0
   

How many dimensions are there?

 
 
HexHammer
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 05:00 am
@Diogenes phil,
Seems I lost myself in my own vision of the matter, I will now answer the initial question.

Depending on which M theory there are 8-11 dimentions.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 11:15 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;166289 wrote:
In Buddhist philosophy, by contrast, there are no 'essences' nor is there 'an ideal realm'. What we actually see all of the time are conditioned realities. These are not unreal in a gross sense - step in front of a bus, and it will hurt. We are, it seems, part of this conditioned realm, at least insofar as we too are conditioned beings. But they are also not real, either, insofar as they consist of a myriad of parts, each of which is composed of parts, and which are in a constant state of change and decay 'arising and ceasing according to conditions'. (cf Heraclitus).

Accordingly the Lankavatara Sutra says 'the world is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise'.
Uhmm, so, when someone is kicking your ass really bad .."it's just a condition of reality" and "it is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise?" therefore we shouldn't intervein, nor help you afterwards?
Bracewell
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 04:35 pm
@HexHammer,
As I understand it, there are three dimensions but as time is so intrinsically connected to these three dimensions then it too can be considered as a dimension.
It seems to me that science has got into a tizzy; jumping into multiple dimensions before formulating a satisfactory explanation of how three dimensions come about. Another example is gravity, where force, acceleration and inertia are all bound together in one grand dance but the reason why things move at all is confused.
I don't think science is all that sophisticated; dominated as it is by life on a rock, which is an unnatural condition.
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 05:07 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;166289 wrote:


Accordingly the Lankavatara Sutra says 'the world is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise'.

So that is something to meditate on.:bigsmile:


Beautiful quote. I don't say it much, but I deeply value your presence here. Man, that's a great line. Oh, someone will gripe about double-negation or something and miss the charm...but not me. :Glasses:

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 06:48 PM ----------

HexHammer;166528 wrote:
Uhmm, so, when someone is kicking your ass really bad .."it's just a condition of reality" and "it is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise?" therefore we shouldn't intervein, nor help you afterwards?


Come on, Hex! You know it wasn't meant that way.Smile
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 06:51 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;166629 wrote:
Come on, Hex! You know it wasn't meant that way.Smile
Ofcause, then I just wonder why post it at all?
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 06:59 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;166528 wrote:
Uhmm, so, when someone is kicking your ass really bad .."it's just a condition of reality" and "it is not as it appears, nor is it otherwise?" therefore we shouldn't intervein, nor help you afterwards?


Actually I was watching a brief interview with the Dalai Lama last night on Youtube (part of a series called Yogis of Tibet). He related an anecdote about an old yogi that had spent 18 years in Chinese internment camps. So I guess he would know a fair bit about getting his ass kicked. Dalai Lama asked this yogi how he managed to handle it. The old yogi said 'Once or twice I felt I was in real danger'. 'What do you mean, physical danger?' 'No, I almost began to hate the Chinese'.

If course most of us don't have that kind of forbearance, although I do remember a verse somewhere about 'doing good to those that harm you' which might have some bearing on it.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 11:00 AM ----------

I admit, this is off topic. I will be put further postings on such topics in the Buddhism area where they belong.
0 Replies
 
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 07:39 pm
@HexHammer,
HexHammer;166678 wrote:
Ofcause, then I just wonder why post it at all?


Do you wonder or are you only saying that? I like you, Hex. You speak your mind. So don't blame me if I play your devil's advocate. Perhaps you are such a happy person that pieces of poetry like that are simply not valuable to you. Well, I'm glad life is good, friend.

I don't think you've been terribly fascinated by some of philosophy's investigation of the reality/appearance issue. You have to join in that game to see why that quote is charming. It's an in-joke, you might say.

I wish you well, Hex.

---------- Post added 05-20-2010 at 08:40 PM ----------

jeeprs;166681 wrote:
The old yogi said 'Once or twice I felt I was in real danger'. 'What do you mean, physical danger?' 'No, I almost began to hate the Chinese'.

