Ultraviolet on 10/7/2006 at 19:47
What if crawling insects percieve in two dimensions? Ants crawl. They do not even aspire to fly. When an ant comes to a tree, does he percieve it as an expanse of two-dimensional space that he is on still, that seems to have properties that inhibit motion along the axes he understands? He puts all his might into it, but he can't push forward along the X or Y very much -- he's not covering ground like he used to. Would he explain it as we explain how things behave at a black hole? If he had math/physics, would he explain it as curved space or something like that? This whole example resembled what I've heard about black hole physics, as far as I can tell, but I'm not that educated.
Is this how our three dimensional perceptual limitation works? Are we like machines hard-coded to percieve in three dimensions?
Is this related to the "destiny" of AI? Since an AI would be mathematically minded, it could "percieve" higher dimensions (who decides they're "higher" anyway?) by mathematical calculation based on the things its physical senses report? Or would it only operate within theory that we provide it? Could we design it to create its own theories (more advanced form of robots that learn to walk on their own) based on trial and error mathematical proofing? Would it then be able to abstract that into perceptions beyond three dimensions? Would that be subject to possibly flawed perceptions being taken as if they were concrete, much like we do, where two people can percieve completely different things?
When you have two different working models on the same subject that report two different things -- two proofs contradicting each other, trying to draw a fact that we can't percieve with our senses -- how do we know which model to use?
Has my mind gone and snapped? Is that a good thing? How does one wire one's mind to understand this kind of thing? Doing the math to calculate these things is just a process. I can't see how one could possibly learn from it to do anything but follow the process.
Agent Monkeysee on 10/7/2006 at 21:30
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
What if crawling insects percieve in two dimensions? Ants crawl. They do not even aspire to fly. When an ant comes to a tree, does he percieve it as an expanse of two-dimensional space that he is on still, that seems to have properties that inhibit motion along the axes he understands? He puts all his might into it, but he can't push forward along the X or Y very much -- he's not covering ground like he used to. Would he explain it as we explain how things behave at a black hole? If he had math/physics, would he explain it as curved space or something like that? This whole example resembled what I've heard about black hole physics, as far as I can tell, but I'm not that educated.
No. Ants look up. At least to the extent that ants rely on visual perception at all. Their colonies also extend in 3 dimensions. They clearly have a mental model of 3D space.
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
Is this how our three dimensional perceptual limitation works? Are we like machines hard-coded to percieve in three dimensions?
No it's not a brain limitation. If the higher spatial dimensions exist they aren't "flat" like the 3 we're familiar with. They are tightly curled up into Planck length size, which is why we can't perceive them. If they *were* extant then we would perceive them. But we also wouldn't think of ourselves as 3-dimensional beings either.
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
Is this related to the "destiny" of AI? Since an AI would be mathematically minded, it could "percieve" higher dimensions (who decides they're "higher" anyway?) by mathematical calculation based on the things its physical senses report? Or would it only operate within theory that we provide it? Could we design it to create its own theories (more advanced form of robots that learn to walk on their own) based on trial and error mathematical proofing? Would it then be able to abstract that into perceptions beyond three dimensions? Would that be subject to possibly flawed perceptions being taken as if they were concrete, much like we do, where two people can percieve completely different things?
No, again the higher dimensions aren't perceptable due to their topology not to mental or sensory limitations. An AI wouldn't be able to perceive the higher dimensions because there's nothing to perceive.
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
When you have two different working models on the same subject that report two different things -- two proofs contradicting each other, trying to draw a fact that we can't percieve with our senses -- how do we know which model to use?
You use the model that gives the right answers.
belboz on 10/7/2006 at 23:42
there is no such thing as time, we just exist, therefore you've been fucked. it just depends on who fucked you. reguardless of which multiverse you decide you've lived in.
Mortal Monkey on 11/7/2006 at 02:41
Quote Posted by belboz
there is no such thing as time, we just, therefore you've. it just on who you. reguardless of which multiverse you you've in.
This timeless universe doesn't allow verbs :E
Ultraviolet on 11/7/2006 at 22:57
Mortal Monkey and Monkeysee: You're taking figuratives rather literally, you fucks. Monkey, you knew I was talking about crawling ants, and Monkeysee, you knew that it was supposed to be an example. Thanks for addressing the questions I was attempting to ask (sarcasm). As for using the model that gives the right answers, I think you still missed the point. How do you know which answers are the right ones when the differences are in dimensions we can't percieve or test aside from proofing mathematically, which in this case has two functional proofs providing different answers that we can't verify perceptually?
