It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Observing Spatial Dimensions and The Literal Spatial Dimension of Knowledge

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 07:42 PM
3 dimensional space is made up of length, width, and height.

2 dimensional space is made up of length and width.

1 dimensional space is made up of length.

Although 3 dimensional space is made up of length, width, and height, a 3 dimensional observer can only perceive objects in 2 dimensions of width and height; although it is aware of 3 dimensional space and aware of length by measuring distance between objects and how their size relates to the two perceivable dimensions of width and height.

Although 2 dimensional space is made up of length and width, a 2 dimensional observer can only perceive objects in 1 dimension of width; although it is aware of 2 dimensional space and aware of length by measuring the distance between objects and how their size relates to the one perceivable dimension of width.

Although 1 dimensional space is made up of length......... well I guess you wouldn't be able to see anything, since you can't ever see length, and there is no other dimension to see. I guess if you thought about it, you might think you would be able to see a single point, but a single point doesn't really exist does it?

A single point is an indeterminable quantity because the minute you think you have found the size of it, there would always be a smaller point. If a single point does exist, it defies physical explanation.

So if you can never see length, then... well for one, you can never see a 1 dimensional object because a 1 dimensional object is length. You might can see the width of it, but at that point, it would be a 2 dimensional object and not a 1 dimensional object.

But we do perceive length, so we know it exists. We perceive length by knowledge. We know that object A is further away than object B for two reasons:

1. Object A is smaller in width and height than object B
2. There is space between object A and B.

We never actually see the length though, just the space. But space is nothing more than the observation of 2 separate objects and the knowledge of how big those objects are supposed to be in terms of width and height.

So then what is length? Is it knowledge?

If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:12 PM
a line is an infinite set of points...
a point does not exist, it's a concept, it's very much like the zero in your "mathematics is wrong" thread...

i think your point is that we have access to infinite knowledge but no intelligence to do anything with it

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 08:51 PM
oh rofl

i take it as a matter of faith. . .

from a matter perspective . .

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:01 PM
Back in the day when I used to smoke weed, I'd have loved to muse on this question for a while...

happy daze...
edit on 3/9/2011 by GoldenChild because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:22 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

So then what is length? Is it knowledge?

If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

if this is true then:

length = a line from point A to point B = "knowledge"
a line = infinite set of points = "knowledge" = infinity
a single point in 3D = a sphere which has a diameter of zero = "intelligence" = 0
ok, so...
"knowledge" = infinity
"intelligence" = 0

0 x Infinity = infinity?

HELP!

now i can see that my intelligence definitely = 0
but, if we change the mathematics and substitute 0 with infinity i might feel better

i agree with you mate... mathematics is definitely wrong!

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:29 PM

Originally posted by EmilNomel
a line is an infinite set of points...
a point does not exist, it's a concept, it's very much like the zero in your "mathematics is wrong" thread...

i think your point is that we have access to infinite knowledge but no intelligence to do anything with it

about like height is an infinite set of 2 dimensional layers. The term "layer" isn't even heard of in the 2d world.

Really my point (if there is such a thing) is that everything stems from the essence of information.

My point is to establish that there is intelligence at the root of all existence.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 09:44 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb

My point is to establish that there is intelligence at the root of all existence.

very well done!!

cheers!

p.s. i'm very new to the forums here and i do not know how to give F&S (i assume that means flag and star?) but, i would love to flag this post and give you star too if i'm allowed to do so...

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:29 PM

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by smithjustinb

So then what is length? Is it knowledge?

If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

if this is true then:

length = a line from point A to point B = "knowledge"
a line = infinite set of points = "knowledge" = infinity
a single point in 3D = a sphere which has a diameter of zero = "intelligence" = 0
ok, so...
"knowledge" = infinity
"intelligence" = 0

No. There is no such thing as zero. Although there is a such thing as the absence of dimension, which would be a single point which w/o dimension would be infinity. It wouldn't be zero because it exists although it doesn't exist within the context of observable reality.

