Mortal Monkey on 9/7/2006 at 14:57
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
A piece of paper is a shape in 3D world and is also a valid
representation of 2D surface. And a 2D surface is a valid representation of a world perceived by that 2D flatlander. Do you disagree on any particular point?
I fully agree that you could
represent a 2D universe in 3D, but I don't see how that makes the universe any more 3D.
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
You're still arguing that travelling across the 2D universe/world and ending back to where you started from is irrelevant? Seriously, what is up with that?
No, you're right. It is just as relevant as the fact that you can travel infinitely through our universe. What was the question again?
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
Hint:
The point is not necessarily on the paper.
Then the point is not within the universe (refer to previous posts). No dimensions exist outside the universe (at least that's something I and Monkeysee agree on).
If that answer doesn't satisfy you, the coordinates are (NaN, NaN).
Raven on 9/7/2006 at 15:51
Quote:
No dimensions exist outside the universe (at least that's something I and Monkeysee agree on).
Okay, even if these extra dimensions didn't "exist" in our universe they could still prove very usefull in mathematically modelling our universe (which is what physics basically is). Along your very shakey grounds of "it doesn't exist" should you not also be starting an argument about the imaginary number line too? You will also be pleased to find that this silly little (-1)^0.5 is neccessary in the construct of schrodingers equation. Are we to ignore modern (quantum) physics because of the reliance upon
i - please note that was a retorical question.
Yes if we know of a point (3,4) on a 2d surface (x,y), this could either be a discrete point in 3d space (x,y,z) e.g (3,4,7) or might infact be the whole plane plane (3,4,a) where a = all/any numbers, or infact anything inbetween - i.e a locus on the 3,4 plane.
Deep Qantas on 9/7/2006 at 16:23
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
I fully agree that you could
represent a 2D universe in 3D, but I don't see how that makes the universe any more 3D.
...
Then the point is not within the universe (refer to previous posts). No dimensions exist outside the universe (at least that's something I and Monkeysee agree on).
If that answer doesn't satisfy you, the coordinates are (NaN, NaN).
The problem with those two points is that the universe is 3D. That was the starting assumption. The piece of paper or 2D surface is not the universe.
Quote Posted by Raven
...plane (3,4,a)...
Line, but yeah.
Raven on 9/7/2006 at 18:49
yeah - sorry, a line not a plane and so also possibly also a line of finite length and not really a locus. I am stupid and was thinking of the point 3,4 on the line y=x+1 then I translated that function into something like z=3x+4y, which doesn't even contain the line y=3 x=4 z=a)... d'oh.
despite my rather incoherent, wrong and stupid reasoning above, it remains that our point has become a line, so yes MM that is why there is no volume - but it still a feasible 2D construct in a 3d universe... just as our perceptions may be a possible 3D construct in a 10D, or 11D universe.
Ofcourse if we start talking holograms it is possible that we might actually be a 3D construct in a 2D or 1D "ribbon" universe!!! - Anyone care to explain that one to MM?
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
No, you're right. It is just as relevant as the fact that you can travel infinitely through our universe. What was the question again?
It is more relevant, because it indicates the possibility that the universe is looped conceivably (at least to some :p) in a higher dimension, i.e. in that higher dimension the universe is not flat but is curved back in on its self the result being ending back up where you were before by travelling in only one direction. :D If that was the case in our universe the higher dimensions would be of ultra astronomical scale (very big), in string theory they are postulating Plank scale (very small) dimensions.
Agent Monkeysee on 10/7/2006 at 01:52
Quote Posted by JACKofTrades
Shouldn't that be a point in a
line aX + bY = c becomes a point in a
plane aX + bY + cZ = d. Or am I missing something?
I dunno my polynomial algebra is rusty. Don't sweat the details the point is higher dimensions are trivial to represent algebraically.
Mortal Monkey on 10/7/2006 at 02:25
Quote Posted by Deep Qantas
The problem with those two points is that the universe is 3D. That was the starting assumption.
Haha, well why didn't you just say so? Now I feel like a real retard.
Edit:
Quote Posted by Raven
in that higher dimension the universe is not flat but is curved back in on its self the result being ending back up where you were before by travelling in only one direction.
And how do you know when a universe is flat? Do you just assume that because it's not circular it probably is flat?
Briareos H on 10/7/2006 at 07:58
more like when people not having a clue post in CommChat
Raven on 10/7/2006 at 08:16
Quote Posted by Mortal Monkey
And how do you know when a universe is flat? Do you just assume that because it's not circular it probably is flat?
Well if you don't end up back where you started there isn't even the need to explain that phenomena and so you wouldn't really start conjecturing the topography of the universe in a higher dimension unless there were some other observed phenomena to warrant its discussion. Whether or not the universe in discussion was actually "flat" would be impossible to tell with out more data...
Even working in our three dimensions, mass deforms space-time resulting that we can see stars that are shining behind bodies in space that should be blocking the light from reaching us, so to describe our universe as “flat” (in the standard 3 spatial + time dimensions) might be slightly inaccurate – if in the grand scale of things (the universe is BIG) these molehills become irrelevant, then it might be commonly described as flat (i.e not looped) but I don’t know.
I don’t think the cosmologists could even say with certainty that our universe is not looped in the common spatial dimension on a universal scale.. the nature of light limits how far we can effective look to the edges of the universe, and the lag is ridiculous, and realistically if nature was that way inclined it would finally conform to your wish that the higher dimension upon which the universe is looped becomes irrelevant cause it would just be so mind bogglingly big that it wouldn’t really affect anything… I think.
Scots Taffer on 10/7/2006 at 09:00
Hahahahaha. Shug's first photoshop post (at least, to my memory) is a fucking winner. And of course, everyone was thinking it! :D
