So we now have the 4th dimension... TIME.

Now time is a funny thing... its a VECTOR. It has all the same properties that LENGTH has.

I cannot deviate from a vector as I cannot deviate from a line segment

I cannot go BACKWARDS along a vector because the vector has a direction just like time and length do.

So here we have a pattern....

WE have 3 dimensions and the 4th exhibits ALL the same signs as the 1st but in a different aspect.

Of course to validate this theory we need to find the 5th and 6th dimensions and prove they exhibit the properties of WIDTH and DEPTH...

But this is the same as you believing they will find a way to make the string theory 4D.

THAT is the pattern and it has just as much validity as your theory of strings being able to be explained in 4 dimensions... accept one is based on observation while the other is based on not wanting there to be any more than 4 dimensions... bringing something DOWN to your level.

Oh and BTW, string theory has only EVER predicted 2, 10 or 26 dimensions... NEVER anything else.

[Sam Finch]

Oh Dear oh Dear oh Dear.

You really cannot seperate 4D space with the 4th Dimension can you?

yes I can, 4D Space is a System of equations in 4 unknowns, the 4th dimension is a meaningless statement you insist on using for the 4D space representing SpaceTime.

You can see the 1st dimension as it is represented in our dimension...

Its called LENGTH. Its a vectorforgive me if I'm wrong but wern't we leaving maths at the door for this, or are you allowed to use it but I'm not allowed to argue back with it? oh hang on, length isn't a vector at all, it's a scalar, so we're only allowed to use maths that's wrong, I see.

. If you followed the "length" of your desk you will see its a straight line. You're getting confused again aren't you, the length of your desk is a length, it's a distance, in fact it's the distance between the 2 left and right bounding planes of the desk (assuming your desk is a cuboid otherwise your whole definition breaks down something chronic). anyway, let's take 2 arbitrary points on these lanes sutch that the distance between them is the same as the length of the desk. We can draw a line between them and extend this line to infinity in both directions.

Now lets look at the 2nd Dimension. Its WIDTH. When the 1st dimension exists "WITHIN" the second dimension . This is where you get really confused, folowing the same rules as before, width is an arbitrary line perpendicular to your length line.

by the looks of thing you are defining these lines sutch that they cross(say at one of the corners) and your second dimension is the plane described by these to lines. now not wisthing to get dechnical but there is no diffence between height and width, they are both distances, so why you have decided that width is in face a plane

this vector (the edge of your desk) is now actually CHOPPED OFFBy What, the plane? that can't be, the plane contains the whole line.

a line can be bounded by 2 points, in particular the 2 points we defined it with, there is no need for a second or third dimension, only that we are in a 3 Dimensional space and need to use these Dimensions to Define a particular line. In our 3 Dimensional world (I'll get to time later) we need 4or more planes to bound a 3D object (or just one or more curved planes)

you talk complete crap until you get to time.

But its all stationary.... nothing moves, nothing changes, nothing "lives".

This is because in order to move we require TIME

Wahey you've said something that makes sense.

Now time is a funny thing... its a VECTOR. It has all the same properties that LENGTH has.

oh bugger, you've brought up that vector word again. This is where you really show how little you understand all this. Why is time a Vector, In What Way is it even Mildly related to length? All you're doing is misenterpreting the mathematical model and trying to remove all the maths from it.

[Gen-X]

Sam

I am explaining myself very poorly.... I think its because I am failing to use maths to the level you require to actually see what I mean.

We aren't going to get anywhere...

You say maths represents the real world....

Then you say something is "purely" mathematical which by your own definition means "It is PURELY representable to the real world".

You understand 3D because there are 3 directions you can go... we ALL understand that. We then add "time" over the top as what makes us move and we package that into a nice and neat little "box" that we call reality.

If that is where you choose to stop your understanding, if you choose to only see things in mathematical concepts then I am wasting my breath in trying to share my ideas and thoughts.. because they will never meet your requirements.

Part of the problem is that when I use the word "dimension" you assume your own meaning and not the one I am intending... and when you use the word "mathematical" I am asuming MY own meaning and probably not the one you are intending.

So we are actually arguing with each other in 2 different languages.

I say leave maths at the door but because I use words that existed in the english language BEFORE maths came along like line, dimension, length, width you immediately cry foul.

The only point I was trying to make is that an equation with 4 unknowns (A 4Dspace) is NOT the same as a respresentation of our universe under time.

One is a mathematical concept that has some applications in the real world....

The other is the real world that it is talking about.


If one "represents" another than that means it will never have the same level of detail as what it is "representing"

Can we agree on that at the very least?

[kedaman]

I am explaining myself very poorly.... I think its because I am failing to use maths to the level you require to actually see what I mean.

Let me explain it instead an you will get the picture:

3 Dimensional means Three unknown factors:
0=aX+bY+cZ

Purely mathematical, and simply describing positioning in real world.

What's not in reality is
1. The axis and base vectors
2. The origo


I say leave maths at the door but because I use words that existed in the english language BEFORE maths came along like line, dimension, length, width you immediately cry foul.

Those words are mathematical Gen-x, believe it or not but before the word "math" was used, we used math without having a label on it. Even animals that lived millions of years ago used math to i.e. calculate distance

[HarryW]

OMG this post is STILL running? I'm amazed anybody could stand bashing their head against the brick wall that is known as Gen-X this long :D

My phone line is metered and it's 3:30 am here in the UK so I've only read the last page (page 5) of this thread, but I think I get the general picture.

The posts I've read of Sam's have made more sense the more I've read. The posts made by Gen-X have made less sense the more I've read. I'm SO tempted to poke in the cracks of stuff that has been said that is a bit silly, but I'd rather not waste my time just to get an arrogant 'Oh poor you, you don't understand, let me show you' response. Considering that the main point of this discussion back around Christmas time was whether things could be proven or only disproven, I'm surprised that I've never seen Gen-X acknowledge any disproof of his ideas.

I think it shows a lot of character if someone can admit when they're wrong, and it's something I try to do. It can be very difficult to do, though, when the person who has established that you are wrong is aggressive and/or patronising. It's like raising your voice louder in an argument, it doesn't make people listen to what you say it just makes them lose respect for you and shout back.

In other words, if you want to establish something as true/untrue (I think that's probably the point of an argument) then it is important to try to keep things friendly. If this thread is truly an investigation into deep philosophical questions, then the different sides with different opinions ought to be working together to establish the truth. By all means take different sides though.

I know I haven't stuck to my own ideas regarding being nice, but arrogance annoys me, especially when combined with ignorance.

[Gen-X]

HarryW

I can accept that... there have been areas where I have corrected myself and apologised for being wrong. (Re Black Hole to Nebula for starters)

I will try and explain simply where I am having a problem


Dictionary Definition of Maths :

"The study of the measurement, properties, and relationships of quantities, using numbers and symbols"

Sam's Definition of Maths :

"Maths is the language of Logic, it is the method of quantitativly describing the world we see around us through the use of models"

Dictionary Definition of Purely : (Among other things)

"Containing nothing inappropriate or extraneous"


Lets look firstly at my accepting of Sam's definition of what Maths is.....

If he was to then to use the words "purely Mathematical" then that would indicate it is purely and TOTALLY describing the world we see around us through the use of models.

Thinking of that logically it means that the entire "content" is about describing the world we see around us... which infers that nothiing "extraneous" can exist in there... So if we start using concepts like 5Dspaces.... Complex Numbers or whatever else that we "cannot use to describe the world we see around us" then it really isn't "purely mathematical"

Now I know this is pedantic, I know what Sam really means when he says "purely mathematical"... but that is my whole point... Talking about "dimensions" is NOT purely mathematical because I can use the word dimension in the context like the series sliders or Star Trek which shows a "dimension" as being a plane of existance. This isn't maths, its a concept.


Now if you look at the actual definition of Maths it shows that it is a study of properties of quantities etc, etc...

Now I agree that you can apply some of these rules to the universe because everything in the universe has a "quantity" in some way... but that doesn't mean purely because you have a mathematical formula and the "start" of that formula matches real-world entities that you can extrapolate it to the nth degree and STILL hold true.

While it is quite feasible to plot points in 4 dimensions mathematically... we cannot do that in the "REAL WORLD" because it is not possible to travel instantaneously to different places.... and even if we provide some formula that determines the "speed" of movement as a result of going from 3D point A to 3D point B.... we cannot REVERSE this.