Another great line. Thanks, man. I dig this stuff. The twist!
0 Replies
 
Leonard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:35 pm
@Diogenes phil,
You need 26 dimensions of spacetime in the string theory of bosons. Everything 'lines up' at 11 and 26 dimensions. I like the 4th dimension of space because rotating tesseracts look cool. The penteract of the 5th dimension also looks cool.
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 09:35 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Why is that "miracles", contraventions of the laws of nature and supernatural interventions can be plausibly entertained
but
M theory and 11 dimensions just "blows every body's mind" and is considered silly?
Where is imagination when it is really needed?
Reconstructo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 09:43 pm
@prothero,
prothero;166726 wrote:
Why is that "miracles", contraventions of the laws of nature and supernatural interventions can be plausibly entertained
but
M theory and 11 dimensions just "blows every body's mind" and is considered silly?
Where is imagination when it is really needed?


Personally, I have no affection for the concept of miracles. And string theory may turn out to be viable. I hope I didn't strike you as one of the unimaginative. I was just suggesting that mathematical dimensions are going to be experienced fully only by mathematicians/physicists. Even if string theory leads to time travel, to be perhaps excessively imaginative, we humans will presumably still be experience all this in 3-dimensional space. Quantum theories are so strange that string theories can hardly be considered in themselves. I'm no scientist, but my imagination is happy to go there. Long ago Voltaire wrote a great short story about aliens with 9 sense organs. I've always loved that sort of thing. In math, there is a space of infinity dimensions, but I haven't really explored this.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2010 11:03 pm
@Bracewell,
Bracewell wrote:

As I understand it, there are three dimensions but as time is so intrinsically connected to these three dimensions then it too can be considered as a dimension.
Time hasn't been proven to exist, only vaguely explained by Einstein, which still didn't prove anything at all. Time is just a mere messurement as speed.
0 Replies
 
Sentience
 
  0  
Reply Mon 30 Aug, 2010 12:00 am
@Reconstructo,
Actually, this has been edited mathematically to provide four spatially, as the fourth accounts for the folding of space/time as done in Wormholes.
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Sep, 2010 09:18 am
@Sentience,
Sentience wrote:

Actually, this has been edited mathematically to provide four spatially, as the fourth accounts for the folding of space/time as done in Wormholes.
Ahem, why do you state theory as fact? Folding space has never been proven, only theorized.
0 Replies
 
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 12:35 am
Just got a few questions.

What is the usefulness in examining reality as having dimensions? I'm not saying this to convey doubt. On the contrary. But I'm surprised that the idea hasn't been put forth yet where the idea of 'dimensions' has comes from, why it was invented, how it is used today, etc. In mathematics it's very understandable. One can simply treat a dimension as a variable in a set and that's very handy. But also, I wouldn't mind examining its conceptual uses. I mean, I know this is going to sound ironic, but dimensions are very simple to conceptualize, though not visualize. To what extent is this simplicity contradicting how we treat the word 'dimension' - which is to say, a word we treat with reverence and as if there will always be something we cannot know about it. Where does this mindset come from? When we "experience" dimensional space, there's nothing complex or unknowable or esoteric even about it. It is wrong to assume we experience dimensional space visually, even 3-dimensional space. We experience it conceptually. There's too big of a difference to ignore the fact. One doesn't get a free ticket into a conversation concerning this haughty question, how many dimensions are there just because one has a visual perspicacity for dimensional experience. We have to understand this topic through a conceptual understanding of the word. This means that one might do to know some mathematics or programming involving math. A working with, playing around, and creative manipulation of the word helps to bring about the useful conceptualizations of what the word actually means.