The point would be infinity. This infinity would have the capacity for intelligence. The 1d line gets introduced as the beginning of the process of intelligent energy. It is intelligence itself which is useless without informational processing which begins at the 2d level by the introduction of the first perceivable dimension (width). 2d is the beginning of informational processing which is known as learning.

Any 2d object perceived in 2d space is only observed as 1 dimensional(width) with the awareness of another dimension of length. This is the beginning of specific knowledge.

The specificity of this knowledge is very finite. This isn't the nature of reality, due to the nature of reality as being infinite. There is infinity and 1d which are both indeterminable quantities which means they are infinite. Infinity is a mystery. 1d is the beginning of intelligence and all it has as a reference is something that is mysterious. It is infinite, but, essentially clueless.

2d is the beginning of learning by specific observation of particular quantities. It is very specific and very finite which is obviously not the nature of infinity at all.

1d is infinite and is trying to find its way back to its source through informational processing. 3d gets introduced because 2d doesn't resolve the mystery of infinity. 1d is existence. 2d is processing of existence. 3d is processing of processing of existence. 4d will be processing of processing of processing of existence, and so on..

I was coming up with all of this pretty much off the top of my head so I don't assert the validity of it all.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 10:50 PM

Originally posted by smithjustinb
If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

I've been thinking about a lot of this in relation to an OP I'm working on. I think you're on to something, but not intelligence exactly, but rather consciousness.

I don't think there's anything in the universe that's NOT endlessly divisible in both the macro and the micro...except consciousness. The great I Am so to speak.

It fits the big bang and quantum physics nicely I think.
edit on 3-9-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:12 PM

I found your thread absolutely fascinating. So...our creator was a mathematical point that became aware of it's self. Fascinating. And the creator of this particular "point"? Did the point even exist before it was observed to exist by it's self?
edit on 9/3/2011 by MissSmartypants because: cuz

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by MissSmartypants

I found your thread absolutely fascinating. So...our creator was a mathematical point that became aware of it's self. Fascinating. And the creator of this particular "point"? Did the point even exist before it was observed to exist by it's self?
edit on 9/3/2011 by MissSmartypants because: cuz

Yeah, I think there is a cyclical progression.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:19 PM

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by smithjustinb
If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

I've been thinking about a lot of this in relation to an OP I'm working on. I think you're on to something, but not intelligence exactly, but rather consciousness.

And perhaps it is the case that this consciousness just suddenly bursts into existence and it's at THAT moment that it becomes a "point".

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:35 PM

Originally posted by MissSmartypants

Originally posted by The GUT

Originally posted by smithjustinb
If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

I've been thinking about a lot of this in relation to an OP I'm working on. I think you're on to something, but not intelligence exactly, but rather consciousness.

And perhaps it is the case that this consciousness just suddenly bursts into existence and it's at THAT moment that it becomes a "point".

Hmmm.I can see where the "smart" part of your name comes from.

Something exists that can apparently solve true--to us--paradoxes. I think a a very big clue might come from contemplating the two: consciousness and paradox in relation to each other.

I can't articulate it as much as I wanna yet, but it's the baby in the oven so to speak.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:46 PM

I would say infinity is the single point that always is w/o having never existed.

I would say 1d (length) is consciousness as intelligent energy begins its progression back to infinity. 1d is consciousness as the pure existence without specific knowledge. It is unobservable existence. There is nothing to observe in 1d space except a single point which is unobservable anyway. Being that there is nothing to observe, but there is existence, then there is not knowledge, but rather just the awareness of existing and being a part of something that is strange and unobservable.

This 1d consciousness is destined for discernment of its existence, so it gives rise to 2d space. In 2d space, length is still unobservable, but now width is observable. This helps define what length is by comparison of objects with width. This is the beginning of informational processing called "learning".

This is still inadequate at defining what length is, because as you know, height exists in this 3d space which gives a better definition of length than 2d space could. Now we can determine length by observing objects with width and height which gives us a better interpretation of length.

Yet, length is the single point's beginning of informational processing as a platform for informational processing called consciousness. The mystery belongs to the single point, not the 1d line. That is what the 1d line keeps adding dimensions for to come to understand.