There was something else I wanted to bring in. I wondered if maybe all the factors involved in forming a perception are one-dimensional, and because of the way the inputs come together, we think of those factors as their three-dimensional counterparts, such as taste, smell, whatever else, when what we're doing is combining or abstracting what our one-dimensional sensory components send us as one-dimensional input into a combination where those dimensions intersect or something something something... Anyway, that abstraction (not how it is done, but the fact that it is done) -- would that be something beyond "brain chemistry" that explains human huge differences in perception of the same objects/situations?
Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 00:00
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
Mortal Monkey and Monkeysee: You're taking figuratives rather literally, you fucks. Monkey, you knew I was talking about crawling ants, and Monkeysee, you knew that it was supposed to be an example. Thanks for addressing the questions I was attempting to ask (sarcasm). As for using the model that gives the right answers, I think you still missed the point. How do you know which answers are the right ones when the differences are in dimensions we can't percieve or test aside from proofing mathematically, which in this case has two functional proofs providing different answers that we can't verify perceptually?
That wasn't figurative, you asked if ants see in 2 dimensions.
As for the "right answers", you're missing why they propose higher dimensions in the first place. They don't do it because it sounds cool. They do it because there is physical evidence that they can't explain another way. I've mentioned this over and over again; there are quantum phenomena,
measureable quantum phenomena, that 3-dimensional models cannot explain. Higher dimensional topologies
can explain them and even though we can't yet experimentally verify whether these higher dimensional topologies exist the explanation has staying power because it
does explain the quantum phenomena that we can measure and can't otherwise reconcile with more straightforward models.
That's what I mean by "right answers". The 3-dimensional model doesn't give the right answers in the sense that it doesn't explain phenomena we can measure.
Ultraviolet on 12/7/2006 at 00:13
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_and_figurative_language) - broad overview of the topic, followed by two examples of types of figurative language, not exclusive IIRC
(
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=metaphor) - what the ant example was
(
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/simile) - here for comparison
And I believe my exact phrasing was "What if crawling insects percieve in two dimensions?" That's a bit far from "Do crawling insects see in two dimensions?" That set the context for questions about dimensionally limited perception and uncertainty of whether seeing really is believing and things like that. I fail to comprehend your failure to comprehend. Like whoa, man, it's like, a cycle or some shit. Anyway, how about letting me tell you what I meant instead of you telling me what I meant?
But, you know, humans see depth by comparing stereoscopic images (hard-wired abstraction from multiple 2d inputs, which themselves may be abstracted from something else), and I'd imagine many-eyed creatures do it the same way, if said creatures visualize, uh, optically ("visible spectrum" to us versus anything they may translate into vision). Seeing is done it two dimensions, then, from one way of thinking. Anyway, you've either answered a question without knowing what that question was, or you actually knew it was figurative and are being a troll.
Pyrian on 12/7/2006 at 01:14
Quote:
And how do you know when a universe is flat?
You really can't, of course, at best you can test for curvature and rule it out to the limit of your equipment. In general, we assume any feature with no evidence for it doesn't exist, since the number of hypothetical features possible is not finite. Of course, every advance proves that assumption wrong, while many also justify it by being totally unanticipated... Thus is progress made.
Quote:
How do you know which answers are the right ones when the differences are in dimensions we can't percieve or test...
If you can't test it in any way, then obviously you can't know, and should probably invoke Occam's Razor. While I think AM overstates the case for extra "funky" dimensions, there ARE consequences, so you can't just assume that you can't test.
Quote:
I wondered if maybe all the factors involved in forming a perception are one-dimensional...
Neurology makes an essentially ironclad case that that is precisely so.
Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 03:06
Quote Posted by Ultraviolet
:mad::mad::mad:
Whoakay grumpypants your "metaphor" spawned like a dozen questions in your post many asking specifically about perceptual limitations with respect to extant dimensions all of which were predicated on taking your little flight of fancy literally and aren't analogous to the higher dimensions proposed by String Theory.
Quote Posted by Pyrian
While I think AM overstates the case for extra "funky" dimensions, there ARE consequences, so you can't just assume that you can't test.
It's not me, it's String Theory! I swear to god you people think I'm just making this shit up.
