The idea of demensions proves Descartes wrong.

[Tomhargen]

We all know, or should know, of Descartes' Method. If you don't, google it.
Frankly, I couldn't bring myself to accept the fact that anything can be known, without a doubt, to be true. I have a story that probably many of you have heard, but I'm going to tell it anyway.

Consider a two dimensional consiousness. He had all of the ability to reason that anyone else here had. Say that, in the third dimension, there was a pendulum. A three dimensional consciousness would see what we all know a pendulum looks like. The flatlander(two dimensional consciousness), however, would see a line, growing out from a point, in his plane, and then shrinking back out from a point, until it doesn't exist. He could study it as long as he likes, but that is the reality of it for him.

We could be in the same exact situation right now. The only thing that could possibly know everything beyond a shadow of a doubt would be a being who lived on every plane. But how would that being know he lived on every plane? Unless we know the nature of existence, completely and without a doubt, there would way to know for sure that something is true. If you think about it, even Descartes was acting on an assumption. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. How does Descartes know for certian that he is the one making his decisions? It's impossible to know. Perhaps there is a being who lives on every plane who lives all of our lives for us. He makes our decisions and even makes the assumes for us that we are the ones making that decision. Perhaps the statement should be like this: I think, therefore I think I am.

Granted, the method is an excellent way to figure something out, and is very useful in science, but I don't think it can be applied to genuine truths.

[Sum Contrapositum]

I think a marriage of this concept along with the quantum jumps of a particle in quantum physics is an idea worth looking at.

What I mean is when you look at the subcellular level, matter itself actually looks and behaves (in the words of one physicist) "more like a thought" than anything mechanical. The first quantum mechanics discovered: Nothing in the world causes the particle to jump. Yet, the first premise of science is that everything happens solely as a result of causes in the world.

And more, if subatomic particles can freely choose to come and go as they please, then claims as to our own nonmechanical nature seem more plausible. And so the idea of the brain as being purely mechanical may be an illusion, making mind and will a more foundational reality.

By marrying this concept with the higher dimensional one you presented, you could see that perhaps the seemingly random movements of particles in quantum mechanics has a cause that lies in a higher dimension from our own. Global mind? Universal consciousness? God?

[Tomhargen]

Well, perhaps what makes the particles jump is on the 5th dimension, and it impossible for us to know anything about it except for it's affect on our 4 dimensions. But you get my point, of not being able to know. For a religious man, this could almost prove the existence of a god.

[Sum Contrapositum]

Certainly the flatlander would view all the abilities of a being in the 3rd dimension as having God-like attributes:
Omniscience: The 3D being would know all there is to know about flatland.
Omnipresent: The 3D being would be able to easily see everywhere in flatland.
Omnipotents: The 3D being would certainly appear all powerful in flatland, being able to alter things in the 3rd dimension.

[Tomhargen]

Then our God might just be a 5th dimensional being, trying to be nice. After all, he would be able to know exactly what is going to happen next in time, the 4th dimension. He could do whatever he liked with us. Alas this conversation is getting very strange.

But how could one who isn't constricted by time, understand how it affects one who is?

[Sum Contrapositum]

Time is simply another dimension (we can call it the 4th dimension).

The same way we can visualize flatland as if we were looking at 2D blueprints, likewise a higher dimensional being may view time as if he were looking at a multi-faceted time-line.

Perhaps?

[Tomhargen]

Unfortunately, I can't picture that, simply because time seems like such a different dimension than any of the others to me. I could almost imagine another physical dimension, but time is so differently envisioned for me.

[Dan Rowden]

Frankly, I've always considered time as a physical dimension to be pretty nonsensical. Time is simply a measurement of rate of change. It's a dimension/artifact of consciousness rather than of physical reality.

[Tomhargen]

Time passes exactly the same for every being, and has observable rules, so how is it simply an artifact of consciousness? I think a maybe an explanation on that would help me to understand.

I think that time is a physical dimension.

Your saying exactly what a one dimensional man would say as soon as there is movement(2nd dimension) and what the two dimensional man would say as soon as there is density.

[Dan Rowden]

Time passes exactly the same for every being, and has observable rules, so how is it simply an artifact of consciousness?

It does and it does? What is the objective standard for the passage of time?

[brokenhead]

Frankly, I've always considered time as a physical dimension to be pretty nonsensical. Time is simply a measurement of rate of change. It's a dimension/artifact of consciousness rather than of physical reality.

It's a bit more complex than that, Dan. Newton regarded time as absolute, as a physical reality the same for everbody. He also regarded space that way. It turns out he was wrong on both counts, although the notions lasted 200 years until they were refined by Mach and Einstein. Neither is absolute; however, spacetime IS a physical absolute and can be demonstrated to be so by experiment, whereas experiment clearly disproved that either space or time was a "thing" without the other. QM is showing that in a fundamental and not entirely understood way, reality itself is nonlocal; however, this does not alter the absolute nature of spacetime.

You can make an argument that space is an artifact of consciousness, space and everything in it.

[brokenhead]

Time passes exactly the same for every being, and has observable rules, so how is it simply an artifact of consciousness? I think a maybe an explanation on that would help me to understand.

But that's just it! Time does NOT pass exactly the same for every being!!! In fact, it passes UNIQUELY for every being. It is relative.

There are many good popular, not-too-technical books on modern physics. Read one and you'll be convinced of this. One good one is Brian Greene's The Fabric of the Cosmos. If two people are in motion with respect to each other, time passes more slowly for one than the other.

[brokenhead]

But that's just it! Time does NOT pass exactly the same for every being!!! In fact, it passes UNIQUELY for every being. It is relative.

BTW, Einstein didn't much like the term "relativity." The relativistic effects he predicted - and that were later verified - were simply consequences of the invariance he was trying to show. Namely, the speed of light is invariant for every observer, no matter how fast they are moving.

It goes like this: If you throw a ball at 10 miles per hour, you see it go away from you at 10 mph. If someone were running past you in the direction of the throw at 6 mph, he would see the ball moving away at only 4 mph. Simple, right? But say you were on a space-station and shone a laser beam into space. You would see the beam recede at the speed of light. This speed is commonly called c. If a rocket ship were zipping past you at that moment at 3/4 the speed of light (or .75c), a person on that rocket would not see the beam receding at 1/4 the speed of light (or .25c), as classical physics would predict. Light is not like the ball! Rather, the person would see the beam receding at exactly c, the speed of light, just as fast as you see it recede. How is this possible? How can you both see it beam away as fast? In other words, how can the speed of light be invariant to two observers if one is moving with respect to the other? The answer is that time itself is relative: time moves more slowly for the person on the rocket ship. The faster he is moving with respect to the space station, the slower his time ticks by, so that he would always see light from an observer on the space station moving away at the same speed as the person on the station sees it, precisely c every time. Light cannot move faster or slower than c for anyone. Its speed is invariant.

An interesting consequence of this invariance of the speed of light is that since the moving observer's time moves more slowly than the stationary observer's time, classical physics never holds exactly. Remember that ball you threw at 10 mph? The person running by at 6 mph in the direction of the throw really DOESN'T see the ball receding at 4 mph. He see's it receding at very slightly more than that, something on the order of .7500000000001 mph. The relativistic effects are much smaller because his velocity is much less than the observer in the rocket ship who observes the receing laser beam, but they are stll there. Time always moves slower for someone in motion, now matter how fast or slow the motion. In fact, it doesn't have to be someone. Scientists have put an atomic clock on a normal jet plane and have found less time elapsed during a trans-global flight than it did for a stationary atomic clock.

A corollary to the above is that nothing can move faster than the speed of light c. Scientists disagree whether anything with mass can even move as fast as the speed of light c. Here's why: Not only does the moving observer's time slow down, his mass increases. The faster he moves, the slower his time elapses and the greater his mass increases. The Lorentz transformations - the equations that precisely predict these increases - say that if the observer actually got up to the speed of light c, his time would slow down to zero, and his mass would be infinity times his rest mass. A photon has zero rest mass, so when it travels - always at exactly c, its mass is still zero.

Particle physicists have verified Einstein's predictions beyond any shadow of doubt. In vast paricle accelerators, they are able to bring tiny, subatomic particle to .999999 c, almost the speed of light. Such particles might have very short half-lifes when at rest, but while in motion, their decay is tremendously slowed down, because time for them is brought down close to 0. Unfortunaely, even though their rest masses are very small, as they go faster and faster in the accelerator, their masses increase. As their masses increase, it takes proportionately more energy to make them go even a little faster. Theory seems to state that to get even a tiny particle to exactly the speed of light, it would require infinite energy.

[Tomhargen]

I'v been thinking about it, and now it seems to me like time is just another line on a graph. It honestly makes sense that way. a point, width+height+depth, duration. What would come next?

[divine focus]

Each added dimension adds context to the situation--i.e., more meaning. The next "zooming out" adds meaning that is indeducible logically or sequentially.

[David Quinn]

We all know, or should know, of Descartes' Method. If you don't, google it.
Frankly, I couldn't bring myself to accept the fact that anything can be known, without a doubt, to be true. I have a story that probably many of you have heard, but I'm going to tell it anyway.

Consider a two dimensional consiousness. He had all of the ability to reason that anyone else here had. Say that, in the third dimension, there was a pendulum. A three dimensional consciousness would see what we all know a pendulum looks like. The flatlander(two dimensional consciousness), however, would see a line, growing out from a point, in his plane, and then shrinking back out from a point, until it doesn't exist. He could study it as long as he likes, but that is the reality of it for him.

We could be in the same exact situation right now. The only thing that could possibly know everything beyond a shadow of a doubt would be a being who lived on every plane. But how would that being know he lived on every plane? Unless we know the nature of existence, completely and without a doubt, there would way to know for sure that something is true. If you think about it, even Descartes was acting on an assumption. Cogito ergo sum. I think therefore I am. How does Descartes know for certian that he is the one making his decisions? It's impossible to know. Perhaps there is a being who lives on every plane who lives all of our lives for us. He makes our decisions and even makes the assumes for us that we are the ones making that decision. Perhaps the statement should be like this: I think, therefore I think I am.

Granted, the method is an excellent way to figure something out, and is very useful in science, but I don't think it can be applied to genuine truths.

At the very least, we can know without any shadow of a doubt that experiences are happening, that Nature/Totality is not nothing whatsoever. This is a truth which transcends the issue of whether I am being conscious or whether a greater entity is being conscious through us.

We can also know that the things we experience in each moment are only parts of the greater whole. This piece of certainty necessarily applies in all dimensions, to all beings who possibly exist in these dimensions, including ourselves in this dimension.

There are many other such certainties - some them trivial, some of them extremely profound.

Descartes method is an excellent method for discerning what is absolutely true and certain in life. It is impossible to do any real philosophy without it.

-

[JustinZijlstra]

Our consciousness has no dimensions.
If you measure something you do it mythically (call it visually).
To do riemannian mathemagics in the brain (see image*) one simply made the myths his own.
If the deep conscious knows the world through mathematical symbols it can also make it 'myth'.
Descartes in his perspective knew how to use alternative world models.
He cannot be wrong, he can simply be not consistent with the world.

So how is he not?


*

[JustinZijlstra]

I'v been thinking about it, and now it seems to me like time is just another line on a graph. It honestly makes sense that way. a point, width+height+depth, duration. What would come next?

Time also is a myth or category (Kant) without time, space (and thus causality) one can not order anything in the mind. However one does not need to think of time pressure if one accepts the notions and integrates them, then intuitively you'll always be on time.

No one is bound by time, only by myths.

[JustinZijlstra]

But that's just it! Time does NOT pass exactly the same for every being!!! In fact, it passes UNIQUELY for every being. It is relative.

No, time to explain phenomena is not experienced. If one experiences time pressure the amount of time one reminds oneself of the moment one is out of 'flow' and thus time slows down because one 'counts time' or 'moments' as it where. Time is not existent. God for the religious here, is NOT bound by categories. The amount of flow is not the same for every being, but those constantly in flow have not sense of time, only the thought.

[brokenhead]

But that's just it! Time does NOT pass exactly the same for every being!!! In fact, it passes UNIQUELY for every being. It is relative.

No, time to explain phenomena is not experienced. If one experiences time pressure the amount of time one reminds oneself of the moment one is out of 'flow' and thus time slows down because one 'counts time' or 'moments' as it where. Time is not existent. God for the religious here, is NOT bound by categories. The amount of flow is not the same for every being, but those constantly in flow have not sense of time, only the thought.

What you are saying here isn't very clear, but it doesn't matter. It kind of sounds like you are saying "a watched pot never boils."

It does not matter if you watch the pot or not, if you are in the "flow" or not, if you are enlightened or not, etc. Take two people, one who can stay in the flow and one who "experiences the pressure" of time. Put watches on them. If they synchronized their watches and one sat in a chair while the other moved around, when the moving person came back to the chair, they would have different times on the watches. Okay, the watches would have to be atomic clocks, but you get the idea. Less time elapses for the moving person. The watches are unaware of any "flowing." In fact, as many scientists claim, time is what clocks measure.

Whether you have any sense of time or not, it still passes.

God is not bound by categories, but his creatures are. Of course to most of the regulars at GF, "God" is a four-letter word. It is like something off in the food - one taste of it and they will puke out the whole post. But for the steelier stomachs, consider this: Suppose time is created to do exactly what it does, cause experiences to occur sequentially so that cause and effect can be witnessed and studied, so the creature can learn. It is like a good parent creating rules for the very young - such as an early bedtime, limited TV viewing, etc., not for the sake of creating rules per se, but to establish a framework or scaffolding around which a lifetime of good habits can be built. Later on, the scaffolding comes down and the young adult make his own choices. Similarly, the adept can slip into or out of the "flow," as you put it, when it suits him to do so.

You are saying that time is subjective, which is something Einstein used to illustrate its being relative. His example, I believe, was that if you spent a few minutes with a pretty girl and then spent the same time sitting on the lid of a hot stove, the latter would seem like an eternity compared to the former.

That Einstein chose to resort to this analogy is unfortunate, because it obscures what he is trying to show. Relative motion does not affect the subjective sense of time passing. A moving person is completely unaware that time for him is moving slower than time for a stationary person. In fact, an atomic clock is not "aware" of time or whether or not it is moving. Yet experimenters have shown that an atomic clock on an around-the-globe trip marks off less time than one with which it had been synchronized but has remained stationary.

[JustinZijlstra]

time is what clocks measure.

Why?

How can you order your experiences if you perceive in a serial matter? Clocks in my experience do not measure, they are mechanical devices that need to be synchronized because there is nothing to measure. Measuring is not possible, and to my knowledge there is no physicist that within his model has explained to the public what measuring is.

Whether you have any sense of time or not, it still passes.

Again. Why? You cannot proof that by refering internally or externally. That is pointing.

God is not bound by categories, but his creatures are. Of course to most of the regulars at GF, "God" is a four-letter word.

To me it is something that is used in physics by einstein and bohr. Common word.

Fuck god, rape god, love god, it is all being done if one can imagine it without the 'god' word in it. A kind of pantheism perhaps.

You are saying that time is subjective, which is something Einstein used to illustrate its being relative. His example, I believe, was that if you spent a few minutes with a pretty girl and then spent the same time sitting on the lid of a hot stove, the latter would seem like an eternity compared to the former.

That Einstein chose to resort to this analogy is unfortunate,

What? I like the figure because he does not talk pedantic because of pedantery.

because it obscures what he is trying to show. Relative motion does not affect the subjective sense of time passing. A moving person is completely unaware that time for him is moving slower than time for a stationary person. In fact, an atomic clock is not "aware" of time or whether or not it is moving. Yet experimenters have shown that an atomic clock on an around-the-globe trip marks off less time than one with which it had been synchronized but has remained stationary.

Well, define measurement then, sounds like spooky trickery to me ;-).

If he used the above example, and you use 'unfortunate that einstein' and continue with 'the synchronized measured example', who should I doubt about?

A person can also learn more by learning more. What do you measure if one person learns more then others while they are twins?

Nothing special about that. However, your arguments are interesting. So I am curious how you react.

[brokenhead]

brokenhead: Time is what clocks measure.

JustinZijlstra: Why?
How can you order your experiences if you perceive in a serial matter? Clocks in my experience do not measure, they are mechanical devices that need to be synchronized because there is nothing to measure. Measuring is not possible, and to my knowledge there is no physicist that within his model has explained to the public what measuring is.

If I spoke Dutch and we were having this exchange, I still don't think I'd understand what you are saying.

Why what? Ordering your experiences is something you do. Measuring time is something a clock does. What does one have to do with the other? Time still passes in the absence of measuring devices. If you were blind and could not tell night and day or the change of seasons and you had no other measuring device, you would still experience bodily cycles. And a finite number of them, since eventually you would die, regardless. We are all measuring devices of some sort.

All measuring devices count something, whether it is vibrations, the swing of a pendulum, or instances of atomic decay. Clocks are contrived so that wha tthey count happens in as regular and cyclic a way as is humanly possible to make them.

The public needs no explanation because it knows what counting is. (You know: 1,2,3...)

A clock is never synchronized. It takes two or more clocks for synchronization to occur. Synchronization has no effect on a clock's ability to measure time, or to count. It is simply making two or more clocks "agree" to start counting from the same number.

brokenhead: Whether you have any sense of time or not, it still passes.

JustinZijlstra: Again. Why? You cannot proof that by refering internally or externally. That is pointing.

Well, there are physicists and other less scientific philosophers who maintain that time does not exist. There may some theoretical advantage to that viewpoint. But I suggest that viewpoint is what has to be proven, not that time exists. I am not going to try to prove that time exists and just get a series of "why's" ad nauseum. I will just point to the fact that I can observe cycles: life and death, day and night, season after season, etc.

JustinZijlstra: If he used the above example, and you use 'unfortunate that einstein' and continue with 'the synchronized measured example', who should I doubt about?

My remark about Einstein's analogy being unfortunate is just my opinion. IMO, he was trying to get across the fact that the passage of time is not always the same for two people. His theory does not mention or require any subjective experience of time. It in fact explicitly does not, because it doesn't even require an observer. It just requires two identical clocks in relative motion. Yet his description does make use of subjectivity.

JustinZijlstra: A person can also learn more by learning more. What do you measure if one person learns more then others while they are twins?

Nothing special about that. However, your arguments are interesting. So I am curious how you react.

Very few sets of twins learn exactly the same things or the same amount. Yet time passes for them as well, does it not?

My reaction is that I'm not really getting your point.

[JustinZijlstra]

All measuring devices count something

They tick. A computer cannot get stoned either, so the cpu does operations, and it does not proces either.

There may some theoretical advantage to that viewpoint.

Advantage? If you took time serious you would not utter: 'advantage', you would perhaps say: 'for the time being they...'. So I conclude you talk about concepts and do not feel shame or pride when you got to understand the concept...

I am not going to try to prove that time exists and just get a series of "why's" ad nauseum.

Makes me wonder, what about the patient deviance that is needed for a work of genius?

"GENIUS FORUMS
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
- Truth, Courage, Honesty, Logic, Masculinity, Wisdom, Perfection -"

"True philosophy comes from humans.

Michelangelo made no point of philosophy because it created him.

Canetti's Memoirs:

"It thought me how creative a defiance can be if it is tied to
patience."

"The labor on The Last Judgment took eight years, and een though I
didn't understand the greatness of this opus till later, I was burnt
by the shame that the artist experienced at eighty, when the figures
were painted over because of their nakedness."

"It was not only the image of Michelangelo that was set up in me at
that time. I admired him as I had admired no one since the [snip]. He
was the first to give me a sense of pain that is not exhausted in
itself, that becomes something, that then exists for others, and
lasts. It is a special kind of pain, not the bodily pain which all
men profess."

"When he fell off the scaffold while working on The Last Judgment and
was seriously injured, he locked himself in his house, not admitting
any attendant or any physician, and lay there alone. He would not
acknowledge the pain, he excluded everybody from it, and would have
perished because of it. A friedn who was a doctor found the arduous
way up back stairs to the artist's room, where he lay in misery, and
the friend stayed with him day and night until the danger was past.
It was a totally different kind of torment that entered his work and
determined the tremendousness of his figures. His sensitivity to
humiliation drove him to undertake the most difficult things. He
could not be a model for me, because he was more: the god of pride"

Canetti keeps in mind his readers which when pierced through still
makes him one of the giants I know in comparison of other breaths of
writers.

In my experience Michelangelo is the guy at x)[1] in my explaination.
He makes a mistake and is honoured in his own way to work himself up
again.


Besides that I know of no other human yet, I myself are also just a
figment of Michelangelo's imagination at the moment.




--
"Above all, forget the one who writes this; forgive someone who, whatever else, could not make a girl happy." -- Kierkegaard
Do not use the wiki, and search for more in depth on Regine Olsen

---

First step: continue being the child and deepen.

--

Note: It is trivial to figure out examples other than these.

Seppuku doesnt count. (rational honour, bushido)
Sparta was an exception, it where the first 'humans'. Also the only one I know."

My reaction is that I'm not really getting your point.

Well. You explain yourself with theory but not with experience.

So naieve reality + theoretical knowledge?

They do not seem commensurate on your part.

[brokenhead]

brokenhead: All measuring devices count something.

JustinZijlstra: They tick. A computer cannot get stoned either, so the cpu does operations, and it does not proces either.

I actually meant to say, all devices that measure time count something. But again, Justin, I think you understood what I meant. I just do not understand your response.

Besides, my computer does get stoned every so often. Of course, I'm just guessing. But I find some of my stash missing, the monitor gets a reddish tinge, and no matter which mp3 I click on, all that plays is bootleg Grateful Dead and Phish songs...

brokenhead: There may some theoretical advantage to that viewpoint (that time does not exist.)

JustinZijlstra: Advantage? If you took time serious you would not utter: 'advantage', you would perhaps say: 'for the time being they...'. So I conclude you talk about concepts and do not feel shame or pride when you got to understand the concept...

I do not feel shame or pride when I breathe, either. Trying to understand the truth about how nature works is just as, well, natural, as breathing. IMO.

JustinZijlstra: First step: continue being the child and deepen.

This only sounds namby-pamby. Buckminster Fuller put it a little more palatably, and I wholeheartedly concur: "Dare to be naive."

JustinZijlstra: Well. You explain yourself with theory but not with experience.

So naieve reality + theoretical knowledge?

They do not seem commensurate on your part.

It depends on who's asking.

[JustinZijlstra]

]I do not feel shame or pride when I breathe, either. Trying to understand the truth about how nature works is just as, well, natural, as breathing. IMO.

Atomic bombs are like breathing? Ah, you've said what I wanted to point out: "You want to understand"

I simply want to show that if one tries to understand and does not know what understanding is one does not experience life but becomes a bookworm or somone who cannot relate to people who get offended when you 'simply want to understand them'.

It is save. But boring as hell.

I also agree that entropy of this universe at the moment would not experience much when I refer to what is generally understood and thus humans can be wiped out just by some 'understanding' persons. Even cynics are more human than those who 'want to understand', perhaps that is why they can rule? (cynics are often leaders, kynycs are leaders on the bottom (see diogenes))

I wholeheartedly concur: "Dare to be naive."

Ok, I see, I would say: "don't dare at all, just know how one gets projectiled into the child as adult and grow your child from there, perhaps it needs some 'adult sense' but not the 'adult censor' which represses the child"

JustinZijlstra: Well. You explain yourself with theory but not with experience.

So naieve reality + theoretical knowledge?

They do not seem commensurate on your part.

It depends on who's asking.[/quote]

Ah, well, can you elaborate on the options then? I assume you prefer answering one for some biased reason?