Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 @transient, I like your ideas. I don't subscribe to them, though. If the 5th dimension is mind, how does that apply to the physical world? Does a rock exist in four dimensions, and then our "experience" of the rock is in the 5th dimension? Sorry if that is a stupid question, but I do not understand the statement "the mind is the 5th dimension". Could you elaborate? It is all very interesting. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Tormod, realistically, you can never prove anything, but you can show sequences of patterns that arise from observation. I tend to use the bus theory ( if there's a bus headed my way, I'll believe in the bus and move out of the way ). The idea of what our consciousness seems to be, is always being hammered out. But I don't see how a consciousness ending proves that reality can be finite, one is limited perception, the other is objective phenomenological stimuli. What about the heat (and other waves currently theorized) that is given off by the mental functions of brain processes. Anyway, quantum physics only admits that there is a limitation in understanding and technology to sufficiently address certain issues, but rest assured, understanding will always be modified. The history of science is one of constant discovery and constant self-correction. The further links in the chaotic chains of causality will not be known until they are known, and once they are known, it will seem as if it were there all along. If the universe constantly provides us with mysteries, then we will constantly be uncovering those mysteries, unless we choose to eradicate ourselves first. Thinking there can be an end to the cosmic questioning, is like settling for an answer because you're tired of the quest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Tormod, the rock statement is indeed correct, and indeed the concept is fairly simple. The rock is an actual phenomenological occurence of innumerable force interactions in time-space. However, our experience of the rock in our path is completely foreign to whatever the objective physical actuality of the rock is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 @transient, quite the opposite. I do not think finality is a problem. I have no quibbles with the idea that life will end and that the Universe as we know it will be gone. Rather, I hesitate in accepting an idea that says the mind is a real dimension with an effect upon the physical world. Why? Because it is a very anthropomorphic world view. It is elevating the human mind to a status it does not have (from my viewpoint, obviously). The history of science as we know it is a history of human trial and error, mostly error. There was no science before human beings, at least not on Earth. Yet there is quite good evidence that the universe has existed for 13.7 billion years, while human beings have been around on this 4,6 bln year old planet for a mere 140,000 years or so. We count the years of "civilization" in a few millennia. If the mind is a dimension, then surely each mind is a separate dimension. Every sentient being would constitute a dimension of its own. An intelligent dolphin would be in a different dimension than a human being. The history of science does not apply to dolphins. It is human by default! I do think things can be proven, but not everything. I also think there are things we can't prove (for example, we cannot prove that "reality" will ever end - because we will never agree on what that word implies. This is because language is a limitation of our minds). A part of this is due to the way we view science. Modern science is very Aristotelic in that way. We observe, note, and deduce. Hume called this Cause and Effect. But I don't think the human mind plays a part in the cosmic game. No matter how many brains you put on this planet, it would not have an effect on the orbit of the Moon, the length of the day, the distance to Alpha Centauri, the age of the Universe. So the mind might want to think it has a special place in the Universe - but this is like saying the Earth is the centre of the Universe. It sure _looks_ that way, considering that we can see equally far into space in all directions (in 3D space), yet we know better than that. I do not argue that the mind can change things. I can decide to break this object now. I will have acted upon a physical entity and broken it into parts. But I cannot by mere thinking stop the flow of neutrons from the Sun passing through my body. My mind is very limited in its range of influence. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Also, Tormod, if there were a cap to reality, anything conceptualized outside, or beyond the boundaries of what is real, would be considered another type of dimensionality ( the non-dimensional dimension). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 @transient, good point. But my view is that there is no "non-reality". So the mind cannot constitute a dimension. It is merely a sentient, physical being's way of coping with being sentient. (btw - bedtime for me now, past midnight in Norway - let's keep it up tomorrow) Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Tormod, I'm saying that the mind is an unreal dimension, but it does definitely have observable effects. And yes, each "entity" capable of possessing it has a tailor-conditioned one just for them, dolphin or human. And yes, each dimension seems seperate but they all in fact share the same source stimuli. And there could never be an end to a universe unless we know that what spurred the universe was also over, and to know what spurred that, and so on. As far as the human factor changing any cosmic equations, don't be so pessamistically bias. Thog the caveman could have never envisioned flying, or splitting an atom, or even the wheel. Imagine what we'll be capable of 10,000 years from now. To get to 10,000 years from now, we have to experience now first. The universe didn't invent humans to become the center of it, but until we run into greater intellect, we seem to be the greatest probability for extreme unnatural affectation and manipulation of the very laws that govern reality itself. In my book that means much responsibility, and I see no reason not to assume the mantle of center of universal interest ( until something comes along and shows otherwise). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 A dimension could be any collective of states that are deduced from another state, but not wholly comprised of it. A point needs the addition of a length to become 2-d, a line needs an axis to become3-d, energy interacting throughout the axis makes it 4-d. And a delusional recognition of some portion of the 4-d interaction happens in lofty 5-d environments. Environments created from the 4-d phenoma but not wholly comprised from it, memories/emotions/sensory shortcomings, these are what predominantly exist in our dimension. Science, philosophy, and psychology all do very well to make a distinction between what we observe in reality, and what reality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 Tormod, There can be no end, for there can be no beginning. The only thing observable is constant change without determination, but we may determine it. Language evolves too. The limit or end to our universe can be stated in a different way, a way not so muddled in ancient anthropomorphic delusions of beginnings and ends. What if we state it thus: A significant change in the fundamental evaluations ascribed to the qualities of our concievable experiences and notions of observable phenomenon. I know it sounds a bit wordy, but we're talking about an extremely complex subject so I wanted to be contemporary and precise! Now the difference between universe/multiverse/dimensions is one of arbitrarily convenient quantification, it's all interacting measurements of "reality". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 I think we'll have to move this thread into the philosophy category now. Also, there are many issues in this thread but I'll try to summarize my ideas in one post. You write: "A significant change in the fundamental evaluations ascribed to the qualities of our concievable experiences and notions of observable phenomenon. I know it sounds a bit wordy, but we're talking about an extremely complex subject so I wanted to be contemporary and precise!" I'd argue that when the (ok, "our") Universe ends there will be no sentient beings there to observe it. Your definition is _very_ anthropomorphic. Who decides what the fundamental evaluations are, and who ascribe them to our experiences? Our only experience with sentient beings is here on Earth. The Universe has a billions of galaxies with trillions of stars and planets. We can hardly claim that our being present here for a mere fraction of the Universe's life span has made any contribution to the state of the Universe. I can believe that reality has once begun and that it will once end. I know it will for _me_ as a conscious person. But you can say it will never end, and has never started. Yes. That is also true. Such is the dictatorship of semantics, which is a product of our minds. It would not matter if we meet meet greater intellects. How would we know if there are not other, even greater intellects? It does not matter. For all I know, whales could be smarter than us. Yet I hardly think their existence matters to the Universe. I don't think the Universe is sentient. So I think reality is real, no matter what we think about it. That is why it existed before us and will exists after us - but it need not have existed forever. My point is that yes, we do observe and experience, and yes, that is unique to every single being. That does not take away the wonder of life - in some sense we are the "eyes of the Universe" (book tip: The Universe that discovered itself, by John Barrow (Amazon link http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192862006/qid=1067414952/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8409095-1608055?v=glance&s=books). But we hardly see beyond the tips of our noses. Only a few of our space probes have left the solar system. As for ourselves, we have sent 6 manned missions to the Moon - 30 years ago. The cosmos is not like the ocean - it is a lethal place to travel in. I don't even for one moment think that the Universe has placed us here. We are born out of billions of years of evolution. If the Universe had not begun, we would not be here. It did, we are here, but we were not here for 99,99% of the Universe's existence, and the odds are we won't be around for much longer (in cosmic terms). You also write: "Thog the caveman could have never envisioned flying, or splitting an atom, or even the wheel." But yet he did. We are the same people now as we were back then. Studies show that human beings from tens of thousands of years ago had the same body chemistry, the same brain, they had weapons, tart, religion. We are direct descendants of Thog. The only difference, basically, is that we have a greater sense of our history, and we have perhaps a deeper understanding of things like physics, chemistry, the place of the Earth in the Cosmos and so on. But history is a difficult thing. In the western part of the world, achievment is very much measured in terms of technological advance. But if we have learned _anything_ from history, it is that the human tendency to place ourselves (or our minds) at the centre of things has been awfully wrong. So what if our civilization will be great in 10,000 years? I say it is not likely. No civilization has lasted that long. But even if it did, what difference would it make to the Universe as a whole? Well, frankly, we can't say. Maybe we will find ways to create a new Universe and escape into it (Stephen Baxter writes great science fiction novels about cosmic life spans). It might expand reality for us. The Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the transient Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 Here is ( possibly ) my last words on the game. Straying away from the original mathematical string application to integrated philosophical linguistics, I think that sometimes science needs to observe philosphical breakthroughs or else it could be mired in less fruitful conceptualizations, which ultimately frame their experimental directions. Our advancement over thog is one of triumphant data archiving. The infinite breakthroughs in understanding are all just a matter of time and surving time collectively as well as keeping our records straight. The greatest threat to science and advancement is the ignorant over-emotionalism which could lead to our eradicating ourselves during our adolescence. But nothing says this current trend has to be a fact Even if the odds are stacked against us for surviving our own technological wrath, the plot of every good human story is about beating the incredible odds. Some of us think we've been priming our minds (our sense of ethics, morality, conscience) to effectively quell this catasrophic loss of the human equation for quite some time in our myths and legends, subtle subconscious conditioning over 1,000,000 's of years. As far as aliens go Tormod, we can't assume for practical applications that there are other advanced consciousness beings just because it "seems" highly probable based on current data. Remember, there are ultimately no rules and even the patterns we observe are somehow arbitrary, we might be the only real singularity in the universe! Don't be so bias against anthropomorphism, it's all you'll ever have and seems to be the greatest tool the known universe has housed. Our advancement from cosmic egocentrism was just