about creation and AI

You're getting close.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

... 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Now you tell me Maths is capable of modelling 6D space even though we can't see it.

---

yes.

Quote:

---

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?

Sam

I am going to keep this simple...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

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.

oh dear.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

6 unknowns is in no way related to a 6 Dimensional reality.

---

yes it is. It's almost exactly the same.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

... 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Oh Dear oh Dear oh Dear.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

You can see the 1st dimension as it is represented in our dimension...

Its called LENGTH. Its a vector

---

forgive 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.

Quote:

---

. 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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

this vector (the edge of your desk) is now actually CHOPPED OFF

---

By 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Quote:

---

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,

Quote:

---

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

Code:

---

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

Quote:

---

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).

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????

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.

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.

I thought I Replied to this about a week ago. Oh Well, I'll Ju8st Have to Type it all again.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.