A philosopher who knows only philosophy knows nothing, let alone about this topic. Yet when a philosopher has a solid background in mathematics, physics, or programming, suddenly he knows he has to bring these skills into the problem in order to answer the question at all.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 02:37 am
@Holiday20310401,
Usually I basicly say the same as you, why ask such simple question, but the question issn't simple as it's difficult to look up, one has to dabble in various theories such as Super Strings, M Theory, Super Symmetry, Geometry. Even looking it up does not give a clear answer, only confusion.
Various theories states "time" as a dimension, which doesn't really make sense since time hasn't been definitivly proven.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:09 am
@HexHammer,
"Flatland" - Edwin Abbott

"Shape of Space" - Jeffrey Weeks

"Relativity" - Einstein

These are all great books which keep the math to a minimum, but are very helpful for learning about this topic.
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 11:30 am
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

"Flatland" - Edwin Abbott

"Shape of Space" - Jeffrey Weeks

"Relativity" - Einstein

These are all great books which keep the math to a minimum, but are very helpful for learning about this topic.
Dunno that Fatland book, but Shape of Space ..eeeehh?!?! ..there are no proven shape of space, there has indeed been many theories, specially as of late.
Einstein never could fuse his Relativity Theories with quantum.

..so ..yearh.
Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 06:07 pm
@HexHammer,
Flatland is a short story (also a classic) about the concept of 2 dimensional space.

Shape of Space is a good intro to general topology, what it's all about, etc. There's hardly any math, and it's actually intuitive.

Relativity is a book Einstein wrote which really acts as a philosophical ride through Einstein's though process, what the theory is really about, etc. It's a great example of topology in physics.

Alright, so that out of the way.

There may not be any proven shape of space, assuming what you mean by space is the whole shebang. But there doesn't need to be a proven shape of 'space' for the same reason there need not be proof of extra dimensions. When we talk philosophically about subjects involving theories it's almost more useful to talk about the theories simply as perspectives. Yes, provide them the respect that someone had to think it up and then of course pay respect to that person. But there's something about talking about a scientific topic philosophically which leaves the value judgments of 'theories' off the table. Philosophers are concerned about the value of the perspective, that is, its usefulness, its aesthetic appeal, its intoxicant appeal, its taste, its humor even, etc. In science there is a progression of theories, some which disprove others as the years go on. But to talk philosophically about them is to let that valuation go, sort-to-speak. There is progress in the certainty of theories to describe our realities over time. But it is not good to talk about them in an all or none manner, where for example, this theory is true, this one was wrong, etc. A philosophical conversation demands that an ingrained sense of why theories are right or wrong has found a place in the convictions and intuitions of those who come to the table. For this reason, what better than to read about the theories and convictions of the greatest minds to have lived on the planet.
HexHammer
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 06:49 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401 wrote:

Flatland is a short story (also a classic) about the concept of 2 dimensional space.

Shape of Space is a good intro to general topology, what it's all about, etc. There's hardly any math, and it's actually intuitive.

Relativity is a book Einstein wrote which really acts as a philosophical ride through Einstein's though process, what the theory is really about, etc. It's a great example of topology in physics.

Alright, so that out of the way.

There may not be any proven shape of space, assuming what you mean by space is the whole shebang. But there doesn't need to be a proven shape of 'space' for the same reason there need not be proof of extra dimensions. When we talk philosophically about subjects involving theories it's almost more useful to talk about the theories simply as perspectives. Yes, provide them the respect that someone had to think it up and then of course pay respect to that person. But there's something about talking about a scientific topic philosophically which leaves the value judgments of 'theories' off the table. Philosophers are concerned about the value of the perspective, that is, its usefulness, its aesthetic appeal, its intoxicant appeal, its taste, its humor even, etc. In science there is a progression of theories, some which disprove others as the years go on. But to talk philosophically about them is to let that valuation go, sort-to-speak. There is progress in the certainty of theories to describe our realities over time. But it is not good to talk about them in an all or none manner, where for example, this theory is true, this one was wrong, etc. A philosophical conversation demands that an ingrained sense of why theories are right or wrong has found a place in the convictions and intuitions of those who come to the table. For this reason, what better than to read about the theories and convictions of the greatest minds to have lived on the planet.
I don't see the point in your fairytale for scientists, besides what's the point of discussing anything if it's not in a scientific manner? Then it's just a bunch of elaborate rethorical babble, self endulgence, mental mastrubation.

Holiday20310401
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Sep, 2010 07:54 pm
@HexHammer,
So will you read Flatland, Shape of Space, or Relativity?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 11:03:08