When I hear people talk in relation to Dimensionalism I often hear them use the term 'Higher dimension' instead of 'Other or Alternative' Dimension. What is the scale for this 'Lower to higher Dimension' based on.(is it number of points)? I've always seen it as an 'Alternative perspective' we the third,spacetime the fourth and a way classifiying aspects of formulae for ease in explanation and understanding. And People 'dream of "Higher intelligence" in these higher dimensions.. Surely 'Intellectual necessity' to the 'Dimension of existance' will always be the 'Relavence' and there can only be 'Other' intelligence on matters we may not comprehend...Just as the 'Other' intelligence may see things it may not comprehend in us..!! So what is this scale that automatcaly places us at the bottom of 'Intellectual existance'....? Or are these Gimboids who talk of 'Higher Intelligence' in 'Higher dimensions' just ignoring our own intelligence/capabilities/potential Whilst being ignorant to what a 'Higher' or 'Other' intelligence's capabilities may be....I.E. a squid can change colour,dolphins interact,monkeys can wear clothes, yet there capabilities are limited and cannot really be scaled in a relation to our own. Or are people just capitalising on the unknown (to sell books) like they have done for 1,000's of years. I only see 'Other Dimensions' and 'possability of 'Other intelligence' in the form of 'Other' life, I cannot see where this placement of 'Higher' comes in to it. :scratchin:any insight..?
Um, a dimension is just an axis on some graph. An axis on a graph can have all sorts of units for the chosen dimension. An example of an abstract dimension would be say, the emotional response curves of American teenagers to images of celebrities or politicians. So a dimension can be sort of imaginary. In Physics, there usually has to be some real, observable basis for the dimension, but an imaginary physical dimension might be say, the x and y displacement of an object rotating around a central point. Although the object is moving in a circle, its motion is describable as the superposition of two linear motions (like a pendulum swinging in a straight arc - you can observe this superposition of "left to right" and "front to back" linear motion by making a free-swinging pendulum rotate in a circular motion, it usually rotates in a ellipse, but there's a superposition). It has a real x and y position at each point in the path around its orbit, but equivalent imaginary points along two perpendicular axes. You can do away with the x,y and just use a phase angle and a radius.
That is what my idea of a 'Dimension' was... When these people use the terms 'Higher Dimensions' containing 'Higher Intelligences' it makes no logical sense to me.... So why are these fantasists throwing mystical jargon into Hypothetical physics/mathematical theories and then claiming this is where we will find 'Higher Intelligence' or a 'Greater Purpose' have they taken the meaning of 'Dimension' and changed it for their own needs (selling books)
These people are not physicists or mathematicians, at least not proper ones. They are not using the word "dimension" the way we do: one of a set of specific, defined characteristics of the natural, physical universe. This is not a complete definition but it's correct as far as it goes and it goes far enough to highlight the contrast with their definition. They tend to use it as a vague term for philosophical concepts that are not scientific, or even spiritual concepts that are usually downright antiscientific because they usually postulate a supernatural universe. To phrase what you've said in more scientific terms, the natural universe is a Euclidean space which has three dimensions of distance and one dimension of time. Physicsts speak of "other dimensions" strictly in terms of understanding the natural universe. About 25 years ago there was a model in which the natural universe had eleven dimensions. One of those was a direction in which subatomic particles vibrate at right angles to our... um... "hyperplane" of existence, so they only "show up" here in the instants when they're traveling through in one of the two directions. This sort of made sense out of a great many things such as relativity and the uncertainty principle. The point is that it was strictly about the way the natural universe behaves and had nothing to do with the evolution of intelligence. And on top of that it was more of a model than a theory, since we're getting pretty close to the point where physics, math and philosophy overlap. I think this model has been supplanted by string theory, which is also a model. To ask whether strings "exist" is more of a philosophical question than a scientific one. People dream of lots of things. By definition dreams contain a large portion of imaginary content. And I'm not referring to the square root of minus one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You've sure studied a lot of this stuff because you really have the lingo down. I have no idea what you just said. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I have often criticized religions for their "human hubris." Most of them teach, if only by implication, that these lumps of matter we call "people" are qualitatively so different from every other lump of matter in the natural universe that we can perceive creatures, events and conditions that are entirely external to the natural universe and therefore "prove" the existence of a supernatural universe and (again by implication) disprove science. When in fact there is no credible evidence that these "inspirations" are anything more than electrical impulses in our neurons whose correlation with reality is variable. The people you cite may be overreacting to this human hubris by taking the opposite point of view, yet still hanging onto Homo sapiens's cherished faith in the supernatural. In their model we're just dog shit on the lawn of the gods, but the gods are out there, and moreover there are lots of other creatures who are not quite gods but still waaaay more advanced than we are. Um... well maybe we don't have a precise numeric scale where we can put humans at 100, chimpanzees, dolphins and parrots at 90, crows and raccoons at 80, pigs at 70, dogs at 60, etc. Yet we have a de facto qualitative scale which I just used for reference, and I'm sure everyone reading this post will agree that my rankings are roughly correct. Well the sale of books as a moneymaking enterprise has only existed for a few hundred years since Gutenberg, but other than that you're probably correct. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hey, there might be other life in the universe. Based upon what little we know of life and even less about abiogenesis, still most of us would bet money on it, especially since we probably won't live to see the question answered. There's no reason to assume that we're the most intelligent life that has evolved anywhere in the universe. Surely there are older earthlike planets where life has had several billion more years to evolve than it has here, and their apex species may be a billion years ahead of us in intellect. Since we keep unlocking the secrets of physics at a prodigious rate, and keep coming closer to a point where there won't be any reasonable doubt about relativity and the lightspeed limitation on the velocity of space travel, it's ever more likely that the voyage between two civilized planets could take hundreds of thousands of years. We may have to live with our curiosity unsatisfied for a very long time.
Physics calls time a fourth dimension because the laws of physics can be expressed in a manner that is very similar to 4-Dimensional geometry. If you only think about geometry, spatial dimensions, & flat spaces, higher dimensional objects can be investigated mathematically, but not visualized. For those not familiar with the term: A Flat space obeys the mathematics of the Euclidean geometry almost everyone studies in about the tenth grade. Consider Hypercubes: Squares and ordinary cubes are called 2D & 3D hypercubes in order to have consistent terminology. The hypervolume is Length[sup]n[/sup], where Length is the length of a side and n is the number of dimensions. Length[sup]2[/sup] in 2D, Length[sup]3[/sup] in 3D, Length[sup]4[/sup] in 4D, Length[sup]5[/sup] in 5D, etcetera. For an n-dimensional hypercube whose side is one unit long, there is a diagonal whose length is SquareRoot(n). This leads to some counterintuitive conclusions. In 441D, the length of some diagonal is 21 units, even though the sides are only one unit long!! If you had an inscribed hypersphere with diameter equal to one, the surface of the sphere would be 10 units from the corners of the hypercube, while the surface would touch all the sides!! The above and various other properties of objects in n-D space can be proven. Hyperspheres can be described mathematically. The equations are as follows. 2D: x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] = radius[sup]2[/sup], a circle. 3D: x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] + z[sup]2[/sup] = radius[sup]2[/sup], an ordinary sphere. 4D: w[sup]2[/sup] + x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] + z[sup]2[/sup] = radius[sup]2[/sup] 5D: v[sup]2[/sup] + w[sup]2[/sup] + x[sup]2[/sup] + y[sup]2[/sup] + z[sup]2[/sup] = radius[sup]2[/sup] Et cetera. The surface areas, volumes, and other properties of hyperspheres can be derived from the equations if you have the mathematical knowledge & some patience. A Web search for hypersphere is likely to locate a site with the formulae for surface area & volume. You can also investigate the properties of hypercones, hypercylinders, hypertoruses (hypertori?), and other n-D objects. Do not try to visualize such objects: It might hurt.
Physics is pretty much the study of fields and interactions. But we classify all kinds of things, because we give them a dimensionality that's entirely a figment of our imagination. For example, we classify different "fields" of scientific theory and experiment, which are completely arbitrary, since all science is essentially the same thing. The big classification/distinction we usually make, the "heavy hitter", is "soft v hard" science. And all the theories and ideas that are based on philosophical rather than real physical explanations have certain degrees of freedom of themselves, to move around in, and a different kind of abstract space, in which the question goes more like: "if I can imagine it, does it exist?".
In the relevance of 'Higher Intelligence/Higher Dimension' I cannot understand the connection of the 'Possability" of a say "Theist-Physical Actualtiy(If thats a word)opposed to a 'Hypothetical platform'....:scratchin: now I've confused myself...LOL If we found 'Other life' the only scale we can place it on is something that is relavent to us (Like the scale you mentioned) and as we place all known life below us intelectualy (as we have no comparrison I.E. "Just as man fears tiger,Tiger fears man")then the understanding of a 'Hypothetical Possabilty' should be no more different than the 'relavence' of a porcupines intelligence to an octopus there is no scale of 'HIGHER OR LOWER' as the 'Intelligence' is only relavant to its enviroment. So there cannot be a 'higher dimension' or a 'higher intelligence'there can only be a 'Hypothetical alternative' or 'Other'....(unless porob' if you talk math).. It's not the amount i've studied its probably the weight of questions I have about something I cannot 'Properly Interperet' and what I do not truely understand I'm struggling to convey ledgibly., I can see no basis (dimensionaly or intelligently) for anything 'Greater than man', you or me,him or her....
