"an ancient dilemma..."

Originally posted by twhitehead
So now you change the claim altogether, but not before declaring anyone who disagreed with your original claim (that you now admit was false) to be dimwitted.

The only thing that changed was the wording so as to make it easier for you to understand. This is something I really shouldn't need to do since the idea behind those words was of no great mystery. But for you to not understand that, and actually think I'm admitting to a falsehood, is so stupid and self serving I can't see it as being anything other than whatever may be taking place within the fertile imagination of your mind... I don't actually live in there, so please don't assume I am in there.
Because I'm not.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Where do you see me saying anything about a "plank where it intersects the plane"?

If you remove one dimension you get a two dimensional plane through the universe. I assume that is what you meant. If you didn't, then I am no longer sure that you even understand what a dimension is.

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?
I am not convinced that what I said is so different from what you said. What is the key difference? How does it affect your claim?

And what do you [b]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?[/b]
How could there be an outline if you didn't have a plane intersecting the board?

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?
I dispute the claim that nothing is left of the board.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]The only thing that changed was the wording so as to make it easier for you to understand./b]

No, you changed the meaning.
You originally said:

Time is not a true dimension.

You have now said:

I should have said time is not a spatial (instead of true) dimension

If you had originally said "time is not a spatial dimension", nobody would have bothered replying because nobody thinks time is a spatial dimension. It is the time dimension.
Time is however a dimension.

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only thing that changed was the wording so as to make it easier for you to understand. This is something I really shouldn't need to do since the idea behind those words was of no great mystery. But for you to not understand that, and actually think I'm admitting to a falsehood, is so stupid and self serving I can't see it as being anything othe ...[text shortened]... actually[/i] live in there, so please don't assume I am in there.
Because I'm not.

If I were to say that you were a "lying disingenuous scumbag"...

And then later said that what I meant and should have said was "decent honest person"
but that all I was changing was the wording to make it easier for you to understand...

Would you buy that?

Originally posted by lemon lime
The only thing that changed was the wording so as to make it easier for you to understand. This is something I really shouldn't need to do since the idea behind those words was of no great mystery. But for you to not understand that, and actually think I'm admitting to a falsehood, is so stupid and self serving I can't see it as being anything othe ...[text shortened]... actually[/i] live in there, so please don't assume I am in there.
Because I'm not.

Wow, what a disingenuous response. 😵

Originally posted by lemon lime
Observing 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.

I responded clearly to a specific point you made. Now - yet again - you
go off at a tangent. Your posts merely keep stating the obvious and then
"infer" something very, very wrong.

I truly think you are limited by your own imagination and intellect.

Originally posted by lemon lime
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 happen ...[text shortened]... t a point in time (and not a point in space) on another topic at a different thread...

That sounds like a valid topic to discuss (though I am not sure whether the spirituality forum is the best place).

The scientific method certainly can be, and has been, used to examine the foundations upon which we base our ideas and assumptions, witness Einsteins refinement of newtonian physics which completely reset our view of space and time.

Your first point was not a bad one to make. Thought-experiments like that are a good way of examining our view of reality and that is exactly how Einstein did his work. When the point is challenged though, you need to be prepared to consider the challenge reasonably and respond with cogent counter arguments, modify and adjust your point to take account of the challenge or even abandon the point and admit defeat if the challenge reveals a fundamental problem.

In the end though, the final arbiter is reality itself. If experiment supports your point then you are vindicated. If not you have to abandon the point. So far, all experiments agree with Einstein that time is a true dimension similar to (but not exactly the same as) the three spacial dimensions.

I am wondering what these last few pages have to do with the OP of 'an ancient dilemma...'. Was your second point going to be relevant to this?

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by Penguin
That sounds like a valid topic to discuss (though I am not sure whether the spirituality forum is the best place).

The scientific method certainly can be, and has been, used to examine the foundations upon which we base our ideas and assumptions, witness Einsteins refinement of newtonian physics which completely reset our view of space and time.

Your ...[text shortened]... n ancient dilemma...'[/i]. Was your second point going to be relevant to this?

--- Penguin.

That sounds like a valid topic to discuss (though I am not sure whether the spirituality forum is the best place).

Any hint of disagreement with a strictly naturalistic or presently accepted scientific view point is subject to banishment to a forum such as this one. As you say, this may not be the best place to discuss topics like this but it's probably the best place for someone not to worry over it being banished to the science (or some other) forum.

The scientific method certainly can be, and has been, used to examine the foundations upon which we base our ideas and assumptions, witness Einsteins refinement of newtonian physics which completely reset our view of space and time.

Unless someone high up in the scientific hierarchy believed his papers had any merit worth considering, Einstein could have easily started and finished his career as a competent patent clerk. I doubt his ideas could have easily gotten passed our present day peer review process and seen the light of day. But even if he did get published (today) who do you think would believe it was anything more than an exotic and weird idea? Einsteins rise to fame was the sort of Cinderella story I believe many scientists today are hoping will happen to them. Back then I'm sure his ideas were initially scoffed at, such as calling time a dimension or comparing acceleration to gravity. But I doubt Einstein himself thought of time as a dimension in the same way he thought of physical mass having dimensions. Dimension was probably the best (or maybe only) word he could find to describe what he was talking about.

Your first point was not a bad one to make. Thought-experiments like that are a good way of examining our view of reality and that is exactly how Einstein did his work. When the point is challenged though, you need to be prepared to consider the challenge reasonably and respond with cogent counter arguments, modify and adjust your point to take account of the challenge or even abandon the point and admit defeat if the challenge reveals a fundamental problem.

