31 Jul 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59If a tesseract (or hypercube when you were at school) can only exist in 4 or more spatial dimensions then how is it observed?
Looks like you had the same (limited) education as RJHinds!
A tesseract (or hypercube when I was at school) can only exist
in 4 (or more) spatial dimensions. It has nothing to do with fooling our senses!
You are confusing a 2D representation of a tesseract with the actual thing itself!
It would be like looking at a picture of a cube and ...[text shortened]... t in 2D and that the artist has used perspective to fool us into believing cubes are 3D objects.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI changed my mind. Getting to my second point now would be anti-climatic and pointless. Before I posted those illustrations I thought Aha, here is something they can't screw with!
If we ignore quantum mechanics for a moment and assume that all fundamental particles are single points in space, then I could, with careful selection, find a plane that intersects 3 fundamental particles. Considering the random placement of fundamental particles, I could probably not find a plane that intersects more than 3. So I should see three particles or less.
...but once again you have proven me wrong.
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSo when are you going to actually tell us what you thought you would see? You keep asking the same question as if you think the answer will somehow illustrate your point, but you never seem to get to your point. You even said I was so dim witted that I consistently get it wrong. So I am waiting to see what the right answer it. Do you know it, or are you going to keep it a secret?
I changed my mind. Getting to my second point now would be anti-climatic and pointless. Before I posted those illustrations I thought Aha, here is something they can't screw with!
...but once again you have proven me wrong.
Or are you finally admitting that you were wrong in the first place and all this posturing has been a fruitless attempt at avoiding admitting your mistake?
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloSuperb clarification there LemonJello.
Sorry, your argument just does not make sense to me. You say that if you have a board and then freeze time, the board still exists (whereas you claim time ceases to exist). So you claim the board's existence does not depend on time and hence time is a not a "true dimension". Well, first of all, like I have already said, you haven't actually justified w ...[text shortened]... y as well. How do you account for these considerations if time is not a dimension?
I'd just like to add that as well as taking slices through the time dimension that include and exclude the board, you can also take slices across any of the 3 spacial dimensions that include or exclude the board.
So as several others have said, this argument does not demonstrate that time is any different to the spacial dimensions.
I too would love to hear your second point, to see if it holds water even if we accepted your first point was valid (or even cogent).
--- Penguin.
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeHere again is your first point:
I changed my mind. Getting to my second point now would be anti-climatic and pointless. Before I posted those illustrations I thought Aha, here is something they can't screw with!
...but once again you have proven me wrong.
Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th dimension of time has vanished. And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are needed for any material object to exist as physical reality. Take away one and the object will cease to exist, and can then only exist as a concept or an idea. For example, a two dimensional object cannot actually exist, because even with length and width it still needs the dimension of depth to be anything other than an idea or an imagined concept. Two dimensional objects cannot actually exist except in the imagination.
If you 'freeze' (I assume you mean 'take a slice through time at a specific time coordinate'😉, at a point in time where an object does not exist, you cannot then view the object since it does not exist at that frozen point in time. Same with any of the space dimensions. So this does not show time is different from the spacial dimension, it actually shows it as being the same.
Likewise, if you 'freeze' time at a coordinate where the object does exist, you can 'see' the object in the coordinates of space. If you 'freeze' a space dimension where the object exists, you can 'see' the object in its remaining 2 space and one time coordinates.
All you have done is demonstrate how time is exactly the same as the space dimensions, not how it is different.
Now, on to your next point. We'll give it a go if we can.
--- Penguin.
31 Jul 13
The fun thing about dimensions is that one can often find a different set of dimensions for any given space. Not only can you rotate the axes, but you can do things like polar co-ordinates. I wonder if quantum mechanics would make more sense in polar co-ordinates?
I suspect that one could find a set of 4 axes that all include time. ie we can make it so that time isn't one dimension of the 4.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI already told you:
So when are you going to actually tell us what you thought you would see?
"Okay, you believe there won't be much substance to it after that last one dimensional layer of board has been removed. So how much substance are you suggesting could be there after an entire one dimensional layer has been removed? All I am able to see is an imaginary outline of the remaining two dimensions. What do you see?"
Are you trying to keep me here by recycling through what has already been said?
31 Jul 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNot really, We feel that your initial proposal about time is invalid and have explained why. You have tried to rebut our criticisms, unsuccessfully in our view.
