The 4th Spatial dimension is memory.

[arfa brane]

2. The world ticked along quite happily for 10 billion years without any kind of memory.

Not exactly, and it depends how memory is defined. If it's just the storing of information, then the universe has been doing that since it existed.

Except that that just shifts defining memory, to defining the storage of information. And to defining information.
Information itself appears to depend on the level of detail--humans ignore a vast amount of information when perceiving the world, for instance. If we consider ourselves as information-storage devices, we don't get to store all that much, compared to the much larger set of events; we appear to be adapted to a certain level of information input.

Which seems to be the case for any physical device.

 

[Michael 345]

Just so we're clear, are you disagreeing with my claim that four dimensions are the minimum required? You're saying three dimensions is enough?

Correct

 

[arfa brane]

Correct

So you claim that some kind of information can be stored in two dimensions? Which has to make sense if one of your three dimensions is time. Which has to be the case if you want "storing" to make some sense as well.

 

[DaveC426913]

An Atom is a 0D object.

No it is not. Atoms have measurable diameters.

It's great that this is in the pseudoscience forum now, but that is not free license to just make stuff up.

 

[Michael 345]

So you claim that some kind of information can be stored in two dimensions? Which has to make sense if one of your three dimensions is time. Which has to be the case if you want "storing" to make some sense as well.

Not sure where you extracted So you claim that some kind of information can be stored in two dimensions? from. Certainly not me

One of MY dimensions is not TIME. Perhaps you are unaware of my take on TIME, TIME does not exist.

What I think you are perhaps doing is confusing AGE with TIME. The period over which MEMORY last becomes the AGE of the MEMORY

Brains, along with all information storage devices, have various levels of accuracy of recall regarding memory. The PROCESS itself (the manipulation of incoming information) can, and does, distort the information so the future recall of said information can NOT faithfully reproduce the original input (of what was hopefully being committed to MEMORY)

Information, from various senses, arrives into the brain. Said information is processed, interpreted to provide a expression of the world external to the body (Yes it also has information about itself)

Some of said external expression is stored - within brain cells which are themselves 3 Dimensional units. The information itself has zero dimensions because it is a PROCESS

 

[river]

DaveC426913 said: ↑
2. The world ticked along quite happily for 10 billion years without any kind of memory.

Not exactly, and it depends how memory is defined. If it's just the storing of information, then the universe has been doing that since it existed.

Memory is more than just a storage of information , it also part of the Human intellect . Without memory there is no Intellect .

Except that that just shifts defining memory, to defining the storage of information. And to defining information.
Information itself appears to depend on the level of detail--humans ignore a vast amount of information when perceiving the world, for instance. If we consider ourselves as information-storage devices, we don't get to store all that much, compared to the much larger set of events; we appear to be adapted to a certain level of information input.

Which seems to be the case for any physical device.

We are not just information storage devices .

We are living beings , which Thinks upon the information given .

 

[James R]

Hawkl:

For the explanation I have given.

You haven't given any explanation. All you have is a claim that somehow mathematical shapes "remember" lower dimensions, along with some incorrect descriptions of how various regular solids look in 4 dimensions.

Yet it is.

Go and look up "tesseract" on google or something. Read a few pages on it.

Once you've done that, come back here and tell me again that a tesseract has "six square-based cones meeting in the middle". I dare you.

Yet it does. (There's actually another Mathematical proof for this.)

You're really pushing your luck.

Now I'm going to have to ask you to present the mathematical proof that you assert exists, or else provide a link to where I can see the proof.

If you cannot do this, you will have to admit your lie and apologise to all of us.

I eagerly await your next post. Better make it a good one.

 

[HawkI]

1)
In a Tesseract, the pointy bits are concealed by the original 3D Cube.

2)
Quote from the Mathematical book 'Things to make and do in the fourth dimension'

If you slice off 25 per cent of the radius of a circle, you remove more of it than if you than take 25 per cent off a sphere. A 3D sphere is already a bit spikier than a 2D circle.

Removing 25 per cent of a circle's radius from the end that touches the circumference takes away a segment containing 7.2147 per cent of the total surface area. If we do the same thing on a sphere and make a slice 25 per cent from the end of the radius and take off that cap, we remove only 4..2969 per cent of the volume. Because the sphere is curving in more dimensions, it tapers more as you get towards the outside. This happens to a more and more exaggerated degree the higher up the dimensions you go, as higher-dimensional spheres have more dimensions to curve into.

 

[DaveC426913]

1)
In a Tesseract, the pointy bits are concealed by the original 3D Cube.

Several things wrong with this.

I'm afraid you don't really understand what you are looking at with a tesseract.

A tesseract is made of cubes. All the cubes are the same shape and size, their faces all intersect at 90 degree angles.


What you are looking at when you Google is a 3-dimensional projection of a 4-D object.

This is a 2 dimensional projection of a 3D cube:

A cube is made of squares. All squares are the same shape and size, and their edges interesect at 90 degree angles

Notice how the 2D projection has distorted angles and lengths whereas the cube does not.


Those "square cones" you see are describing are actually the shadows of cubes distorted by projection.

 

[HawkI]

The notes I had before this is all are gonna help me for when I animate 4D. You don't understand how helpful the Square based cones will be whilst animating.

Edit:- I'm gonna animate purely by using Maths code.

 

[arfa brane]

The information itself has zero dimensions because it is a PROCESS

No that doesn't scan. How do you store information if it's a process? Isn't the storing the process? How does a process have zero dimensions? Surely a process if it's physical, is defined in terms of physical units; so there should be some connection or correlation between a process and the transfer or transport of, um, energy?
How does a process exist without time?