The 1d line is the unobservable existence. The single point is a mystery that the 1d line is trying to understand and the only reference it has to understand itself, at that point, is itself. So it observes itself from outside itself in a 2d space. Then that is an inadequate description of the single point of infinity, so it observes itself from outside itself again in a 3d space. Eventually, it will be determined that this is an inadequate description of infinity, so we will ascend outside of ourselves yet again and inherit a 4d perspective to observe 3 dimensional objects. Not length width and height, but width, height, and something else (perhaps time). Length will remain unobservable.

Every added dimension is one step closer to proper discernment of a single point.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:15 AM
When I read this, I start wondering about the observing itself---the awareness that the point, line, width are dimensions---but what about the observation, is that maybe the 4th dimension? and we don't notice it, because we are it, we are the perceiving itself or perceiving contains the point, line, width ---something like that. Anyway this made me very aware of this sort of 4th dimension of awareness, or consciousness that has to be included in the other dimensions or else the other dimensions would not ever exist? right? I mean they can't exist unless there is an awareness of them?

Just some ideas that came up when I was reading this--- Maybe this has no baring on the subject at all?

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
When I read this, I start wondering about the observing itself---the awareness that the point, line, width are dimensions---but what about the observation, is that maybe the 4th dimension? and we don't notice it, because we are it, we are the perceiving itself or perceiving contains the point, line, width ---something like that. Anyway this made me very aware of this sort of 4th dimension of awareness, or consciousness that has to be included in the other dimensions or else the other dimensions would not ever exist? right? I mean they can't exist unless there is an awareness of them?

Just some ideas that came up when I was reading this--- Maybe this has no baring on the subject at all?

I'm not sure what you mean, but a thought that popped into my head was perhaps space becoming time is the birth of the dimensions.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
When I read this, I start wondering about the observing itself---the awareness that the point, line, width are dimensions---but what about the observation, is that maybe the 4th dimension? and we don't notice it, because we are it, we are the perceiving itself or perceiving contains the point, line, width ---something like that. Anyway this made me very aware of this sort of 4th dimension of awareness, or consciousness that has to be included in the other dimensions or else the other dimensions would not ever exist? right? I mean they can't exist unless there is an awareness of them?

Just some ideas that came up when I was reading this--- Maybe this has no baring on the subject at all?

well, the 4th dimension that we have accepted is the time itself (thanks to Mr. Einstein and his theory of relativity)
the 5th dimension could be the awareness or consciousness that you are thinking and talking about...
very clever thought though!

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
When I read this, I start wondering about the observing itself---the awareness that the point, line, width are dimensions---but what about the observation, is that maybe the 4th dimension? and we don't notice it, because we are it, we are the perceiving itself or perceiving contains the point, line, width ---something like that. Anyway this made me very aware of this sort of 4th dimension of awareness, or consciousness that has to be included in the other dimensions or else the other dimensions would not ever exist? right? I mean they can't exist unless there is an awareness of them?

Just some ideas that came up when I was reading this--- Maybe this has no baring on the subject at all?

well, the 4th dimension that we have accepted is the time itself (thanks to Mr. Einstein and his theory of relativity)
the 5th dimension could be the awareness or consciousness that you are thinking and talking about...
very clever thought though!

Well, thank you for this. Ok, the 5th dimension, sounds good. I am thinking that we are missing this 5th of dimension only because we never notice it . There is no 'observing' anything at all without it this 'knowingness'. Even the quantum physicist doing all kinds of experiments, has to be doing them 'within' awareness. It could be called knowing "knowing" as well, I guess. If we are knowing we are aware of, or perceiving. Maybe this is the 5th dimension "an all knowing presence'. It's kind of like gravity, its here but we do not know what it is, maybe gravity and consciousness are something the same?

Anyway, Thanks you guys!

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:25 PM

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by smithjustinb

So then what is length? Is it knowledge?

