What is eternity?

[Spatula]

What is eternity?

Well, answer it! I'm too groggy to bother.

[Nightscape]

Oh my god..... these 'quasi-religious' topics keep appearing.  I think I'll make up another one for completeness sake.  

As for your question, the prerequisite to understanding eternity would be to understand time.  I don't think that we understand time well enough to answer your question.  After all, what is time?  Can time be divided into infinetly smaller units, or does it occur in indivisable quantities?  If it does occur in indivisible quantities, was there a first of these?  Will there be a last?  If you think of time as a dimension like the three of space, an interesting concept appears.  This is my personal belief:
The three dimensions of space are constantly expanding (i.e. the universe is constantly expanding in all directions as matter expands out into empty space).  However,  it is slowly but surely slowing down, even if by barely noticable quantities.  So, if time is a dimension similar to space, then mabye time is also "slowing" down?  So perhaps in the far distant future, time will have slowed down so much that it stops altogether! If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as eternity; the universe would expand through all dimensions until it ran out of energy to expand within those dimensions.

[Tash]

this room is getting incredibly deep and meaningful. i'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. however my mind is too wacked at the moment to anser such a thing. so i shall say eternity is forever

[xvimbi]

Ah, what great fun to be had in these discussions!

As for your question, the prerequisite to understanding eternity would be to understand time.  I don't think that we understand time well enough to answer your question.  After all, what is time?  Can time be divided into infinetly smaller units, or does it occur in indivisable quantities?  If it does occur in indivisible quantities, was there a first of these?  Will there be a last?

As I said in the other threads: time is change. As long as something changes, there will be time. It is quite simple.

 If you think of time as a dimension like the three of space, an interesting concept appears.  This is my personal belief:
The three dimensions of space are constantly expanding (i.e. the universe is constantly expanding in all directions as matter expands out into empty space). However,  it is slowly but surely slowing down, even if by barely noticable quantities.  So, if time is a dimension similar to space, then mabye time is also "slowing" down?  So perhaps in the far distant future, time will have slowed down so much that it stops altogether! If that's the case, then there would be no such thing as eternity; the universe would expand through all dimensions until it ran out of energy to expand within those dimensions.

Does space expand? Does space have to be filled with matter to be considered "space"? Can't space simply exist, with the Universe expanding within it, like a balloon being inflated within a large container? One could argue that space does not expand, and it also does not slow down, it simply exists. On the other hand, the Universe within this vast space does indeed expand, i.e. the space occupied by matter/energy is increasing. It is this expansion, which is slowing down.
What would we call the space that contains the Universe?

[JK]

Eternity is something infinately long that our minds are unable to imagine it, I find that people tend to think of everything having a beginning and an end, because everything in this world appears to be so, try to imagine that the universe and everything in it has been here forever, without a beginning, it's impossible to imagine.

If that makes any sense at all!

[Saturn]

When one has had too much to drink, time becomes infinite (at least, until the next morning).

That is eternity.  

[m1469]

Dear xvimbi,

I am wishing to better follow your reasoning, and have realized a few more questions that pose problems for me...

1.  Are you assuming matter to be a solid mass even at its smallest partical?

2.  Are you assuming even a motive to be a property of matter, perhaps a chemical of sorts?

3.  Are you assuming environment or "space" to be the compilation of places that are of different environmental forces than that of others?

4.  Are you assuming that there is a place with a beginning and an end?

5.  Are you assuming there to be distance between these places?

6.  Are you assuming that we can "change" environment?  

7.  In the elapsing of time, are you assuming that there is an end to even the smallest portion of time?

I should only wish to follow better what you are putting forth as reality.

Thanks,
m1469  

[xvimbi]

Dear xvimbi,

I am wishing to better follow your reasoning, and have realized a few more questions that pose problems for me...

1.  Are you assuming matter to be a solid mass even at its smallest partical?

No. In these dimensions, it is more useful to look at matter as a form of energy and not to envision it as solid particles.

2.  Are you assuming even a motive to be a property of matter, perhaps a chemical of sorts?

I am not sure what you mean by "motive". If you are referring to "ideas" or "thoughts", I would tend to view them as forms of energy (which is equivalent to matter). As such they are not a property of matter. They are rather composed of matter/energy.

3.  Are you assuming environment or "space" to be the compilation of places that are of different environmental forces than that of others?

I don't understand this question.

4.  Are you assuming that there is a place with a beginning and an end?

Beginning and end of what? From here on, I don't understand your questions. I'm afraid, the way you phrase things is too complicated for me.

5.  Are you assuming there to be distance between these places?

6.  Are you assuming that we can "change" environment?  

7.  In the elapsing of time, are you assuming that there is an end to even the smallest portion of time?

[m1469]

Dear xvimbi,

(it is always a mind teaser for me to remember what letters go where in your name, whatever do they stand for?)


I am still trying to work out this idea of change.  I am wondering still about what constitutes the idea of location, since that is one of the main things that constitutes change.

Here is what confuses me...

How can something or somebody literally change location if there is not a literal beginning and an end from one location to another?  Basically, what is it that specifically makes something or somewhere a literal point A, and then point B?

If there is no literal beginning and end in location, then there seems that there could be no literal change in location.  So, you see, by the laws of my mind I have to wonder about these things (and I know that you must also be very inquisitive).

Another thought along these lines is that it seems one can never step outside of the largest defining position, therefore never really changing position at all (if there is never an end to one position).

For example, if I were to step out of the room where I am in I would enter into the hallway, but I am in both cases, still within the house.  And from a macro viewpoint, I am still within the macro environment in which I have always been in, and have not literally changed position because I have never left the broader surroundings.

Does this make sense?

Thanks,
m1469

[xvimbi]

I am still trying to work out this idea of change.  I am wondering still about what constitutes the idea of location, since that is one of the main things that constitutes change.

How can something or somebody literally change location if there is not a literal beginning and an end from one location to another?  Basically, what is it that specifically makes something or somewhere a literal point A, and then point B?

If there is no literal beginning and end in location, then there seems that there could be no literal change in location.  So, you see, by the laws of my mind I have to wonder about these things (and I know that you must also be very inquisitive).

Another thought along these lines is that it seems one can never step outside of the largest defining position, therefore never really changing position at all (if there is never an end to one position).

For example, if I were to step out of the room where I am in I would enter into the hallway, but I am in both cases, still within the house.  And from a macro viewpoint, I am still within the macro environment in which I have always been in, and have not literally changed position because I have never left the broader surroundings.

Does this make sense?

I am still not sure if I understand correctly, but I'll try. Changing location means moving from point A to point B, with both points being at different locations with respect to each other within a reference coordinate system. To use your example: you move from the room (point A) to the hallway (point B) on the surface of the Earth (reference coordinate system) within the solar system (another reference system).
On different levels, change does not necessarily need to involve a change in location. For example, you could stand still and watch your hair grow (change). You as a whole don't move, but looking at the hairs themselves, they do indeed change location. On a quantum mechanical level, particles can change their quantum states without moving.

[Motrax]

Eternity is having to listen to one kid after another hack out Chopin's Revolutionary etude.  

[m1469]

Okay, xvimbi, thank you for humoring my questions to you.  I think I understand where you are coming from, and on a level I agree with you.  I have also realized that I have a lot of questions, which could define eternity its own unique fashion.  Other than that, I think I would like to give this subject a rest for a while.

I must say that I respect your standpoint and, was especially interested in your post within the purpose of Satan thread, relating to quatum physics.

So, I will say, thanks for the conversation, and good luck with it all.  I will see you around the forum I suppose.

m1469

[bernhard]

Yes. This question is related to dimensions but time is not the 4th dimension in the same way that depth is not the 3rd dimension.

So here is the short of it.

Our sense perceptions are limited. For instance, we can only see in two dimensions (if we could see in three dimensions, we would have 360 degree vision). If the only sense we had was vision, we would never discover that there are three dimensions. We find out about the three dimensions through the sense of touch. Touch tells us about depth. So we learn to interpret visual distortions as perspective. Without touch we would never have got there. So pay attention because everything hinges on the next statement: Depth is not a dimension. Depth is the name we give to the internal feeling generated by moving in the three dimensions.

But we can also move in other dimensions. Unfortunately the senses that allow us to do that are mostly ignored in our culture: we don’t even have names for them. However, move we do, and we feel the movement. The name of the sensation of moving in 4 dimensions, is of course time. So time is not a dimension, it is a sensation (quite a sensational sensation, come to think of it). Confuse these two concepts and you will argue for all eternity (he he).

The fourth dimension is not an isolated dimension. It is the other three plus one. Just like the 3rd dimension is the other two plus one. If you take any dimension by itself, they are exactly the same and they are just one dimension. However, when you join two dimensions at straight angles, then you get a plane. The second dimension is not the isolated dimension you added to the first to create the plane, but rather the two of them together. Likewise, the 3rd dimension does not refer to the extra dimension that you added to the plane, but to the three of them together. There can be no third dimension (by definition) by itself, the third dimension is the first + second + third, or even better:

1s dimension = 1st dimension
2nd dimension = 1st dimension + 1st dimension
3rd dimension = 1st dimension + 1st dimension + 1s dimension

Likewise, the forth dimension is the set of four dimensions altogether, when you add an extra dimension to the other three.

So, understand this, otherwise endless and unnecessary argument will follow: There is no difference between isolated dimensions. The difference is that there are more of them.

What we call “space” is not the three dimensions, but rather the name we give to the sensation that we experience as we move in the third dimension.

Add another dimension, and you will experience the sensation of “time” as we move through it. Time is not different from space. It is space to which another dimension has been added. The sensation of course is very different, which is the reason why we have different names for both experiences.

Add another dimension to the fourth, and you will now have a five dimensional set which is called “eternity”. We are of course, constantly moving within this five dimensional geography. The sensations we experience when moving within this realm are quite well known to all of us. It is just that we do not know that this is what they are. They are called “emotions”. Move within the realm of the fifth dimension and you will experience emotions, be they good or bad, positive or negative.

There is also a sixth and a seventh (zero) dimension. There nothing moves. But there is enough exploration to be done within the first five I mentioned, so get to work!

By the way, instead of discussing useless stuff, try this: within the dimensions, what is it exactly that moves?

Here is another line worth of exploration:

The first dimension is the point: 0 dimensions. (or the zeroeth dimension)
Move that point and you get a line: one dimension (or the first dimension)
Move that line and you get a plane: 2 dimensions (or the second dimension)
Move that  plane and you get a solid: 3 dimensions (or the third dimension – associated feeling: space)
Move that solid and you get a…well I like the Sanskrit term Lingam Shahira: 4 dimensions (or the fourth dimension – associated feeling: time)
Move the lingan shahira and you get ***: 5 dimensions (the 5th dimension associated feeling: emotions in general)
Finally, move *** and you are in six dimension realm (the sixth dimension) where further movement is not possible. (This is not exactly accurate: you can move, but you take this as a zero dimension again and start another cycle of seven dimensions).

Instead of discussing the scheme above, consider this: the movement to create a higher dimension is not any movement: if you move a line along its axis, you do not get a plane, you just get a longer line. You must move the line in an orthogonal direction, which means that you must move the line in the plane direction, hence the plane must already exist for the line to move into it.

Now the implications here should get you going for a while. (have you noticed that Eternity is not the final step?)


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

By the way, it is also possible to have fractionary dimensions (e.g. dimension 1.37).

[xvimbi]

By the way, it is also possible to have fractionary dimensions (e.g. dimension 1.37).

"Fractal" dimensions, to be ultra-anal  

There are also reciprocal dimensions, e.g. rather than length, one would have 1/length, hihi.

Anyway, Bernhard, what philosophy inspired our treatise above? It's not math/science for sure (the stuff about dimensions higher than 3).

[bernhard]

The last I heard physicists were talking about 26 dimensions (so science certainly accepts more than 3 dimensions - the limit to 3 dimensions is Medieval, religious and linked to the idea of the Trinity)

And in maths, you can of course have infiite dimensions (any textbook on n-Dmensional analysis should explain it)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[xvimbi]

I'm aware of that (more than I want to sometimes, in fact). What I was interested in is rather:

But we can also move in other dimensions. Unfortunately the senses that allow us to do that are mostly ignored in our culture: we don’t even have names for them.

Could you elaborate? Some link is sufficient, don't waste your time with something I can read myself if pointed in the right direction.

However, move we do, and we feel the movement. The name of the sensation of moving in 4 dimensions, is of course time. So time is not a dimension, it is a sensation (quite a sensational sensation, come to think of it). Confuse these two concepts and you will argue for all eternity (he he).

The fourth dimension is not an isolated dimension. It is the other three plus one. Just like the 3rd dimension is the other two plus one.

Hmmm... Time can be a dimension just as length can be a dimension. Something can move in time without moving in space, so one does not need to have all four dimensions to move in time.

If you take any dimension by itself, they are exactly the same and they are just one dimension.

They are not the same, because they can have different qualities. E.g. time is a completely different quality than length.

However, when you join two dimensions at straight angles, then you get a plane. The second dimension is not the isolated dimension you added to the first to create the plane, but rather the two of them together.

What you mean is that 2-dimensional space is made up of two dimensions with each dimension being length (does not necessarily need to be orthogonal - "straight angles" as you say, as long as they are not colinear)

What we call “space” is not the three dimensions, but rather the name we give to the sensation that we experience as we move in the third dimension.

... as we move in three dimensions where every dimension is length, and the dimensions are not co-linear.

Add another dimension, and you will experience the sensation of “time” as we move through it. Time is not different from space. It is space to which another dimension has been added. The sensation of course is very different, which is the reason why we have different names for both experiences.

A fourth dimension does not have to be time. It can be anything, even length, although that would be of limited use in practice. We as humans can physically cope only with four dimensions, the first three are length and make up 3-dimensional space, the fourth is time. Any change in this 4-dimensional world involves at least the dimension time, but may also involve any or all of the three other dimensions.
In physics or math, 4-dimensional spaces exist that do not involve length and/or time.

Add another dimension to the fourth, and you will now have a five dimensional set which is called “eternity”.

Where did you get this from?

There is also a sixth and a seventh (zero) dimension. There nothing moves.

Likewise, where did you get this from?

Move that solid and you get a…well I like the Sanskrit term Lingam Shahira: 4 dimensions (or the fourth dimension – associated feeling: time)
Move the lingan shahira and you get ***: 5 dimensions (the 5th dimension associated feeling: emotions in general)
Finally, move *** and you are in six dimension realm (the sixth dimension) where further movement is not possible. (This is not exactly accurate: you can move, but you take this as a zero dimension again and start another cycle of seven dimensions).

So, old-Indian philosophy is the source for your statements?

[picdude]

Ah, what great fun to be had in these discussions!

As I said in the other threads: time is change. As long as something changes, there will be time. It is quite simple.

shouldn't that be the other way round....the concept of time is a necessary condition for us to have the experience that something has changed. i dont think u can really say that time is change, that they are one and the same.

[bernhard]

Could you elaborate? Some link is sufficient, don't waste your time with something I can read myself if pointed in the right direction.

I am sure that there maybe some link that talks about this, but I cannot be bothered to look for it. It will probably take less time to elaborate on it myself.

School science recognises five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. This of course is a linguistic phallacy. Do you agree with that? If you don’t than I will have to start even further. Also language pretty much determines our perception of reality. The sense perceptions are just a model for reality, and language is a model for sense perceptions (a meta model). All that I take for granted. As a consequence whatever verbalization that follows must be taken with the necessary pinch of salt and needs to be traced back to the original it models.

That there are far more senses than the five above seems to me obvious. But since we do not have names for them, they have no perceptual reality. In other cultures, with other languages the situation is very different. You can take as just one example our sense of balance. There is even an organ to account for it (the otolites in the inner ear). We have all sorts of other senses and all sorts of organs to account for them. What we lack (in English particularly) is the vocabulary and the syntax to talk about them. As a consequence, there is little more I can tell you, although there might be a lot I could show you. But I actually believe you have already experienced everything I am pointing at (otherwise, amongst other things you would not be able to play the piano). It is just that because we lack the language structures we tend to disregard these manifestations. Yet they are equally important. I am talking about simple things here: negative spaces in painting. Any good draughtsman knows that in order to produce a good drawing s/he must draw not the things we can name, but the nameless things around it. Once upon a time this was secret knowledge carefully guarded by artist’s guilds. Nowadays it is all in the open, but still they remain secret because people cannot see them. We have names for the notes, but it is the nameless spaces in between the notes that will eventually shape the music. In a piano score, the dots represent origins and destination, but not the specific movement that must be made from one note to the next. That people can bridge such gaps successfully points out to a knowledge that is mostly unconscious, and to sense perceptions that are unacknowledged.

Hmmm... Time can be a dimension just as length can be a dimension. Something can move in time without moving in space, so one does not need to have all four dimensions to move in time.

No. Nothing can move in time without moving in space. If you sit down and do not move, you will still be moving, since the Earth is spinning around itself, the Earth is revolving around the Sun, the Sun is moving, and in fact the whole galaxy is moving. You may go to work in the morning, but you can never return to the place you left in the morning. You will return home, but home will elsewhere. Time (as a dimension) cannot exist in isolation. In isolation it is just length. Its weird properties arise from its being combined with space.

NASA knows about that. The first step in planning any shuttle mission is to calculate where the Earth will be, otherwise no one ever gets home.

They are not the same, because they can have different qualities. E.g. time is a completely different quality than length.

Time (as a dimension) is different from length only in the sense that a plane is different from length: you get a plane by combining two lengths (in the way that will generate a plane). You do not have a one dimensional “length” and a one dimensional “plane”. You have a one dimensional length and a one dimensional length that when combined in the correct way generate a two dimensional “plane”. If you now combine a further one dimensional length to this two dimensional “plane” in the correct way, you get a three dimensional “space”. But by itself, the third one-dimensional length that made up the 3-dimensional space has nothing special about it, or different from the other two one dimensional lengths. It is their appropriate combination that result in a “third dimension”. Calling it “third dimension” is what causes the confusion. Now extend this reasoning to time, and you will see that time (as a dimension) is simply a four-dimensional “space”. It cannot exist by itself. Just like a cube cannot exist as a single dimension.

Now, at this point, not only language fails us, as the senses as well. Our senses are mostly two-dimensional. Only touch and smell (which in humans is very atrophied) gives us the sense of three dimensional space. But even sense information must be correctly interpreted. You may have heard of the Pigmys who would look at a picture of an Elephant and could not see it. Or the several cases of people who were born blind and recovered their vision but to no avail: they could not make sense of it. Our senses are not a given: we must learn how to use them. Such learning is mostly unconscious and heavily cultural. Ultimately it is completely conditioned to language. (Try the writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf:
https://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11072/Whorf/blwquotes.html#LTR)

We do have senses for movement in other dimensions, but they must be trained in the same way as the five accepted senses are.

Most of the work is mental work. Have you ever seen a Tesserate? Can you actually (in your mind) do the necessary perspective distortions to actually see it in four dimensions? This is the same as looking at the drawing of a cube, and instead of seeing an irregular polygon, doing the necessary mental calibration to see a three-dimensional object represented in two dimensions.

What you mean is that 2-dimensional space is made up of two dimensions with each dimension being length (does not necessarily need to be orthogonal - "straight angles" as you say, as long as they are not colinear)

Yes, of course.

A fourth dimension does not have to be time. It can be anything, even length, although that would be of limited use in practice. We as humans can physically cope only with four dimensions, the first three are length and make up 3-dimensional space, the fourth is time. Any change in this 4-dimensional world involves at least the dimension time, but may also involve any or all of the three other dimensions.  
In physics or math, 4-dimensional spaces exist that do not involve length and/or time.

Now this is the point I have been trying to make. Length is not a dimension. Space is not a dimension. Time is not a dimension. These are internal sensations prompted by sense perceptions originating from movement within the relevant dimensional set up. They are language constructs to describe and communicate ultimately unexplainable sensations and perceptions.

Where did you get this from?

Does it matter? I send you to Karl Popper: “The source of the information is irrelevant, only the truth of the information is of importance”. He goes on to give the example of a piece of worthwhile news. The role of the journalist is not to enquire after the source, but to enquire of its veracity. Even authorities may be wrong.

Likewise, where did you get this from?

See above.

So, old-Indian philosophy is the source for your statements?

I am not that familiar with old-Indian philosophy, so I really wouldn’t know. I have found that the yoga-sutras of Patanjali are spot on though.

I thought this was actually mainstream science, even though most scientists probably don’t know about it. But then these days scientists are so stressed out publishing rubbish in order not to perish, that I wonder if they know anything at all.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Spatula]

Notice how I started a rather middle-large debate and I wasn't even bothering to jump in myself!

Sneeky Spatula.

[m1469]

So what is the name for every known dimension and possible dimension, and every single thing which has ever happened, is happening, and will forever happen, as a whole?  I just don't see any way around there being a sort of "sum" giving a sort of entire quantity, even if it is infinite.

What is the Principle which governs that?

(if, indeed, we cannot call it "eternity")

m1469

[Spatula]

I dunno...

I know the 1st Dimension is the concept of "length"
2nd D is "width"
3rd D is "height"
4th D is "time"

Did you know that everything in this world is at least 3D or must have a minimum of 3 dimensions?

Even a piece of paper, as most would assume, only has length and width, but it's also thick in the sense that it has height.  If a piece of paper did not have height, then there would never be such thing as a pile of papers, and then my work office would look so much more cleaner.

[xvimbi]

This post should address the last few posts:

School science recognises five senses: sight, hearing, smell, touch and taste. This of course is a linguistic phallacy. Do you agree with that?

No, because that applies to humans (only), but not to animals, nor to the myriad of instruments that can detect a lot more qualities.
 

No. Nothing can move in time without moving in space. If you sit down and do not move, you will still be moving, since the Earth is spinning around itself, the Earth is revolving around the Sun, the Sun is moving, and in fact the whole galaxy is moving. You may go to work in the morning, but you can never return to the place you left in the morning. You will return home, but home will elsewhere. Time (as a dimension) cannot exist in isolation. In isolation it is just length. Its weird properties arise from its being combined with space.

This applies to the situation on our Earth or similar systems, but it is not generally true. If there are no forces acting on a body, there is either no movement at all or, if the body is already in movement, it will continue to do so. For a body somewhere in the void of space, it is of course possible that it does not move at all in space. Also, movement is relative to a reference coordinate system. If the coordinate system exhibits the same movement as a body within it, the body does not move (relative to the coordinate system). This is completely valid in physics and really not disputed.

Time (as a dimension) is different from length only in the sense that a plane is different from length: you get a plane by combining two lengths (in the way that will generate a plane). You do not have a one dimensional “length” and a one dimensional “plane”. You have a one dimensional length and a one dimensional length that when combined in the correct way generate a two dimensional “plane”. If you now combine a further one dimensional length to this two dimensional “plane” in the correct way, you get a three dimensional “space”. But by itself, the third one-dimensional length that made up the 3-dimensional space has nothing special about it, or different from the other two one dimensional lengths. It is their appropriate combination that result in a “third dimension”. Calling it “third dimension” is what causes the confusion. Now extend this reasoning to time, and you will see that time (as a dimension) is simply a four-dimensional “space”. It cannot exist by itself. Just like a cube cannot exist as a single dimension.

I think I start to get an idea where the confusion comes from. If you want to describe something using five different qualities, you have constructed a five-dimensional space. For example, I could describe a cloud by measuring its density, temperature, weight, transparency and electric potential. I would have to plot the data in five-dimensional space. It is very different from what we humans colloquially call four-dimensional space, but of course, mathematicians and scientists don't have any problems with that (they tend to look beyond the limitations of humans). It is not so that the first dimension of anything is always length, and the fourth dimension is always time, only for us humans, but we are hardly the center of Everything (no argument about this one, please).
It is entirely possible to move in one or two dimensions (in addition to moving in time). If you need only one parameter to describe the location of a body, you have a one-dimensional space (the word "space" does not imply three-dimensional space). An example is a train. It needs only the distance from the starting point (one number) to locate it unambiguously, and a second parameter (time) to know exactly by how much you have missed it. The same is true for movements in two-dimensional space. The location of a point on the surface of a sphere is unequivocally defined by only two parameters (both have the units of length).
Here is an interesting example: What is the dimensionality of a ball of wool? If it is far away, it appears to be a point, thus it is a zero-dimensional object. Move closer, and it appears as a disk (two dimensions). Move closer, and you can actually recognize that it is a sphere (3 dimensions). Move even closer, you realize that it is made up of a single thread, and I just explained that any point within the ball of wool is uniquely described by one parameter only (distance from the beginning), thus it is a one-dimensional object. It all depends on how you look at things

Now this is the point I have been trying to make. Length is not a dimension. Space is not a dimension. Time is not a dimension. These are internal sensations prompted by sense perceptions originating from movement within the relevant dimensional set up. They are language constructs to describe and communicate ultimately unexplainable sensations and perceptions.

Not so. Length and time are qualities that can be used as dimensions, just like temperature and density. It depends on what one wants to describe which dimensions need to be used (see above example about clouds).
 

Does it matter? I send you to Karl Popper: “The source of the information is irrelevant, only the truth of the information is of importance”. He goes on to give the example of a piece of worthwhile news. The role of the journalist is not to enquire after the source, but to enquire of its veracity. Even authorities may be wrong.

I was not so much interested in the veracity. You have already noticed that I have my problems with your arguments from a physical point of view. However, from a philosophical point of view, they are quite interesting, and I wanted to see where I could learn more about the ideas that are behind your thoughts.

I thought this was actually mainstream science, even though most scientists probably don’t know about it. But then these days scientists are so stressed out publishing rubbish in order not to perish, that I wonder if they know anything at all.  

How can something be mainstream if most people don't know about it? Furthermore, I take this as a personal insult. If I didn't have to finish these papers I am writing right now, I would infiltrate your studio and, and, gasp, and randomly shave the hammers on your piano(s)  

[m1469]

Depth is not a dimension. Depth is the name we give to the internal feeling generated by moving in the three dimensions.

The name of the sensation of moving in 4 dimensions, is of course time. So time is not a dimension, it is a sensation (quite a sensational sensation, come to think of it).

What we call “space” is not the three dimensions, but rather the name we give to the sensation that we experience as we move in the third dimension.

I just need to make sure that I am understanding correctly, are you implying that what is termed "sensation" is not really a material sense, but more of an internal awareness upon the working together of those detectors that are called material senses (that's how it feels to me anyway)?  If so, I think that I understand.  

within the dimensions, what is it exactly that moves?

If what I am feeling right now is what you are describing, I would say that the only thing which moves is thought and spirit and that everything else which appears as hand, leg, body, etc.  is simply an interpretation (of sorts) of what movement is and how to experience it.

Does this sound right so far?

m1469

[super_ardua]

Eternity is not describable in words, ,  because they are made only to describe what we have seen.  We have not seen anything to do with infinity or such concepts so we cannot describe infinity.

[picdude]

Eternity is not describable in words, ,  because they are made only to describe what we have seen.  We have not seen anything to do with infinity or such concepts so we cannot describe infinity.

well you know, thats not strictly accurate....words arent there to describe only things we have experienced. they can be used in any way we wish. we can talk about objects that may not exist, and concepts that are as yet unexplained, just as validly as we talk of things that we see around us, or of ideas with which we are familiar. it is true that  a great deal of our language is a description of what happens in the world, but reasoning and imagination enable us to use language to talk about the possibility of things, of what might be the case.

[bernhard]

So what is the name for every known dimension and possible dimension, and every single thing which has ever happened, is happening, and will forever happen, as a whole?  I just don't see any way around there being a sort of "sum" giving a sort of entire quantity, even if it is infinite.

What is the Principle which governs that?

(if, indeed, we cannot call it "eternity")

m1469

I guess you can call the dimensions whatever you want. I call them (but with no authority whatsoever – just as a convenient means of communication):

Zero dimension – point
First dimension – line
Second dimension – plane
Third dimension – space
Fourth dimension – hyperspace
Fifth dimension – eternity
Sixth dimension – all and everything (= the Universe)

There is movement everywhere, except in the sixth, where everything is as perfect as it can be. (But everything has already six dimensions anyway).

Of course, theoretically (= mathematically) you can have infinite dimensions. But remember that mathematically if a man takes 2 years to build a house, 17520 men can build a house in one hour.

So technically, eternity is not the whole as you imply, but one step below.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

I dunno...

I know the 1st Dimension is the concept of "length"
2nd D is "width"
3rd D is "height"
4th D is "time"

Did you know that everything in this world is at least 3D or must have a minimum of 3 dimensions?

Even a piece of paper, as most would assume, only has length and width, but it's also thick in the sense that it has height.  If a piece of paper did not have height, then there would never be such thing as a pile of papers, and then my work office would look so much more cleaner.

This is not correct. Height is only height if there is already a length and a width. Otherwise it is just length. The 3rd dimension is not a single dimension, but a combination of three dimensions. People often talk about dimensions the way you are talking as a shortcut. If they know what they are talking about no great harm is done. If they don’t soon they start to believe the (false) implications of their (linguistic) shortcuts.

Everything in the universe is seven dimensional. There is no “minimum”, implying that there are things in the universe that are three dimensional, things that are four dimensional and so on.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

This post should address the last few posts:

No, because that applies to humans (only), but not to animals, nor to the myriad of instruments that can detect a lot more qualities.

I guess  I was not very clear. My question was: do you agree that talking only about five senses is a linguistic fallacy?
 