I am not bound by the fact that "TIME ONLY GOES FORWARD" when I perform mathematical functions and so I can plot anything anywhere in a 4D space without any constraints. If you were to plot in a 4D space the location of a specific body of mass (lets say the earth) then you could not place it OUTSIDE of the sequence in time that it is there.


It is this fundamental difference that I have been tryring to get across to Sam.... That the mathematical theory and rules that apply to calculations of a 4Dspace are NOT the same as the description of what we can see in the world around us.

Is this such a hard concept to grasp? I accept they interlink in places and that maths can be used inside and outside of this at any point... predictions can be made about the occurance of things in the future as a result of maths.... but the PAST is the PAST and nothing we can do will bring it back or give us the ability to calculate it or test it.


The argument AGAINST what I have said is that the moment I use any word like line, angle, axis, dimension, length etc, etc then I am AUTOMATICALLY talking about nothing but maths... even though all of those concepts and terms existed BEFORE they became mathematical and it was the fact they existed before that was the whole reason maths used those terms to correctly reflect what they were talking about


I might be arrogant, I think we all are but few admit it... I even know that I probably throw around the word "ignorant" a bit more than is probably fair.... but I think I am confusing "ignorant" with "simple a different view"... perhaps you are doing the same?

[HarryW]

Hmm, maybe.

Sorry, it's a thing I have that really annoys me - sometimes people will tell you things that they don't actually know are true, and it's a bit like lying on my eyes (I hold honesty above all virtues). Anyway, I'm not saying you're necessarily doing that, I could just feel it creeping in at the end there... *Shrugs*

I would like to apologise for the slightly aggressive nature of my previous post. I didn't mean to be quite as... umm... insulting (?) as it seemed now that I read it again. My opinions have differed from yours very frequently you see, and although I can tell you know a fair bit about stuff like this, I have sometimes wondered how sure you are of your facts... *Shrugs again*

Anyway, I think it probably does come down to different ways of thinking (which I think is most of the problem with the religious debate going on at the moment, but I won't involve that in this thread). I think if someone does something intensively for a long while then they start to think in a way that is structured according to the needs of the concepts of the subject. I tend to think in the way that gets me through A-Level and Degree level maths, physics and computing courses. I do find it hard to kind of 'think out of the box' sometimes, if that's the right phrase.

I still read the posts Sam has made and can understand immediately, and read Gen-X's and it's a bit blurrier. Maybe it's the way of thinking thing.

[Sam Finch]

Gen-X

Ok, Seeing as you are getting your dictionary out I shall do something similar to try to define dimension

let's look at your definition of Dimension, This is quite hard because you seem fairly unwilling to define it.

The stange thing is you seem to define The N'th Dimension as roughly what I call an N dimensional space but you define all the first four dimensions differently.

You seem pretty clear on the Idea that they are all vectors (if you were to take this mathematicly it could lead to some interesting Ideas but that's incidental.) So let's look up Vector in me word book.

1 In Mathematics A Quantity with Both a Magnitude and a Direction It is represented by an arrow with it's length representing.......

Looking at the second word we'll go straight to the only other definition

2 A Desease Carrier.

I'm not going to continue, I think I've made my point. Don't start taking things litterally.

Now, going back to my "definition" of maths I seem to recall You asked "What is Maths" a Dificult question to answer in one sentance, especially as I suspected that Gen-x had prepared a cunning trap for me were I to give his dictionary definition, but rather than dodge the question I gave an educated guess

It is the Language of Logic

I quite like that definition, It's the sort of thing you could put ion a university prospectus, "Study Maths, it's the language of logic." Then, I gave you some extra bonus information,

It's the method of quantitively describing the world around us.

by which I was saying

If we wish to study the world around us Quantitivly then we must use maths.

from this Idea I gave my Syllogism

1 in order to describe anything quantitivly you must use maths
2 dimensions are used only to describe things quantitvly

imlplies

3 Dimesions are a meaningless concept outside of maths

Which Gen-X did not dispute, but he did ignore it and went on to argue that the there are parts of maths that do not describe tangible objects then maths was invalid. (which I Dispute on the grounds that the logic is flawed and the conclusion is wrong)


Now get your dictionaries out again and look up Dimension

A measurable extent of any kind

This is what dimensions were before Fermat and Descartes gave us the modern Idea of a N dimensional space.