If length is knowledge, then what is a single point? Intelligence?

if this is true then:

length = a line from point A to point B = "knowledge"
a line = infinite set of points = "knowledge" = infinity
a single point in 3D = a sphere which has a diameter of zero = "intelligence" = 0
ok, so...
"knowledge" = infinity
"intelligence" = 0

0 x Infinity = infinity?

HELP!

now i can see that my intelligence definitely = 0
but, if we change the mathematics and substitute 0 with infinity i might feel better

i agree with you mate... mathematics is definitely wrong!

This post is the best one to answer, since the replier brought up finite, by denoting intelligence equals zero, since the math world thinks finite doesn't exist, thereby, it is zero.

The first thing I will cover is finite and why the math world cannot see it. Math has erroneously assigned the Space-Time of Numbers to in-between the number, instead of the number itself and that's why they can't see that finite isn't zero and that finite does exist. To understand that the Space-Time of Numbers is the number itself, instead of in-between the number, imagine going on a trip in your car from Point Zero, to Point One, with Point Zero being Los Angeles and Point One being Las Vegas. When you get in your car at Point Zero and start it, while sitting in your car as the engine warms up (at rest), does the car occupy Space-Time? Yup! Then when you put it in gear and begin your journey from Point Zero, to Point One, does your car occupy Space-Time? Yup! It occupies Space-Time the entire trip, so then, when you arrive at destination, Point One, and you turn off the car in its parking place (at rest), does the car occupy Space-Time? Yup! From that, it is clear that as the car traveled from Zero to One, it occupied a finite amount of Space-Time at all times, even at rest, thereby, numbers occupy Space-Time and there is NO Space-Time in-between numbers and the amount of Space-Time they each occupy is finite.

Infinite = I
finite = f

If = 1

0 + 1 = 1

Then, when you apply the correct Space-Time to Time itself, using the Base-10 mathematical scale, the Past begins at negative finite, the Future begins at positive finite, and the Present IS Zero, which occupies a finite amount of Space-Time. As Time passes (Newton's 3rd Law of Motion applies), a finite piece of the future moves the Present finite to the Past and the finite piece of the Future is now the Present, repeating Infinitely.

With the current Space-Time thinking, a number moves thru Space-Time, but it never occupies Space-Time. That thinking has created a Warped Space-Time Paradox and is why the Math World cannot see finite. With that thinking, apply it to Time to see why so many peeps think Time is an illusion. The Past would begin at negative finite, the Future would begin at positive finite, and the Present IS Zero, which does kNot occupy Space-Time and the three combined, would only occupy 2 finite, thus, the Present never occurs, thus, Time is an illusion.

Lastly, to address the OP's question, length is Time (Infinite) and the Point is Consciousness, a finite piece of God/Source!

Whoever said a Point doesn't exist, is an educated idiot that thinks finite doesn't exist and that the Space-Time of Numbers is in-between the number.

Great thread and awesome questions, OP!

Ribbit

posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by EmilNomel

Originally posted by Sweetmystery
When I read this, I start wondering about the observing itself---the awareness that the point, line, width are dimensions---but what about the observation, is that maybe the 4th dimension? and we don't notice it, because we are it, we are the perceiving itself or perceiving contains the point, line, width ---something like that. Anyway this made me very aware of this sort of 4th dimension of awareness, or consciousness that has to be included in the other dimensions or else the other dimensions would not ever exist? right? I mean they can't exist unless there is an awareness of them?

Just some ideas that came up when I was reading this--- Maybe this has no baring on the subject at all?

well, the 4th dimension that we have accepted is the time itself (thanks to Mr. Einstein and his theory of relativity)
the 5th dimension could be the awareness or consciousness that you are thinking and talking about...
very clever thought though!

Einstein got it wrong!

His Theory of Relativity is based on a Closed System, the Universe is an Open System and there are only THREE Dimensions and Time is the 3rd, seperate of Space, although Time is what binds the TWO spacial dimensions together as ONE Universe.

The Theory of Relativity of an Open System Universe, states:

"Everything is Relative to Source and Source is Relative to Everything."

Ribbit

new topics

top topics

2