My biggest challenge here has been in trying to overcome the misinterpretations and intentional misrepresentations of my points. I can only do what you suggest after that has been dealt with, but IMO there's not much chance of that happening.

In the end though, the final arbiter is reality itself.

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]That sounds like a valid topic to discuss (though I am not sure whether the spirituality forum is the best place).

Any hint of disagreement with a strictly naturalistic or presently accepted scientific view point is subject to banishment to a forum such as this one. As you say, this may not be the best place to discuss topics like this bu ...[text shortened]...

In the end though, the final arbiter is reality itself.

I couldn't agree more.[/b]

This seemed strangely relevant...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of books on mathematical cranks, including The Trisectors, Mathematical Cranks, and Numerology: Or, What Pythagoras Wrought. And in a 1992 UseNet post, the mathematician John Baez humorously proposed a checklist, the Crackpot index, intended to diagnose cranky beliefs regarding contemporary physics.[2]

According to these authors, virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:

Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.

Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.

Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.

Cranks love to talk about their own beliefs, often in inappropriate social situations, but they tend to be bad listeners, being uninterested in anyone else's experience or opinions.

Some cranks lack academic achievement, in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering the truth, but actively harmful because they believe it poisons the minds by teaching falsehoods. Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously.

Some cranks claim vast knowledge of any relevant literature, while others claim that familiarity with previous work is entirely unnecessary; regardless, cranks inevitably reveal that whether or not they believe themselves to be knowledgeable concerning relevant matters of fact, mainstream opinion, or previous work, they are not in fact well-informed concerning the topic of their belief.

In addition, many cranks:

seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,

stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,

compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus , implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,

claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,

appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance.

Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:

exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,

misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,

ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.

That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation.[3]

In addition, cranky scientific theories do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank theories in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific. Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused, not even wrong manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming.

Perhaps surprisingly, many cranks may appear quite normal when they are not passionately expounding their cranky belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky beliefs.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But I doubt Einstein himself thought of time as a dimension in the same way he thought of physical mass having dimensions. Dimension was probably the best (or maybe only) word he could find to describe what he was talking about.

It has become painfully obvious that you have no background in mathematics or physics and don't actually know what the word 'dimension' means.
I strongly suggest you read up on it before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
You could start with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

Originally posted by twhitehead
It has become painfully obvious that you have no background in mathematics or physics and don't actually know what the word 'dimension' means.
I strongly suggest you read up on it before continuing to make a fool of yourself.
You could start with Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension_(mathematics_and_physics)

I never claimed to have an extensive background in math or physics. When exactly did this become painfully obvious to you, and where does it hurt? You should have that looked at by a qualified professional, or it could become infected.

I've corresponded with a few scientists (mostly physicists) and they had no problem with any of my questions or comments. I can think of only one who didn't really have much to say other than to recommend a book he had written, but that was my fault. I started off telling him what I believed the results of his experiments proved, but it didn't occur to me he was actually attempting to prove something else. He was able to prove gravity travels so much faster than light it was impossible to determine its top speed. I assumed he was trying to prove gravity is instantaneous (something I believe) but apparently that wasn't what he wanted to prove.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This seemed strangely relevant...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_%28person%29

Common characteristics of cranks

The second book of the mathematician and popular author Martin Gardner was a study of crank beliefs, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. More recently, the mathematician Underwood Dudley has written a series of book ...[text shortened]... y belief, and they may even be successful in careers unrelated to their cranky beliefs.

You didn't need to look that up and re-post it here, you could have just pointed to the numbers appearing in those thumbs-up/thumbs-down boxes. Actually, if I don't get at least one thumbs down I'm disappointed... it means none of you feel your own positions are in any real jeopardy.

Originally posted by 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 y as well. How do you account for these considerations if time is not a dimension?

You've started with a time during which the board is in existence to "freeze" everything. But, for a typical board which is an impermanent thing, there are times before which and times after which that board exists.

Irrelevant. I was talking about freezing time when the board does exist. Was that not obvious?

If you pick some other time to "freeze" everything, no reason to think this board exists.

Why would you assume freezing time when a board does not exist is at all relevant to an illustration of freezing time when a board does exist?

So you haven't shown the existence of the board does not depend on time...

You've shown the board's existence on the timeline is dependent on when that board existed, which seems somewhat redundant but I'll let it go for now. So the board's existence at any particular point in time depends on where you are looking on the timeline. But what I said was (without the unnecessary side trip through time) the boards existence does not depend on time being a dimension when the board does exist. Was it not clear to you I was actually talking about an existing board? Did I really need to clarify that point? Who with an IQ over 90 would need to have that clarified for him?

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

Adding on your own conditions to an illustration does nothing to disprove the illustration. It only means you have changed the conditions in order to prove the illustration false, which you haven't actually done. All you have done is to come up with your own illustration, and you haven't actually said anything to disprove mine was false. This is easy enough to understand, but what I don't know is if you goofballs are only jerking me around or if you really are as dense as you appear to be.

Originally posted by the essence of lemon lime
[b]You've started with a time during which the board is in existence to "freeze" everything. But, for a typical board which is an impermanent thing, there are times before which and times after which that board exists.

Irrelevant. I was talking about freezing time when the board does exist. Was that not obvious?

If you p ...[text shortened]... balls are only jerking me around or if you really are as dense as you appear to be.

Pfffffft...

"...you haven't actually said anything to disprove mine was false."

And not only that, but you haven't said anything to prove it was false... or disprove it was true.

Originally posted by lemon lime
When exactly did this become painfully obvious to you,

When you started ranting on as if you knew what the word 'dimension' meant better than Einstein.
So have you read the Wikipedia page yet, or do you wish to remain in ignorance the rest of your life?