Now I agree that the real is not a mathematical object, and you must agree the in order to start describing space quantitavly we must use maths and the most usefull techniques involve the Idea of a dimension.

What we are arguing about is your Idea of trying to remove numbers from the Idea of a dimension, (another good point is that we can quantitivly describe our universe without the Idea of a dimension (don't ask me to, it's like trying to code without using subroutines or goto statements, It could be done by copying code into the path of your exe but it's much harder and involves unfamiliar techniques)) while you can think of dimensions without numbers they are pretty useless, You are also saying that Dimensions are almost Tangible objects, rather than just a concept used to describe our universe, this I also Dispute whole hartedly.


HarryW

Thanks I'm glad you like my arguing style. I think the reason my arguments are clearer is that I'm taking the mathematical point of view, Maths lends itself well to The clear concise form of argument I'm using and half of learning maths is to be able to argue that way. Gen-x has taken a difficult point of view to argue especcially as it would almost weaken his case to use maths style aguments. Instead he has to try to shoot my arguments down so I have to move over to his point of view. and that appears to be his forte. I'm actually a great fan of arrogance and sarcasm, especcially when combined with ignorance, It's one of my favorite methods of arguing about politics and stuff (in which I am trully ignorant but don't tell anyone).

[Gen-X]

Sam, Sam, sam...

I appologise if I gave you the impression I was discrediting ALL maths. From your last post that seems to be the way it came out.

All I was saying is that while maths works perfectly for those things we have found they "fit"... it doesn't mean you can then use JUST maths to predict what will happen after that.

To indicate this think of the use of Maths to determine the molecular weights of elements.

When Protons and Electrons were discovered they were able to determine the "weights" of these particles. From that they performed mathematical calculations to "predict" what the weights of other elements would be.

They were correct on ALL but 2 occasions.

Does this mean that the elements were wrong? or the maths was wrong?

Actually NEITHER!

The problem was that they hadn't discovered "neutrons" and in the cases of the 2 that didn't match it was because of additional neutrons.

When they applied NEW mathematical formulas that incorporated these neutrons the calculations came out correct.


This is a prime example of how maths can go wrong when you take something (for instance geometry) and that works perfectly for the things you KNOW (3 dimensions to define a space in a room) and try to apply to to something that is BEYOND our worldly ability to determine the factors for (5D spaces).

This was the main point I was trying to indicate but unfortunately I did it with a lot of other examples and other thoughts and attempted to tie it in to things that perhaps it didn't fit.

Does this make it clearer? Are you now at least understanding that while maths is a perfect vehicle it requires us to be able to TEST in the real world to confirm the maths and not the other way around?

How then can we ever deal with something "purely" mathematical when we don't have something in the real world to CONFIRM that the maths is right????

[Sam Finch]

ah, why didn't you say this earlier, I don't disagree with you on this on, In fact I think this favours my argument.

but you're basing a lot on the grounds that hypothosese can be incorect, us mathematitians distance outselves from stuff like this and leave it up to the scientists to make mistakes.

The maths was of course not wrong, it's just a 19th century chemist spotting a pattern and hoping it continued, he didn't prove that it was correct, he merely saw that it worked for a lot of elements.

So if we assume that somehow someone discovered that our universe was 5 Dimensional but it doesn't fit with our mathematical Idea of a 5Space.

Does this mean the maths is wrong, no, maths is never wrong it's just misapplied (see our chemist)

It in fact means that our universe is not 5 Dimensional it's something else.

so we go to the maths library and look at all the maths we have (and there's a f** of a lot of it) and with a bit of luck we find some maths that someone did just for fun which fits perfectly as far as we know, or we make some more maths, and there we have it, dimensions are a purely mathematical concept.

obviously this assumes that we make the strange discovery above, which is unlikley, especcially as maths doesn't limit itself to whole numbers of dimensions (wierd fractal type maths allows fractional and irrational dimensionality for some objects but don't ask me to do any sums in 8 and a half dimensions)

but this is the point I'm making The modern Idea of a dimension is completley mathematical, it just applies so well to our universe that it's easy to get mixed up between the model and the reality. (particularaly in 4&5D with relitivistic effects)

I don't think we'll ever find a model that fits the universe perfectly, because if we do then all that's left for scientists is to measure constants, and the more we measure constants the more we find they're not constant.

That's why I'm saying that dimensions are purely mathematical, because that's all they are, just a way of trying to describe space.

[Gen-X]

At least we have managed to agree on that.

Can I then assume that you also agree that trying to "prove" things mathematically doesn't work because if you apply the wrong maths then you wont ever get proof.

Doesn't this mean the "hypothesis" has to be right? That the maths can corroborate but not in itself PROVE something?

Wasn't that therefor our whole debate in the beginning? That maths wasn't capable of proving something? You have as much as said it here by saying "we leave that up to the scientists.. we distance ourselves from it".



But back on Dimensions... (I hear a groan).

Is the modern idea of a dimension what you say? we have all seen Star Trek and the Twighlight Zone... we have all read books like Magician by Raymond E Feist and we have all seem movies like Terminator etc, etc....

Maths doesn't have definitions for a "dimension" when used in any of those contexts.

A "dimension" as being an alternate reality
A "dimension" as being another universe altogether
A "dimension" as being an anti-universe

The list goes on and on... and none of them are based on maths.

When I was talking about a higher "dimension" I was not refering to another variable that is unknown tacked onto 4 already existing unknown variables... I was talking about another "plane" of existence... a completely different level of reality that interacts with ours.

In essence you could consider the Quantum level to be a different dimension altogether... we as humans never actually see atoms but we know they are there...

In this sense the word "dimension" means "a level of existance far enough removed as to make it completely dissimilar".

I know it doesn't sit well with you and I know that it is harder to explain... but that doesn't mean it is an invalid use of the word simply because it isn't mathematical.

[Sam Finch]

I thought I Replied to this about a week ago. Oh Well, I'll Ju8st Have to Type it all again.

Can I then assume that you also agree that trying to "prove" things mathematically doesn't work because if you apply the wrong maths then you wont ever get proof.

I Definatley Though we agreed this.

In determining a physical law There are 2 Distinct Methods. I shall name them as follows.

1 Observation and Extrapolation

This is the Process of testing unknown laws and trying to find patterns, Then Extending these Patterns into mathematical formulae.

2 Extension

Once these laws have been established and tested to oblivion we then use them as assumptions to make more laws or to prove and find limitations of other observed laws.

it is in stage one where the errors start, these errors are then magnified by stage 2 if they are incorrect, thus we state out assumptions in the laws such that we know where the limits are.

This is the Difference, Maths can prove something based on the assumptions provided by experiment. by proving these assumptions based on other assumptions we can reduce the assumptions that various laws are based on and just look at the situation that we're in to check if the laws will work. as long as the assumptions are true, or at least a good approximation then the laws will still be valid.

If you say I have proved something it is on the assumption that the known laws of physics apply, then I can say that it is propved and indisputable unless you can show me some strong evidence that these assumptions don't apply in the case we're talking about.

And Back To Dimensions

We Have another Definition Of Dimension as Follows.A "dimension" as being an alternate reality
A "dimension" as being another universe altogether
A "dimension" as being an anti-universe

I would argue that this is a different word, in the same way that Pound as in a measurement of weight is a different word to pound as a place to keep stray dogs.

If we were arguing whether or not a pound is exclusively a measurement of Force and you brought up the Idea that a pound is a place to keep dogs it would be a pretty Irrelevent argument.

In the Same Way I distinguish between the Mathematical word dimension and the Science fiction word dimension

The Science Fiction Word is simply something invented for fictional purposes, it is easier to understand than the Idea of a fourth or fith dimension because it is completley non mathematical They don't exist in the Real world, String theory certainly uses the mathematical word.

your Idea of the Quantum level as a dimension while interesting is not a seperate plane, the rules of QM work on a macroscopic scale but average out into the conventional laws of physics due to the huge numbers of particles involved, there isn't one world where the laws apply and one where they don't.

The 2 Meanings are completley seperate, and only the mathematical one applies in any way to reality.