a logically necessary phase arising out of another logically necessary phase. To get from A to C, you must pass through B. Your belief that reality began and will end seems like a lingering metaphysical limitation in the slow process towards dynamic thinking in non-linear ways. It's hard not to reflect ourselves into the universe, we feel like we have a beginning and end, so we graft that attribute unconsciously onto reality. But we know in another more objective way that we never end, only the capability to speak the word "we" ends. If the multiverse had not always been, then how could it be here now? Think linear versus non-linear. What we think of as dimensions are mathematical and imaginative-construct conceptualizations of actual dimensional force interactions. If given enough time to amass sufficient information, we could, with certain accuracy, "predict" such things as an end or infinite universe without having to actually experience it. Isn't this what astrophysicists have been doing since Olbers in 1823? You have not seen the same future as I. Never believe in limits, they belong to the past. You have learned to meld science back with the philosophy it arose from, Now you must learn to meld science with love if you wish to survive much longer. It's been fun playing, Tormod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted October 29, 2003 Report Share Posted October 29, 2003 You should be aware that you are discussing this with a non-scientist. I am a musician, writer and journalist. The only science class I ever took was one on acoustics! I happen to have a strong interest in science because of a deep, overwhelming love of discovery. I read science literature because I love the concept of communicating science and the wonders of it to others. Cosmology happens to be the very field which I find most overwhelming and hard to understand, but I think it appeals to me because of the philosophical issues it raises every time someone comes up with a new theory. Anthropomorphism might have been a necessary step in history. It does not mean that we agree on what C is! We don't know where we're going. And everyone in this world has a different past and a different future - history is a subjective matter which cannot be made by consensus. And I don't think I ever wrote that I believe reality will end...? I said we can't prove whether it will or not. An important part of cosmology is about understanding where the Universe came from and where it will end up - the multiverse is just a theory. It is, like very much else in cosmology, a theory which is unprovable. Let's give Thog a rest and take up other issues. Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleray Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Thanks for the link on the String Theory. As you understand, I was only interested into dimension and each dimension's feature and reason for its existance. But, as I read the String Theory...it seems to suggest that instead of creating dimension. They are limiting dimension. The are all those theory that each prove existance of string theory using 10 and more dimensions. By defining dimension. They are sort of limiting our original theory of dimension...that it is simiply a 1 + 1 equation. That 5th dimension comes next to 4th dimension has no extra meaning. it's just another space. yet in those string theory. Each dimension seems to be created for an extra scenerio.If the discover of dimension is under this condition. When a scenerio that our science can't explain, that we say that it happens in a different dimension, so that's why we don't understand it.... String theory sounds just like a way to describe "picture" reality of our current "3-D" world. Also, string theory seems to be describe what happens at the point where matter so small that it has to be energy to exist. Isn't this like saying. 1-D object..turning into zero-D object....But, during this transformation. We create 10 or more extra dimension to explain how 1-D turn into zero-D. Talk about zero-D. Is there any picture or online demonstration of zero-D...e.g. there are computer generate program that produce 4D object going through a 3D view...or demo of how zero-D envolve into 1-D then 2-D and so on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleray Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 @the transient I am confuse, under your assumption, that a mind is a dimension for birds and cows and stuff. So, a dimension can be just a way to model reality (perception)? Computer does that too. You mention "A dimension could be any collective of states that are deduced from another state, but not wholly comprised of it." What if a computer models a 4-D object and demonstrate to user when it goes through a 3D view. In your term...it means that an Computer Program (dimension a ), tries to model 4D (dimension B which contains 4D dimension in calculation) and demonstrate it in 3D view (dimension C which contains 3D dimension view) projecting into a 2D view Screen(dimension D of 2D view). Then gets read into the our mind (dimension E). Does Dimension A-E all be counted as dimension under your assumption? If that is so, that any creation of perception will becomes a dimension under my understanding of your explanation.... But, that sounds more like a perception of reality. I thought we were here to find out what is the 5th dimension in our reality here right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted November 5, 2003 Report Share Posted November 5, 2003 Hey Littleray - did you correct your e-mail address like I asked you to? Read this post Tormod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thurst0n Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Hello, I'm new, I'm 16, and a Junior in High School, I began thinking about all of this last night and read most of this thread after searching google for 5th dimension string theory (this was the first result) Focusing on Time Dimensions for a Second-- I think of it more like Present=0 dimension Past and Future combine to make the 1st dimension (completing the time "line") and then a Alternate time line parallel to ours would be the 2nd(kind of like in back to the future) Then the Z-Axis of time would be Posibly another 'dimension' or something like this.(i forget the word used before) I'm not quite sure, I really have no idea, this is just what I came up with on my own. Is there a generally accepted theory or idea? Please correct me if I'm wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thurst0n Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Also since we can simulate a 3-D object on a 2-d Plane (paper or chaulk board) can we model a 4d object on a 3d Plane like a physical model or something???It seems plausible I think i heard about star trek doing somethign like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts