Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by river, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. river

    Is it possbile to do this ?

    If so how it done ?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Destroy it where?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    There is nothing which consist only of one dimension

    There is nothing which consist only of two dimensions

    EVERYTHING has 3 dimensions no more no less

    To regular posters who know my view about time you will understand if I say time is NOT a dimension let alone being the 4th dimension

    Yes there are theories out there which contend the Universe may have 11 or 12 dimensions (hard to keep up with such technical papers)

    Since they are way above my understanding I have no idea of their accuracy and as such cannot form any option on such theories

    If the proponents can explain such ideas to my 3 neurone brain I would be greatful

    Until then I remain neutral

    For the 3 dimensional world I live in 3 dimensions seems to be it

    1 and 2 dimensions worlds I contend cannot exist

    Higher than 3 I await to be convinced

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    I once dated a women who said, "You have no depth". So I guess it is possible...
    sideshowbob likes this.
  8. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    It wasn't a comment on love life????

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I don't believe that it's possible for real-world material objects. They are inherently three (four?) dimensional.

    But it certainly seems to be possible conceptually, in the manner of mathematical physics.

    It's possible to imagine two-dimensional projections of three dimensional objects. Photographs approximate these all the time.
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  10. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    A dimension is a property, not a "thing". It can be hidden or ignored - e.g. the depth in a photograph or drawing - but that doesn't "destroy" it.
  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Of course, the hypothesis of the universe having a two dimensional provenance has been bouncing around for years.
    • Study reveals substantial evidence of holographic universe: Professor Kostas Skenderis of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Southampton explains: "Imagine that everything you see, feel and hear in three dimensions (and your perception of time) in fact emanates from a flat two-dimensional field. The idea is similar to that of ordinary holograms where a three-dimensional image is encoded in a two-dimensional surface, such as in the hologram on a credit card. However, this time, the entire universe is encoded."
    There might be extraterrestrial life (or their artificial intelligence) which represents the world in either fewer or more than three dimensions. From a human personal experience standpoint, either death or dreamless non-consciousness will terminate all manifestations of spatial degrees of freedom.

    "Speaking" of which, the pregeometry orientation in physics (below) is bent on demoting spatial affairs from any lingering fundamental status.
    • pregeometry: Since quantum mechanics allowed a metric to fluctuate, it was argued that the merging of gravity with quantum mechanics required a set of more fundamental rules regarding connectivity that were independent of topology and dimensionality, and which could work independently of any assumptions one might make about the properties of a surface. Where geometry could describe the properties of a known surface, the physics of a hypothetical region with predefined properties, "pregeometry" might allow one to work with deeper underlying rules of physics that were not so strongly dependent on simplified classical assumptions about the properties of space.
    • Brian Greene: Today's scientists seeking to combine quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of gravity (the general theory of relativity) are convinced that we are on the verge of another major upheaval, one that will pinpoint the more elemental concepts from which time and space emerge. Many believe this will involve a radically new formulation of natural law in which scientists will be compelled to trade the space-time matrix within which they have worked for centuries for a more basic "realm" that is itself devoid of time and space. --The Time We Thought We Knew ... NYT
    • Tim Folger: As of now there is no physical theory that completely describes what the universe is like below the Planck scale. One possibility is that if physicists ever manage to unify quantum theory and general relativity, space and time will be described by some modified version of quantum mechanics. In such a theory, space and time would no longer be smooth and continuous. Rather, they would consist of discrete fragments—quanta, in the argot of physics—just as light is composed of individual bundles of energy called photons. These would be the building blocks of space and time. It’s not easy to imagine space and time being made of something else. Where would the components of space and time exist, if not in space and time?

      As Rovelli explains it, in quantum mechanics all particles of matter and energy can also be described as waves. And waves have an unusual property: An infinite number of them can exist in the same location. If time and space are one day shown to consist of quanta, the quanta could all exist piled together in a single dimensionless point. “Space and time in some sense melt in this picture,” says Rovelli. “There is no space anymore. There are just quanta kind of living on top of one another without being immersed in a space.”
      (Newsflash: Time May Not Exist ... Discover Magazine, 06-12-2007) [Note that a "point" would actually be meaningless in such a size-less context.]
    • Sean Carroll: Rather than starting with some essentially classical view of gravity and “quantizing” it, we might imagine starting with a quantum view of reality from the start, and find the ordinary three-dimensional space in which we live somehow emerging from quantum information. That’s the project that ChunJun (Charles) Cao, Spyridon (Spiros) Michalakis, and I take a few tentative steps toward in a new paper. [...] The real world simply is quantum-mechanical from the start; it’s not a quantization of some classical system. The universe is described by an element of Hilbert space. All of our usual classical notions should be derived from that, not the other way around. Even space itself. We think of the space through which we move as one of the most basic and irreducible constituents of the real world, but it might be better thought of as an approximate notion that emerges at large distances and low energies. (Space Emerging From QM)
    • George Musser: Likewise, space might be built of pieces that are not themselves spatial. Those pieces might also be disassembled and reassembled into non spatial structures such as the ones that black holes and the big bang are hinting at. “Spacetime can’t be fundamental,” says the theorist Nima Arkani-Hamed. “It has to come out of something more basic.” This thinking completely inverts physics. Nonlocality is no longer the mystery; it’s the way things really are, and locality becomes the puzzle. When we can no longer take space for granted, we have to explain what it is and how it arises, either on its own or in union with time. A New Way of Thinking About Spacetime That Turns Everything Inside Out
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2017
  12. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Depth in a photograph or drawing does not disappear

    Draw a line on a blank sheet of paper pencil pen or paint from a brush

    The line will have depth

    Not very much but depth none the less

    My opinion is 3 dimensions only

    Reading up I found some theories claim 26 dimensions

    In an attempt to illustrate them in 3 dimensions the other dimensions looked like repeats of our 3

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Still not there above 3

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    The representation of the line - i.e. the deposit of graphite or ink or paint - has depth. The line itself, by definition, has only length.

    It does. Stand at the corner of a building; you can see the length, width and height. Now move toward the center of one of the sides. The adjacent side will quite literally disappear.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Not so

    Lines also have width

    literally disappear

    Neat trick

    If you can do that you should hire yourself as a demolition professional

    The adjacent side is no longer in the field of vision but still present in all ita glorious 3D depth

    To get rid of the wall a few cm from my nose do I close my eyes to make it literally disappear?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Depth in a photograph or drawing does not disappear

    The point I was making is the chemicals which make the image have depth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: Jun 30, 2017
  15. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    No they do not. Only the representation of a line has width. Otherwise, you couldn't see it.

    Yes, literally disappear. You do know what the word "appear" means, don't you? It's about perception, not existence.

    That's exactly what disappear means.
  16. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Destroy one of the 3 dimensiona . . . .likey NOT, but if an entity is moving in a manner that positionally changes in only two (say x,y) of the three (x,y,z) dimensions, the net change in position (x,y) will not express in the third dimension (z). How about destroying one of FOUR dimensions (x,y,z,t) . . . like t (preumed IMO as a dimension, for this discussion) . . . . net change in position will be . . . ??. BTW: This harkens back to the Does time exist? thread. Is time is a primary dimension? . . . or is change in position definable as 'time'? . . . . . interesting (and real, IMO, Michael!) ideas.
  17. river

    Hmmm...your taking time as mathematical .

    In the " Does time exist? " thread , is being discussed as a real , manifested , physical ; dimension .
  18. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Perhaps . . . . I'm not a mathematician . . . will have tot think about that . . . .I guess I'm of the opinion that we can simplistically describe (or analogize?) time as a net change in position of an observable entity regardless of how many dimensions we are considering (except, probably NOT a single dimension (point). ergo, my last post . . . I'm not technically endowed such that I can reasonably discuss what I think I'm talking about (HAHAHA!). Probably 'time' is perceived as real because we can observe positional changes in entities (I'd guess!).
  19. river

    Reasonable to me .
  20. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Not by me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. river


    But in the sense that time is NOT a real dimension , and why .
  22. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Because TIME does not exist

    Posted in the thread Does Time Exist is a large extract from the book

    The Invention of Time and Space

    Below is my attempt to explain my reason

    After I post my reason I will go to that thread and find the post number

    OK here I go with what I hope is a helpful explanation of my opinion as to why I say TIME does not exist

    This is a thought experiment so


    Consider a movie film projector

    Canister of film on top (FUTURE)

    The light / frame between light and lens / lens / screen (NOW)

    Canister of film on bottom (PAST)

    Consider the canister of film on top to represent 1 day (00:01 to 23:59)

    Run the film and stop at random time (10:00am)

    System has 14 hours top canister (FUTURE)

    NOW on screen

    10 hours bottom canister (PAST)

    To make it easier to imagine

    take the top canister film out and

    remove all but 2 minutes

    Same with bottom canister leave

    2 minutes attached discarded anything older

    System has 2 minutes top (FUTURE)

    NOW on screen

    2 minutes bottom (PAST)

    Mark the frame which was showing NOW the screen

    Lay the film out on a bench

    Looking at the film you should observe differences between each frame and a gap (line) between frames

    One line below the FUTURE frame above the NOW frame

    One line above the PAST frame below the NOW frame

    The line is the moment when a shutter cuts off the light while the frames advance

    HOWEVER life does NOT operate like a movie film

    NOW is continuous

    No cut off while next frame is positioned

    Yes for everybody memory is retained from previous NOWs and can be imagined for FUTURE NOWs

    The measurement between any two NOWs is known as AGE

    Back to the strip of film

    Cut off all remaining FUTURE frames

    Cut off all remaining PAST frames

    Replace the NOW frame in the projector

    Within reality you would see the NOW projected on the screen change with no reliance on any FUTURE (or PAST) frames

    Since by the explanation just given FUTURE and PAST do not EXIST but NOW continues without either I contend

    NOW is the ONLY IT

    TIME (as existing in the PAST or

    FUTURE) is simply not there

    AGE as between two bookmarks (let's change bookmarks to nowmarks)

    AGE as between two NOWMARKS can be measured and labelled and AGES compared as well as physical processes occurring on any AGED material

    Some substances AGE more (become more disorganised) dispite having the same measurement between NOWs as other substances

    Will wind up now and hope this explains my position

    Further reading

    Dictionary - meaning of EXIST

    Post #821 extract of The Invention of Time and Space

    ALL of the book The Invention of Time and Space

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Oops there it is within in my explanation

    Post number #821

    But really if you can find the book it gives so much more than the extract

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  23. river

    From CC's post #8

    Quantum mechanical no doubt.

    Life needs the material Cosmos , Universe , in order to culminate , therefore grow , into lifes potential .

    Could life grow in space without materials ? It could , but lifes evolution would be slower I think .

    With his idea of space being a notion of large distances and low energies , I disagree .

    Space is created at the same time as high energies to begin with .

    Because each energy , in order to manifest , therefore to have the ability to influence at some level of three dimensional things and life , must have a certain fundamental amount of " space " .

    Inotherwords space , energy , manifest at the same moment .

Share This Page