Ok everyone knows about the first three dimensions up, down, and sideways.
Then there’s time.
And why not Abstract?
The case for abstract…
Abstract can exist without matter.
For example: All technology is as old as the universe because: Instead of inventing a club the first caveman could have invented a blow pipe, sphere,
arrow, or crossbow. All the materials he needed to invent these things were lying around him. All that stopped him from doing it was that he never
thought of it, but the technology itself was always there.
But the mobile phone is also as old as the universe because whether or not we can assemble the materials is irrelevant to the fact the that technology
has also been there.
Numbers also exist, work, and produce without matter. For example if you got rid of all the matter in the universe would 1 plus 1 still make
Obviously you need something to do this equation. But we can imagine a world without atoms, photons ect; so this isn’t directly relevant.
I would suggest that 1 pus 1 still made two even before the Big Bang (or whatever the true cause is) exploded-came into being.
Maybe the same is also true of the abstract technology.
So I would speculate that: In the beginning there was nothing, then there was abstract.
But abstract can also apply to matter. For example take an iron bar. It could be dropped into the sea and rust, it could be part of a
bridge, or a tank.
Once more it could have been all these things (accept probably the rust in sea since nobody is realistically likely to both find and also use it, but
The things an iron bar, glass of water, or carbon in coal can be, or could have been are rather like the 3D directions an object might be moved in.
Only one of them is true at any one point in time, but there is no limit to how many times, or whether indeed the object was in any of them.
When applying abstract to matter the only chief limiting factor is the periodic number, as well as amount, number(s) and percentage of the elements it
is composed of in the periodic table, and the amount of energy applied or available from them.
However even the elements can be shifted in a nuclear reactor, core of star, or in particular exploding ones (where elements higher than iron are
Like the 3D dimensions of an object you do not need intelligent life for abstract to be real. The human race could be eliminated, and Aliens
(assuming they exist) could make use of abstract concepts a billion years later (e.g. the petrol engine, or atomic bomb), and could no doubt be doing
near the fringes of the universe (should it have fringes as we think of it).
But maybe not aliens? Perhaps the earth could become inhabited by machines, and perhaps these have a very limited kind of intelligence, but they could
still invent. Evolution itself would seem to me to be quite a good example of a natural process like these even hypothetical machines which still
prove my point.
So what I would really like to know is that if 3D and Time are dimensions, then why not “abstract”?
If one thinks of abstract as a 5th dimension that still leaves Measurement quite distinctive. Most people on here will be familiar with
Heinsburg’s Uncertainty Principle
And Schroeder’s Cat
So you have Abstract and Measurement as different things because abstract exists without matter, measurement or intelligence, but then so too does
But measurement can only exist: Through matter, or intelligence, or perhaps memory as a distinctive thing in it’s own right (not sure and that one,
but wouldn’t be exactly surprised either). Anyway a bit more to make sense of the world; or ponder over.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]