I could describe a cloud by measuring its density, temperature, weight, transparency and electric potential. I would have to plot the data in five-dimensional space.

Er… density, temperature etc. are physical attributes, not dimensions. The fact that you may plot them in a five dimensional space does not make them dimensions. This is just a mathematically convenient analogy.

Here is an interesting example: What is the dimensionality of a ball of wool? If it is far away, it appears to be a point, thus it is a zero-dimensional object. Move closer, and it appears as a disk (two dimensions). Move closer, and you can actually recognize that it is a sphere (3 dimensions). Move even closer, you realize that it is made up of a single thread, and I just explained that any point within the ball of wool is uniquely described by one parameter only (distance from the beginning), thus it is a one-dimensional object. It all depends on how you look at things

This is exactly what I have been taking so many pains to explain: do not confuse your sensations with the actual dimension. Time is a sensation not a dimension. The ball of wool has a dimension, all the rest is (unreliable) sensation. Unless you want to take the position that knowledge depends on the observer (Heisenberg’s principle? But this is not really what he had in mind).

Not so. Length and time are qualities that can be used as dimensions, just like temperature and density. It depends on what one wants to describe which dimensions need to be used (see above example about clouds).

Do you believe then, that grass is green? (This is not a tricky question: on the answer everything hinges).

 
I was not so much interested in the veracity. You have already noticed that I have my problems with your arguments from a physical point of view. However, from a philosophical point of view, they are quite interesting, and I wanted to see where I could learn more about the ideas that are behind your thoughts.

Not interested in the veracity? Interesting.

So here is some reading material (it is really basic – but should get you started).

Rudy Rucker – “The fourth dimension and how to get there” (Mifflin)
Edwin A. Abbott's – “Flatland, a Romance of Many Dimensions” (Dover) (you can read it online here:
https://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/)


Charles Howard Hinton -  “The Fourth Dimension”

You can also read here a very funny short story by Robert Heinlein on this very subject:

https://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/heinlein/heinlein1.html

Some nice animations of a fourth dimensional cube:

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ma/gallery/hyper/cube.html

How can something be mainstream if most people don't know about it? Furthermore, I take this as a personal insult. If I didn't have to finish these papers I am writing right now, I would infiltrate your studio and, and, gasp, and randomly shave the hammers on your piano(s)  

Don’t take it personally. As the Piano mafia says, it’s just business.


Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

I just need to make sure that I am understanding correctly, are you implying that what is termed "sensation" is not really a material sense, but more of an internal awareness upon the working together of those detectors that are called material senses (that's how it feels to me anyway)?  If so, I think that I understand.  

Yes, you are right on track.

If what I am feeling right now is what you are describing, I would say that the only thing which moves is thought and spirit and that everything else which appears as hand, leg, body, etc.  is simply an interpretation (of sorts) of what movement is and how to experience it.

Does this sound right so far?

Yes, very much so. However because I dislike intellectual and religious connotations (what I am talking about is neither intellectual nor religious), I would replace the words thought and spirit with the word “consciousness”.

I would also add that hand, leg body, etc. besides being an interpretation, are actually a three-dimensional section of a seven-dimensional body.


Best wishes
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

Eternity is not describable in words, ,  because they are made only to describe what we have seen.  We have not seen anything to do with infinity or such concepts so we cannot describe infinity.

Everything is describable in words. If the words do justice to whatever is being described is a different matter. In the immortal words of A. Korzybski: “A map is not the territory”.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[HauntingHarmony]

As the Piano mafia says, it’s just business.

[xvimbi]

Rudy Rucker – “The fourth dimension and how to get there” (Mifflin)
Edwin A. Abbott's – “Flatland, a Romance of Many Dimensions” (Dover) (you can read it online here:

Rudy Rucker ?!? He is an interesting guy, but his books, like all simplified books on this subject (necessarily) trivialize the matter and only lead to utter confusion and a false understanding.

This is clearly visible in this thread.

Trivializations in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics, and describing complex physical phenomena through names from everyday experiences have always caused more harm then did good; the term "spin (of a particle)" is a perfect example.

This is also nicely visible in this thread.

Er… density, temperature etc. are physical attributes, not dimensions. The fact that you may plot them in a five dimensional space does not make them dimensions. This is just a mathematically convenient analogy.

Not using the same language when talking about a subject does not help. In science, a "dimension" is anything that is used to describe something. Any axis in a plot is called a "dimension", no matter what the units are. As I said before, the first dimension does not need to have the unit of length. This is only the case if we talk about geometrical spaces.

Fourth dimension – hyperspace

Any space with more than 3 dimensions is called hyperspace, not just the one with four dimensions. Furthermore, hyperspaces in geometry have dimensions that ALL have the unit of length!!! There is no time involved! The four-dimensional space involving three dimensions with unit length and one dimension with unit time is called "space-time", or "space-time continuum".

knowledge depends on the observer (Heisenberg’s principle? But this is not really what he had in mind).

This little five-word sentence is a amalgamation and distortion of many important concepts in quantum physics (but does not refer to the Heisenberg principle, which is something completely different). It is true that the way we "see" things depends on the way we "look" at things. If we use UV spectroscopy, then we will find that grass is green. If we use tactile senses, we will find that grass is somewhat soft, and so on. More important, and this may well lead to a completely new discussion, is the fact that the state of an object is unknown unless we interact with, i.e. perturb it (Schrödinger). A famous example is the question whether the moon exists if we don't look at it. The answer is, we cannot know until we look at it. Finally, this interaction only gives us data, not knowledge (data lead to information, which may lead to knowledge).

So much to say - so little time. I think I'll spend it making Beuf a la Bourguignonne, which - for whatever reason - I have been dreaming about last night. I usually use Shiraz for that - ever tried that?

[super_ardua]

Everything is describable in words. If the words do justice to whatever is being described is a different matter. In the immortal words of A. Korzybski: “A map is not the territory”.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

But the point of language is to do justice to the thing that you're describing!!

[xvimbi]

But the point of language is to do justice to the thing that you're describing!!

This is often impossible. Often, the best language to describe certain phenomena is through mathematical formulas or with names that do not have other meanings. When one tries to attach words from our regular vocabulary to physical phenomena, one often ends up with a picture in one's mind that does not have anything to do with the phenomenon. Quantum physics is a perfect example. Scientists, in order to explain it to non-scientists, made the grave mistake to give complex phenomena trivial names that only caused confusion and gave non-scientists the impression that they actually understood the phenomenon (the scientists themselves do often not understand the phenomeno either, but on a different level).

[super_ardua]

This is often impossible. Often, the best language to describe certain phenomena is through mathematical formulas or with names that do not have other meanings. When one tries to attach words from our regular vocabulary to physical phenomena, one often ends up with a picture in one's mind that does not have anything to do with the phenomenon. Quantum physics is a perfect example. Scientists, in order to explain it to non-scientists, made the grave mistake to give complex phenomena trivial names that only caused confusion and gave non-scientists the impression that they actually understood the phenomenon (the scientists themselves do often not understand the phenomeno either, but on a different level).

Whether it is possible or not,  it's what people had in mind when they started making languages.

[m1469]

Dear xvimbi,

I hope that I can pose this question in a way that makes sense, I will try (now I am venturing into the land of questions I did not feel like asking previously).  Please understand that I am simply striving to understand where you are coming from and the context of some of your statements.

This applies to the situation on our Earth or similar systems, but it is not generally true. If there are no forces acting on a body, there is either no movement at all or, if the body is already in movement, it will continue to do so. For a body somewhere in the void of space, it is of course possible that it does not move at all in space. Also, movement is relative to a reference coordinate system. If the coordinate system exhibits the same movement as a body within it, the body does not move (relative to the coordinate system). This is completely valid in physics and really not disputed.  

Are you talking about this "void of space" as...

(Please choose from the given options)

A.  That which lay beyond what is commonly considered as the "known universe"?  A circumference of some kind providing an accurate point of reference for everything inside of it (all of the galaxies, and galaxy clusters, as well as all of the workings within them).

B.  This void is within the known universe

C.  Both A and B

D.  None of the above

E.  Other (please specify)

F.  I do not understand the question

Faithfully,
m1469

[xvimbi]

Are you talking about this "void of space" as...

E.  Other (please specify)

I am talking about a body that is located within the Universe at a position where the vectorial sum of the forces acting on it is zero.

With "void of space", I wanted to indicate a location that is far away from any other matter, so that gravitational forces acting on it are negligible.

[Spatula]

I'm surprised no one here bothered to open up dictionary..(or maybe they did and I'm too lazy to read their posts):

3 entries found for eternity.
e·ter·ni·ty    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (-tûrn-t)
n. pl. e·ter·ni·ties
1 Time without beginning or end; infinite time.
2 The state or quality of being eternal.

3 The timeless state following death.
4 The afterlife; immortality.
5 A very long or seemingly endless time: waited in the dentist's office for an eternity.

source: www.dictionary.com

[m1469]

I am talking about a body that is located within the Universe at a position where the vectorial sum of the forces acting on it is zero.

With "void of space", I wanted to indicate a location that is far away from any other matter, so that gravitational forces acting on it are negligible.

But, what you really mean, is a body that is located within the Universe at a position where any humanly known and scientifically recognized vectorial forces are not acting on it, right?

The reason I ask:

At this point science has not proven that we (as humans) have the intelligence and utility of that intelligence to truly step outside of the known Universe (as you have mentioned that we must do to understand it, right?).


How does one claim with authority then, that should we have the ability to do so, that we would not find "our Universe" to be simply part of a larger scheme.  Perhaps as part of a "universe cluster".  Perhaps there is a celestial body which makes "our Universe" and a theoretical universe cluster, or how about a universe galaxy, look like a little tiny grain of sand.  It is possible that our little grain of sand within this universe-galaxy is indeed greatly affected by the vectorial forces of this greater celestial body.  Perhaps it could go on from there in a similar fashion.

Theoretically and technically, wouldn't everything within our universe be subject to the vectorial forces of this phenomenon (should it actually be the case)?  Just as the universe of an ant, although probably not concieved of by them as it is by us, is subject to the forces of the Earth.

I would imagine that my scenario above is not something that you are willing to consider, however, is science telling me to accept on "faith" that this is not the case?

As curiously as ever,
m1469

[xvimbi]

At this point science has not proven that we (as humans) have the intelligence and utility of that intelligence to truly step outside of the known Universe (as you have mentioned that we must do to understand it, right?).

Close, but not quite. I said that not everything within a closed system can be proven without stepping outside. However, there is a lot that can be investigated in a meaningful way.

I would imagine that my scenario above is not something that you are willing to consider, however, is science telling me to accept on "faith" that this is not the case?

Not at all. I am perfectly willing to consider this scenario. As a scientist, I am constantly faced with things that I can't explain. It's my job to find those things and then try to find explanations for them. Since we don't have all the answers, your scenario (or equivalent forms of it) is my daily business.
Having said this, it is meaningless for scientists (or anybody, I would presume), to talk, speculate, or ponder about something that we don't have any data, information, or knowledge about. That's why we don't engage in discussions that start with "Can you imagine...", without having any handle on how to go about investigating the issue. That does not mean that we will never investigate the issue, but we would do so only if we have done enough groundwork to give us the justified expectation that we will get something useful out of it; otherwise, our research will not get funded. Funding agencies are surprisingly pragmatic and "down to Earth", so to say, when it comes to spending money  

[all_black_and_white]

Eternity...

 I think Hugo said it best.

"The Infinite exists.  It is there.  It the Infinite had no Me, the Me would be it's limit; it would not be infinite; in other words, it would not be.  But it is.  Then it has a Me.  This Me of the infinite is God."
  --Les Miserables

[m1469]

My main point in my last post was simply that I don't think that we really know enough about the universe we live in to understand what is truly happening.  Simply because Earth is a body of the universe as a whole, subject to forces that we don't yet understand or even know about (whatever those may be).

I just think it common sense to assume that until we understand the universe as a whole, we cannot truly ascertain what exactly it is that is taking place here on Earth, and its importance to our lives.

I am not suggesting that I believe there is no accuracey in science or religion, I am only saying that I am very suspicious of most everything that is being spoon fed to the common public as reality from those who consider themselves and claim to be, either religious or scientific "experts".  Especially as it seems in science that theories are constantly changing, as well as there being many things that science can't explain.  As well as in religion, all of the things that make it questionable (yet, questioning religion is more socially acceptable than questioning science),

Practically speaking, there just seems very little for me to really build my life on because most of what is believed to be true in one instance, falls apart in the next.   The bottom line for me is that I don't think humanity has ever brought forth absolute truth, or in other words I really don't feel that we as humans know many true and unchangable facts about existence, if any at all.

I for one, am quite suspicious of both common religion and science.  And actually, I am quite suspicious of anything that anybody tells me  :-/!

m1469

[xvimbi]

My main point in my last post was simply that I don't think that we really know enough about the universe we live in to understand what is truly happening.  Simply because Earth is a body of the universe as a whole, subject to forces that we don't yet understand or even know about (whatever those may be).

One can always ask "why" until eternity.

I am not suggesting that I believe there is no accuracey in science or religion, I am only saying that I am very suspicious of most everything that is being spoon fed to the common public as reality from those who consider themselves and claim to be, either religious or scientific "experts".  Especially as it seems in science that theories are constantly changing, as well as there being many things that science can't explain.  As well as in religion, all of the things that make it questionable (yet, questioning religion is more socially acceptable than questioning science)

This is the beauty of science! Its hypotheses are testable. If scientists find new data that don't fit a current model, they have to modify that model or come up with a new one. Once a model has been obtained, one can make testable predictions and put them to good use, e.g. in engineering for building houses, designing drugs against cancer or to build an atomic bomb (well, that's not good use, although many people think so). Religion is not testable.

Practically speaking, there just seems very little for me to really build my life on because most of what is believed to be true in one instance, falls apart in the next.   The bottom line for me is that I don't think humanity has ever brought forth absolute truth, or in other words I really don't feel that we as humans know many true and unchangable facts about existence, if any at all.

You are either a pessimist or a cynic. Nothing falls apart in the next instance. Scientists make modifications to their models, but I haven't seen anything falling apart in a long time. Ask yourself how many things around you you would not have if we didn't have science. We wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

I for one, am quite suspicious of both common religion and science.  And actually, I am quite suspicious of anything that anybody tells me  :-/!

Darn, I should have read this statement first, I could have saved myself this post.

[m1469]

This is the beauty of science! Its hypotheses are testable. If scientists find new data that don't fit a current model, they have to modify that model or come up with a new one. Once a model has been obtained, one can make testable predictions and put them to good use, e.g. in engineering for building houses, designing drugs against cancer or to build an atomic bomb (well, that's not good use, although many people think so). Religion is not testable

You are either a pessimist or a cynic. Nothing falls apart in the next instance. Scientists make modifications to their models, but I haven't seen anything falling apart in a long time. Ask yourself how many things around you you would not have if we didn't have science. We wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

I am happy that you are finding something of beauty in your life and something that you feel you can trustingly lean on!  I think that everybody needs some kind of explanation for why things are the way they are.

I am actually neither a pessimist nor a cynic, last time I checked anyway, thanks for thinking of me though.  I am interested in the fact that you decided to take my statements literally.  'Hey m1469, how many things around me would I not have if there wasn't science?'  'Why, what an interesting question m1469, I have never ever asked myself this before!  Hmm, let's see, I have no idea!  But, maybe xvimbi knows!'

Darn, I should have read this statement first, I could have saved myself this post

I simply reserve myself the right to form my own opinions and live my life as I see fit given the circumstances I find myself in.  Why should I assume things to be true just because somebody tells me they are?  You are surely not suggesting that I do, considering your thoughts on religion and why people study that, I can't imagine that you would be suggesting such a thing.

We wouldn't have this conversation to begin with.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if I had decided to stay offended at you for calling my thoughts on eternity rubbish (come to think of it, maybe I am still a bit offended, or wait, maybe not).  Or, if I had decided to choose a less civilized response to it than what I did.  Or, if I had just ignored you altogether and not responded at all.  But, I have truly considered the things you have talked about.  That's a lot these days.

By-the-way, how did the Beuf a la Bourguignonne turn out?

m1469

[m1469]

One can always ask "why" until eternity.

That's exactly what I plan to do   !

[xvimbi]

By-the-way, how did the Beuf a la Bourguignonne turn out?

Delicious!

[m1469]

Dear Bernhard, I have been reflecting...

We find out about the three dimensions through the sense of touch. Touch tells us about depth. So we learn to interpret visual distortions as perspective.

So, I learn that I am of a certain "height", or learn a certain visual perspective, only because I can feel my feet on the ground?  

Depth is not a dimension. Depth is the name we give to the internal feeling generated by moving in the three dimensions.

(cont from my statement above)
However, depth is only an internal feeling that exists because there are three dimensions "working together" (which are also internal sensations and only exist because dimension 1 was joined at a straight angle by dimension 1, creating dimension 2, and then joined by another dimension 1, creating dimension 3)?

If you take any dimension by itself, they are exactly the same and they are just one dimension.

Is this because there is nothing outside of it that can give accurate perspective on what purpose any isolated dimension is serving (sorry, I am not sure that this question will make any sense, but at present I don't know how else to ask it)?


Do these dimensions boil down to consciousness?

What we call “space” is not the three dimensions, but rather the name we give to the sensation that we experience as we move in the third dimension.

To me, this suggests (I am now skipping several steps, and assuming some things) that what we experience and percieve as information coming from external influences, is actually only an illusion.  What is actually occuring is a working out from dimensional consciousness and, we experience what we are conscious of and take for granted its origin (internal, not external).   This also suggests that there is nothing that is truly "external", and for that matter, "internal" also loses its supposed meaning.  There becomes no difference between them and all that we truly experience is dimensional consciousness.

I will stop here for now.  Is this anywhere close to what you are suggesting (as far as you can tell)?

m1469

[bernhard]

m1469 wrote:

So, I learn that I am of a certain "height", or learn a certain visual perspective, only because I can feel my feet on the ground?  

 

Yes.

Consider a newborn baby. To him the whole visual world is right there on his face. He has no experience of depth. Newborn babies are not blind (as many medical doctors believed before Frederick Leboyer proved otherwise in the late 1960s), but at the same time they have not yet learned how to “see”. The experience to them is like having ever-changing shapes on a plane that is right on their faces. They do not see mother approaching. They see a dot that grows and grows until it becomes a face. They do not see mother distancing herself. They see her face decreasing in size, becoming a dot and disappearing altogether. Then they cry. Observe a very young baby (1 week – 2 months) They are constantly using the hands trying to grasp something right in their faces. They are trying to grab the images in their eyes – which they wrongly believe is right there. Soon they realise that the moving plane in their faces (which we can call the visual field) is not plane at all: it has depth. And they discover that and experience that through the sense of touch: by trying to grab the images and not being able too unless they move where the images are. The experience of depth is not visual at all. We cannot see depth. It is that simple. However very soon we learn how to interpret what we see as “perspective”. What we see are ultimately distortions. Learning to interpret such distortions as perspective is of course essential to survival, so we learn it pretty quickly. Then we convince ourselves that what we see is reality. It is not. It is a distorted model of reality.

As a consequence, we are easy prey to visual illusions. It is really easy to manipulate one’s perception of reality by manipulating visual input – something magicians excel at.

Here we must go back to the question I put to xvimbi. For all his scientific upbringing he seems unaware of it.

Is grass green?

The way this question is verbalised implies that the colour green is a quality of grass. His answer shows that he swallowed my verbal trick and accepted the assumption that green is a quality of grass.

Now, listen very carefully because on this everything hinges:

Green is not a quality of grass. Green is a label: it is the name we give to the (visual) sensation we experience when we look at grass. Green has nothing to do with grass: it has everything to do with us. The consequences of this statement are so staggering and so far-reaching that I feel discouraged in expanding on it.

But I must expand because otherwise we will not understand the incredible wrong turn that xvimbis’s version of science (which is not science at all) took, and the even more incredible wrong turn that religion (in the version exposed by some posters) has also taken – this is not religion at all.

When someone looks at grass, he has an amazing internal experience. It is mindblowing, it floors you, it should leave one speechless. And yet it is a completely and utterly personal experience. It cannot be shared. It cannot even be endorsed by others. It is totally private.

You look at grass and you turn to the person to your side and say: “Wow! Did you see that!!! What was that?!” The other person replies: “yeah, I saw it too. It is called green”. So you reply: “Amazing! Green! I must remember that”.

Now let us think carefully about this. Imagine for a moment, that for some weird reason, when you look at grass, you actually see the colour red. And when you look at a fire engine, to you it is totally green. Now as a child you will lern very early on that grass is green. This means that you will name the red you see every time you look at grass as “green”. You will also learn that the (visual) sensation you get when you look at a fire engine is called “red” (even though what you actually see is green). Because there is no way to enter someone else’s inner consciousness and see through their minds, there is no way to check if the labels actually match. Notice that we are not talking daltonism here (a frequently voiced objection) since daltonism is an inability to see colours, and can be easily detected. What we are talking about here cannot be detected at all. A person who switches consistently read and green, will function absolutely normally in society: he will stop at the red lights (he sees them as green, and has learned to call the green that he sees as “red”. He has also learned that he must stop at the “red” lights).

This leads us to an earth shattering possibility: that no one sees the same colours. Since colours are not a property of things, but internal experiences triggered by what we look at, the only thing that creates the impression that everyone has the same internal experiences is language: as long as we have a name for an internal experience we will believe that we have experienced the same things.

We say the same words, but it is highly unlikely that these words label the same internal experiences. In fact we are quite prepared to accept that in emotional subjects, but we are not supposed to expand this concept to include the whole of language. That would be too subversive.

Now let us go one step further and talk about what misguided scientists believe to be the ultimate unshakeable ground: Observation itself. Over the last one hundred years, philosophers of science have demonstrated that science cannot be based on observations. Yet, scientists (and a lot of religious people who want to point out the weaknesses of science) insist in the observation phallacy. Don’t these guys read? Science is not based on observations except in a trivial sense. But to explain that fully will take too long, and I simply do not care enough for this sort of discussion (just read Karl Popper to start with).

However there is a point that is very relevant for this discussion, and this is the matter of models.

I once had a friend who was crazy about these little plastic airplanes that came to be an exact replica of the original. He was always asking me round to show his latest model. On one occasion I was with a low tolerance threshold, so when he enthusiastically asked me: “Look at this airplane: Isn’t it is just like the real thing!?” I replied matter of factly:

“No, it is not at all like the real thing. For a star look at its size, for crying out loud! The real thing is at leas 2000 times bigger. Next this is made out of plastic, the real thing is made of metal and glass and other stuff. This thing in put together with glue, the real thing is put together with screws and soldiered. And look at this pilot: it does not have anything belly down: it is just shoulders, head and arms. And look at his uniform: it is part of him, you cannot take it of. Besides the real thing will cost $ 10 million, while this pathetic model cost $15. And where is the engine? Where are the bombs and ammunition? The lights? This is nothing like the real thing!”

As I said I once had a friend…

This little story however shows us the three basic processes involved in modelling: generalisation, distortion and deletion. Deletion: certain things that exist in the real thing are not present in the model (the pilot’s lower body; the bombs, the petrol tank filled with petrol, the engine). Distortion: certain things that are in a certain way in the real thing are portrayed quite differently in the model (the size, the plastic material). Generalisation: taking the part for the whole (we see the pilot’s upper body and assume that there is a lower body; we see the petrol tank cap and assume that there is patrol tank and maybe even petrol).

It is important at this point to say that there is nothing, absolutely nothing wrong with modelling. Modelling is of the utmost importance: it simplifies the real thing and makes it manageable. The problem, the real problem is when you start confusing the model with the reality it portrays.

Anyway. Any process that displays distortion, generalisation or deletion is a model of reality, not reality. Do you really think that “seeing is believing?” Think again. The image formed in your mind through the medium of vision is not a picture of reality, but rather a visual model of reality. There is no discusiion here: vision has distortion (it is two dimensional – reality is not), it has deletion (we cannot represent visually most of the electromagnetic spectrum – nothing below infrared and nothing above ultraviolet) and it has generalisation: you see a house and you assume the other side (even though you cannot see all sides at once).

The same goes for all senses. Therefore, sense perception is a model of reality, it is not reality. We do not have direct access to reality. All we have is a sensual map of it. So observation (impartial or not) is a myth. Whatever you are observing is not reality, but a map of reality.

And if you now go back to the “grass is green situation” you will realise that whatever consensus there is in terms of observations is actually an artificial construct – and mostly a delusion created by language. As such your language structures your perception of reality. The consequence is that people with different languages perceive reality very differently.

No one sees the same green. But everyone believes so because there is a linguistic label for it that creates the delusion of unanimity.

Language itself is a model, arguably the most powerful model ever created by mankind. Language does not model reality though: it  models our perception of reality (which is itself a model of reality) and it models language itself (when instead of talking about sense perceptions, it talks about itself as I am doing here).

This means – for practical purposes – that this forum is already twice removed from reality. My words (and everyone’s else) is simply a model of the model.

However, we are not restricted to sense perceptions to assess reality (as many uninformed scientists and even less informed religious followers seem to believe). There are other models that are actually far more powerful.

(cont from my statement above)
However, depth is only an internal feeling that exists because there are three dimensions "working together" (which are also internal sensations and only exist because dimension 1 was joined at a straight angle by dimension 1, creating dimension 2, and then joined by another dimension 1, creating dimension 3)?

Yes. There are two currents of thought in this matter: One says that reality does not exist, it is all a product of our minds. The other says that reality actually exists, we just do not know what it looks/feels like. I happen to side with the second current. I believe that reality exists, but it is ultimately unknowable. All we can hope to know is our models of reality. However we can improve these models and approach reality infinitesimally. So yes, the sensations we have are caused by reality.

Is this because there is nothing outside of it that can give accurate perspective on what purpose any isolated dimension is serving (sorry, I am not sure that this question will make any sense, but at present I don't know how else to ask it)?

No. The reason to put it that way is to clarify the language so that you are not led to the wrong conclusions because of a linguistic trompe l’oeil.

Do these dimensions boil down to consciousness?  

No. The dimensions exist (as does reality) independent of consciousness. Consciousness is what allows us to experience the sensorial models of reality, or in this particular case the sensorial models of dimensional movement: When moving in the thirds dimension we experience a sensorial model we label “depth”; when moving in the fourth dimension we experience a sensorial model called “time”, and when we move in the fifth dimension we experience a sensorial model called “emotions” (notice that “emotions” is already a generalisation and therefore a model).

Strictly speaking we are all already in the sixth dimension, so nothing actually moves. What moves is consciousness, through limited sensorial models which allow only sections to be perceived. So as you look at your body in a mirror, you are seeing a bidimensional visual distortion of a three dimensional section of a fourth dimensional body, whose totality you will only be able to grasp at the moment of death (by superimposing and overlapping all of your three dimensional sections). This fourth dimensional body of which you may become conscious at death is itself only a four dimensional section of a fifth dimensional body and so on and so forth.

Both religious people (the usual religious peoples – there are exceptions) and scientists (the usual scientists – there are exceptions) are of an utmost mediocrity and shyness in their thinking. The universe is far stranger than any of their narrowminded theories can suppose.

To me, this suggests (I am now skipping several steps, and assuming some things) that what we experience and percieve as information coming from external influences, is actually only an illusion.  What is actually occuring is a working out from dimensional consciousness and, we experience what we are conscious of and take for granted its origin (internal, not external).   This also suggests that there is nothing that is truly "external", and for that matter, "internal" also loses its supposed meaning.  There becomes no difference between them and all that we truly experience is dimensional consciousness.

There is something external, but we have no idea of what it is. But we do have  - at this moment in time – some pretty good models. But they are far too timid. They are not even scratching the surface (I am mostly talking about scientific models although there are some really good metaphysical ones out there as well). The main problem at this moment in time is that there is a confusion between models and reality (partly because some of the models have been so successful)

I will stop here for now.  Is this anywhere close to what you are suggesting (as far as you can tell)?

You are showing a lot of promise.  

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

That's exactly what I plan to do   !

I agree with xvimbi. (but perhaps for quite different reasons).

But there is a more subtle point.

Imagine you see me with my leg in a cast. You may ask:

“Why do you have your leg in a cast?”
“Because I broke it.”

This answer may satisfy you completely. Or you may continue to ask why.

“Why did you break your leg?”
“Because I slipped in the ice”

Again, you may decide that at this point your doubts have been satisfied and stop asking. Or you may decide to proceed.

“why did you slip in the ice?”
Now I could go on and give you a physical explanation of movement and friction and how the friction coefficient o ice is negligible, action and reaction and so on.

Perhaps then you will stop asking, because my answer happened to fit a preexisting framework of thought and theory that you find satisfactory.

What this means, is that when we ask why, the last thing we want is an answer. What we really want is to reduce some new dumbfounding piece of information to a framework of preexisting (and limited) knowledge. In short, we do not want to expand our knowledge, we want to shrink to something we already know and feel comfortable with.

So when someone asks me why, I know that the moment I satisfy his questions I have reached the limit of that person’s knowledge.

A much more useful question is always “How”.

If you ask “why did you make this cake”, all you are going to get as an aswer is the limits of your own knowledge. But if you ask “how did you make this cake?” you end up with a new recipe!

Finally. Answers to “why” more often than not instead of giving you “reasons” end up by giving you “justifications”. Much more interesting questions are: “What would happen if?” and “ what will stop you from?”

Best wishes,
Bernhard.