Dimensions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seems like common sense to me.

After all, a piece of paper is only two dimensions, right? But it is only defined when you can utilize a third dimension.

The fourth dimension is time. Plenty possible perceive it to some extent. Traveling through it is hard, but it's just like folding that piece of paper to have one corner touch another. You just need to bend time and space. Easier said then done.
 
Seems like common sense to me.

After all, a piece of paper is only two dimensions, right? But it is only defined when you can utilize a third dimension.

The fourth dimension is time. Plenty possible perceive it to some extent. Traveling through it is hard, but it's just like folding that piece of paper to have one corner touch another. You just need to bend time and space. Easier said then done.

One point of interest in this matter for me is that if we had the natural capacity to view less dimensions than three, then we would have an even more false understanding of the world around us. This would lead to different architecture of it as well, to make sense in a two dimensional percieved space. Now that we see in three dimensions we make shapes which are understood and have some value for us in those dimensions. Much like a sphere would appear as a circle increasing and diminishing in our 2-dimensional line of sight, likewise all architecture would be different, and only present a then mythical third dimension by means of projection (like painters use projection to give a pseudo-3d envirnoment, whereas a sculpure is real 3d).
Maybe there exists a fourth dimension (not time) that we do not see, while other beings do see it, and their own architecture and thought would be different due to this added capacity too.
 
A "point" doesn't require intersecting segments to exist. If there are intersecting segments, a "point" is recognizable and may be quantified, labeled and graphed.

If one postulates 2 dimensions must exist for a single dimension to exist and express, and 3 dimensions must exist for a 2 dimensional segment to exist and express and so on, the net effect is going to be "infinite dimensions", each being a necessity to express the last. Ultimately nothing would be quantifiable because those "infinite dimensions" form a singularity, or a point.

Euclidean space is not infinite and expressly so by the fact of correspondence. You've thought yourself into a circle trying to redefine parameters with a sort of "word game", but the point isn't entirely lost when considering the potential for "additional, relatively unperceived vectors".

Instead of attributing the values "all" or "always" (is) or "least common" (is shared), or mislabeling hypothetical additional vectors as "4th dimensions" and so on, since you're interested in this, you might consider investigating others' learned views on the matter. You'll need a strong background in math and alot of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom