Eight-dimensional space and the possibility of multi dimensions

This one's kinda fun. Many ganja ago, I puffed on it for a long while. Here's what blew out.

So let's start small. Okay, the Earth. I look out at the distance, and mostly perceive a straight line. It's easy to believe the Earth to be flat, most of us did for a long while until recent advances in science and tools of measurement.

Now when we expand out far enough, we can see that the Earth is indeed roundish. You see, we measure objects in relation to each other. That movie the aviator, had to wait for the damned clouds, need perspective. So we adapt to our surroundings, the objects around us needed to survive being within our same basic forms of sizes and such, that we perceive the dimensions most useful to us.

Just as we can only begin to see the Earth as round under special conditions directly, or through inference by means of superior reasoning capacities, can we have the same limitations with objects much larger and much smaller.

When I look out at the stars, I see holes punched in a blanket. I see dots. Those dots are not, they are large celestial objects. When we attempt to chart the stars, we do so in relation to our surroundings, and deal with the time dilations that encompass the space between our star system and the ones between. We don't directly measure these distances, we have to infer even distances, but in truth bodies exist, floating around larger bodies, floating around ever greater massive celestial bodies. There's not just an x, y, z of space here, that's far too limited to deal with each massive body holding it's set of bodies in relation to it.

Now, I can infer there are more dimensions, and provide adequate reasoning internally that words can only do so much to point at, but that doesn't mean I can fully visualize this as it is, but that's okay. I know, just as with the large, we have similar limitations at the smallest of the small, and only experience and perceive the dimensions which are of most use to our survival.

As to an exact number? Nobody has that figured out. Could be a rabbit hole that has no indefinite way of being summed up.

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut

"A dimension in science and mathematics has no thickness."

We use a dimension as a means to come up with standard measurements, but they are not bounded. Dimensions are abstract forms, not concrete objects. Objects can have thickness, a dimension can't.

You would say, "an object IN the 3rd dimension can have a thickness of blablabla"... not "a dimension has a thickness of..."

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Dimensions make thickness possible and perhaps you would care to elaborate as to why?

"what allows physical dimensions to generate thickness"?

Try doing a search on that.

Perhaps you should elaborate as well upon your position?

Are you absolutely certain that Consiousness has nothing to do with math?

The Greatest Equation Of All Time Was Something Out Of Nothing.
He Who Had Nothing... Decided To Fight For Something... And Discovered When He Won... The Spoils Of War. Then Theology Was Created!
Tithes Were Gifted... Wages Were Accorded... But Not Without Taxes... Fees Were Adjusted... And Love Was Introduced To The World.
The Story I'm Implying Is Not A Long Story... But A Story Of Significance.

TPTB Have Been Laughing For So Long At All Of Us. Don't Let Theology Steer You Down The Broad Path Which Leads Astray. Get Paid! It's God's Will...

Also... The Dimension Wherein Stands A Beacon Of Hope For True Apprentices Lies At The Feet Of The Woman. There Is The Craft Where Love... An Altered State Of Substance... Begins.

To Each His Own.

a reply to: Pinocchio


The greatest equation of all time was defining nothing as no-thing, get over it.

a reply to: Kashai

I think you're asking me to become confused for no good reason. That's basically what it sounds like to me.

Whatever the case, your confusion is your own. I'll keep to my understandings and move onto another thread.

Thanks.

a reply to: pl3bscheese


It seems apparent I feel your confusion is also your own.

Ideology has nothing to do with facts and that you cannot answer questions......?

a reply to: intrptr

Would it be possible for something to go from 2D to 3D? Something that had no depth to begin with. I don't know just an interesting thought I had I don't know much of anything on the topic.

originally posted by: OpenMindedPhilosopher
a reply to: intrptr

Would it be possible for something to go from 2D to 3D? Something that had no depth to begin with. I don't know just an interesting thought I had I don't know much of anything on the topic.

Impossible. 2D doesn't exist in the real world.

People use it to compare our perspective with the next dimension called the fourth dimension. Really all around us, we can't perceive it like 2D people can't perceive up.

Here it is in a nutshell though. They represent this with a drawing of a hypercube… the cube itself is easy to understand. But imagining all its sides expanding to infinity makes us go tilt. Better yet, instead of a cube, imagine a sphere expanding.

What its supposed to represent is our being is fixed here in a single place and time, but over there we are every where and every when, all at once.

Some people have glimpsed this, while still alive, but most if us will have to 'pass away' to there to get it.

Edit: If you have the time…

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut


In mathematics and science Dimensions define the physical parameters of our existence.

We have thickness and a good reason for that are dimensions.

Can you elaborate on that comment?

Specifically I am referring to this comment...

"A dimension in science and mathematics has no thickness."

Consider a 3D rendering based upon 3 spatial axes X, Y and Z. If we were to conceptually remove measurement in the Y and Z axes, and rendered a drawing ONLY on the X axis, we are left with a 2-dimensional plane. This plane has no thickness of itself, but does have a width and a breadth- i.e: two dimensions.

If we were to render a drawing from 2D down to 1D, we are left with a linear set of measurements. Linear distances between points are the only measurements possible in a single dimension. There is no thickness because to measure thickness of the line requires other dimensions.

The exception to this is the theoretical topological curvature or curl of a dimension to accommodate 'invisible' dimensions (to me, this is an ugly intellectual 'fudge') but measurement out of bounds of the dimension is still not allowed so they still have no thickness.

So a single dimension has no thickness - simple.

a reply to: chr0naut


So simple it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Infinitary logic

An infinitary logic is a logic that allows infinitely long statements and/or infinitely long proofs. Some infinitary logics may have different properties from those of standard first-order logic. In particular, infinitary logics may fail to be compact or complete. Notions of compactness and completeness that are equivalent in finitary logic sometimes are not so in infinitary logics. Therefore for infinitary logics, notions of strong compactness and strong completeness are defined. This article addresses Hilbert-type infinitary logics, as these have been extensively studied and constitute the most straightforward extensions of finitary logic. These are not, however, the only infinitary logics that have been formulated or studied.

Considering whether a certain infinitary logic named Ω-logic is complete promises[citation needed] to throw light on the continuum hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: chr0naut


So simple it is irrelevant to this discussion.

Infinitary logic

An infinitary logic is a logic that allows infinitely long statements and/or infinitely long proofs. Some infinitary logics may have different properties from those of standard first-order logic. In particular, infinitary logics may fail to be compact or complete. Notions of compactness and completeness that are equivalent in finitary logic sometimes are not so in infinitary logics. Therefore for infinitary logics, notions of strong compactness and strong completeness are defined. This article addresses Hilbert-type infinitary logics, as these have been extensively studied and constitute the most straightforward extensions of finitary logic. These are not, however, the only infinitary logics that have been formulated or studied.

Considering whether a certain infinitary logic named Ω-logic is complete promises[citation needed] to throw light on the continuum hypothesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

How does the absence of thickness in a single dimension become an infinite, long or recursive expression?

a reply to: King Seesar

Please explain what you just wrote, defining your terms as you go along. For example, you use the word "vector"in two different senses.

a reply to: chr0naut


The first dimension is line with an infinite number of points.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: King Seesar

Currently, M-Theory has been calculated to require ten dimensions (and upward) to model physical forces properly.

Definitely it doesn't seem to stop at eight.

No eight would seem to be the starndard bear for the equation i am calculating, but even a model of ten would not vector in what i think needs to be done in the realtion of multi dimensions, expanding the model to include more gets us no where with that, i think we need to take the designed eight or ten as you say, and form a type of slicing and sectioning off of multiples to achieve what i in vision.

Thanks for the input, you gave me a idea on a third force i am trying to equate...again thanks.

a reply to: DJW001

The terms or the equation i am gathering is that adding on to vectors of dimensions for the possibility of multi is not properly done by adding more numbers to the designed eight or ten mold, in factoring in the apptitude of multi i think a splitting off of the core eight or ten vectors into smaller sub designs with each core split is what we are looking for, then and only then is the multi equation possible.

Elementary particles such as quarks or mesons could be described by string
equations. When the LHC splits atoms, these particles fly out of the ion.

When measuring charm, flavor, spin, ect., quantum entanglement and spooky
action at a distance imply extradimensional translation of matter and energy.

If only eight exist, there are many more, as with singularities common in the
universe, each of which represent multiple or even infinite dimensions as in
black holes, which probably spew their matter into other universes.


a reply to: King Seesar

originally posted by: Pinocchio
The Greatest Equation Of All Time Was Something Out Of Nothing.

0 = -1 + 1
Duality

a reply to: Drawsoho

You are correct, but i feel you might be falling into the trap of adding by edition instead of adding by subtracting, let me explain, by adding more equations to the known eight or ten i feel this creates a clutter in terms of hyper dimensional space, where all we are doing is spewing clutter over clutter so in fact you are right that in spews mater but i feel the mater would not form into the alloted mater to form a mater partical in the desired manifestion of another dimension, unless the mater could be contained in a quatum vacuum which might be way harder to preform the desired effect, but maybe a equation you talked about also may exist, but why go mater searching in the vacum and add more to a equation that can be performed at a lower vacuum at this point?

Good idea though, but maybe not needed in terms of the end goal.