# Dimensions

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Rantaak, Feb 4, 2005.

1. ### wesmorrisNerd Overlord - we(s):1 of NValued Senior Member

Messages:
9,845
My problem with it was that it treated time as a typical dimension with no reservation about it whatsoever, incorporating it basically as "the fourth dimension".

Well I thought the "many branches" thing was okay within the 3 dimension explanation, but the incorporation of time as a typical dimension expanded the many branches thing to the potentially ludicrous.

Fine point about the observation thing.

3. ### Prince_JamesPlutarch (Mickey's Dog)Registered Senior Member

Messages:
9,214
Wesmorris:

Great point on the "fourth dimension" treatment of time.

And yes, the "many branches" was more sensible on as three dimensions than it was later on time.

5. ### RantaakRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
57
Yeah it seemed like they were stretching some of the terms a bit too much. With infinity, I think they meant to use it as "infinite possibilities." It helps to consider that there are a few other grammatical errors. Branches on time also bugged me. Aside from that, what are you thoughts about getting from the 10th to the 11th? Is it possible?