I already told you:
[b]"Okay, you believe there won't be much substance to it after that last one dimensional layer of board has been removed. So how much substance are you suggesting could be there after an entire one dimensional layer has been removed? All I am able to see is an imaginary outline of the remaining two dimensions. What do you see?"
Are you trying to keep me here by recycling through what has already been said?[/b]
Lets now get on to your second point. Just imagine for a moment that we have accepted your first.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinI should have said time is not a spatial (instead of true) dimension. Time is commonly spoken of as a dimension, so I understand why it is believed to be no different than any of the 3 spatial dimensions.
Here again is your first point:
[i]Time is not a true dimension. This is both intuitive and correct, and is easily proven. If you freeze time and then view any physical object you will see that all three dimensions of that object are still there, but the so called 4th dimension of time has vanished. And just to be clear, all three true dimensions are need erent.
Now, on to your next point. We'll give it a go if we can.
--- Penguin.
If you 'freeze' (I assume you mean 'take a slice through time at a specific time coordinate'😉...
And I will assume you are not attempting to redefine my illustration.
...at a point in time where an object does not exist...
Why would you assume an object I'm referring to does not exist? Are you saying it does not exist because it stops moving, or are you simply picking a point in time (for whatever reason) when the object actually does not exist?
...you cannot then view the object since it does not exist at that frozen point in time.
You will see no photographs of me before I existed as well, but what does that prove?
All you have done is demonstrate how time is exactly the same as the space dimensions, not how it is different.
No, that is what you have demonstrated. I honestly believed attempts to screw with an illustration could be dampened by not making it too complicated. I have woefully underestimated the ability and desire of some to engage in obfuscational counter arguments.
Now, on to your next point. We'll give it a go if we can.
My next point had to do with science building on foundations, and examining what those foundations are or are supposed to be. But my foundational first point has apparently failed to meet with your approval. I've been peer reviewed out of the game before it starts, but that is how message board games are played here, are they not? Same thing happened when I was talking about a point in time (and not a point in space) on another topic at a different thread...
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Originally posted by lemon limeYou obviously cannot observe it directly.
If a tesseract (or hypercube when you were at school) can only exist in 4 or more spatial dimensions then how is it observed?
But you can observe 3D or 2D representations of it (same as looking at a
picture of a die is a 2D representation of a 3D object).
You can also observe it through intersection with a 3D or 2D object
(analogous to the intersection of a cube with a plane)
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Observing a 3D representation of a 4D object can be done, but unless it can be proven how a 4D reality is literally able to exist, then it really only exists (in the here and now) in our imaginations. Intersecting a cube with a plane doesn't really solve this problem because our perception of reality is necessarily limited to 3D of space and 1 of time.
You obviously cannot observe it directly.
But you can observe 3D or 2D representations of it (same as looking at a
picture of a die is a 2D representation of a 3D object).
You can also observe it through intersection with a 3D or 2D object
(analogous to the intersection of a cube with a plane)
I tried explaining at another thread how a 3D picture of the big bang, including a timeline from the singularity until now, necessarily needs to drop one of the dimensions of space so it can be shown as a flat 3D picture. That didn't go over too well with some people because they thought I was talking about a 3D picture of the universe (without the timeline). The explanation made sense to me, even after looking at it again, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm saying too much or not saying enough. It's too easy and self serving for anyone to say it's the fault of the reader, so I don't want to go down that road.
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by lemon limeSorry, I missed that in amongst the questions. What is an 'imaginary outline'? Why would you not see the substance of the plank where it intersects the plane?
All I am able to see is an imaginary outline of the remaining two dimensions.
Are you trying to keep me here by recycling through what has already been said?
01 Aug 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhere do you see me saying anything about a "plank where it intersects the plane"?
Sorry, I missed that in amongst the questions. What is an 'imaginary outline'? Why would you not see the substance of the plank where it intersects the plane?
It's one thing to overlook what I did say, because that is easily remedied by showing it again. But how do you justify making stuff up, then coming back to quote yourself as though it was something I said?
And what do you think I might mean by an imaginary outline if I didn't mean the outline of a board where I have completely removed one of its three dimensions? If nothing is left of the board after only one of its dimensions has been removed, then what do you suppose would be left other than an imaginary outline of those other two dimensions?