You attempt to define a process:

The PROCESS itself (the manipulation of incoming information) can, and does, distort the information so the future recall of said information can NOT faithfully reproduce the original input

But what's this 'input'? How do you define it? If you want it to be 'incoming information', how is it defined with no time (in the frame)?

 

[DaveC426913]

You don't understand how helpful the Square based cones will be whilst animating.

They are not "square-based cones"; they are cubes, distorted by down-projection from 4D to 3D - just like a square tile's shadow is distorted into the shape of a rhombus.

Here are some other perfectly viable tesseracts, seen from different angles:

Here is one where, instead of distorting the angles, the cubes are pulled apart at the seams. Notice no "square cones":

It is the 3D equivalent of the 2D net for a cube:

 

[arfa brane]

We are not just information storage devices .

We are living beings , . . .

Well, sure. I conjecture that being an information storage device is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of living. If say, living is a kind of process.

 

[Write4U]

See "microtubules"....

Cytoskeletal Signaling: Is Memory Encoded in Microtubule Lattices by CaMKII Phosphorylation?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297561/

 

[James R]

Write4U:

We don't need to have microtubules in every thread. Please stop.

 

[Michael 345]

No that doesn't scan. How do you store information if it's a process? Isn't the storing the process? How does a process have zero dimensions? Surely a process if it's physical, is defined in terms of physical units; so there should be some connection or correlation between a process and the transfer or transport of, um, energy?
How does a process exist without time?

You attempt to define a process: But what's this 'input'? How do you define it? If you want it to be 'incoming information', how is it defined with no time (in the frame)?

My friend gives (tells) me his telephone number. Brain processes the sound and stores it in brain, as I understand the process near similar information

As the process does not take long let's start with a 0

Five minutes later memory has aged five minutes. I pick up my personal telephone number note book and recall friends number, take out the pen which came with the note book and enter it into the book

In neither location, brain or book, is the information process 3D

If you are cooking (process) a cake please explain how that is 3D

As mentioned my take about TIME does not exist

Side bar

The general usage of time as in 'that process took 2 seconds of time'

Reference that back to one of the International definitions of second (there are a few) we get

The second (abbreviation, s or sec) is the Standard International ( SI ) unit of time. One second is the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 10 9 ) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the cesium 133 atom.

https://whatis-techtarget-com.cdn.a...tis.techtarget.com/definition/second-s-or-sec

Translate that back to my example ('that process took 2 seconds of time') we can now reframe as 'the period that process lasted was 2 seconds'

This becomes the AGE the process (how long it lasted)

I can see your eyes rolling from here

AGE is a purely ARBITRARY measurement between ARBITRARY moments, and the measurement itself is purely ARBITRARY

Time for coffee

 

[arfa brane]

Time for coffee

But not for the definition of a timeless process?
You went through a whole process, trying to answer my question (if we start there): how does a process exist without time, or, if energy has to be exchanged/stored/transported, how can time not exist?

But your post nowhere avoids the existence of time, you use verbs in your post and all verbs have a temporal meaning. You can't write a sentence in English that makes any sense really, with no verbs = temporal markers, in it. So you've got a ways to go, explaining how time doesn't exist; if it's time for a coffee, is it the age for a coffee?

 

[Michael 345]

But not for the definition of a timeless process?
You went through a whole process, trying to answer my question (if we start there): how does a process exist without time, or, if energy has to be exchanged/stored/transported, how can time not exist?

But your post nowhere avoids the existence of time, you use verbs in your post and all verbs have a temporal meaning. You can't write a sentence in English that makes any sense really, with no verbs = temporal markers, in it. So you've got a ways to go, explaining how time doesn't exist; if it's time for a coffee, is it the age for a coffee?

Got me gov

Should have been period for coffee

Can you give me a property of TIME?

Something detectable about TIME. Colour, frequency, does it come in various sizes?

How is it (was it) first discovered? Stuff like that

Try the same with inches, with left, with up. Problem with religion and god is religion cannot produce evidence of a non existent god

As with my position with regard to TIME being non existent the best I can do is try to explain the concept / idea (religion relies mainly on god being the creator of everything) and has spun numerous yarns around such concept

Best TIME has done is a old looking bloke with a scythe and hour glass

When your time is up, the last grain of sand drops you are cut down with the scythe

Again TIME does not exist as a detectible something. We have referenced various occurrences ie certain crystal vibrations, Earth movement around the sun etc and called the changes time

The changes (between one arbitrary NOW and another arbitrary NOW) are AGE, the period of existence, but not TIME

Since this is way off track about the strange idea memory is a 4th dimension I would be grateful if it could be moved to the "What is TIME thread" perhaps

Currently my holiday has been extended to a future undetermined NOW and disrupted changes I was planning to undertake. I will need to go along with plans of others to get back on track with my plans

 

[arfa brane]

Can you give me a property of TIME?

Yep.

Time is a domain for functions of time. A function of time in physics can be a frequency for a real wavetrain, for instance.
Time appears to be the same mathematically as the real line. Hence linear.

 

[arfa brane]

Again TIME does not exist as a detectible something.

Well, some might claim that physical existence implies being able to be put in a bottle, like water is physically real because you can put water in a bottle.
So time isn't physical because you can't put time in a bottle.

But that's predicated on physical = being in a bottle. You can't put the distance from your front door to the street in a bottle. Lots of things we accept the existence of, can't be put in a bottle.