|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
posted October 05, 2008 05:53 PM |
|
|
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can an essential amino acid (phenylalanine) be responsible for fascination?
Without ANY of the essential amino acids you wouldn't be able to do much 
But I don't think you can attribute love or even fascination to just one chemical.
If my dictionary is correct it's the same thing. Don't ask me lol, I don't know how those things are called in your language ;p I can only check in the dictionary ;p
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 06:00 PM |
|
|
Nah, everyone knows that the most important chemical when it comes to love is chloroform. Come on, don't tell me you don't ask girls out by asking them, "Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"
TheDeath:
The thing is, the basic components aren't all that complicated. That there are so many of them in so many different places, and so they can interact in so many different ways and make complicated outcomes that make things even more complex - that's complicated. It's the interaction that creates the complexity, not the components. Just look at my example with the long number earlier.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 08:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The thing is, the basic components aren't all that complicated.
And neither is the concept (mathematical concept, if you will) with no time at all, it's simple without the 3 dimensions, mathematically it's easy, the CONCEPT. However, the visualization and "how it will be like" is impossible to comprehend. 
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 09:46 PM |
|
|
If you explain it like that, then it's not that hard to explain. Just draw a 3-D graph, and that what it'll look like.
My impression from what you said earlier was that there was more to it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 09:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you explain it like that, then it's not that hard to explain. Just draw a 3-D graph, and that what it'll look like.
Huh? What do you mean? If you draw a 3D graph, you use space. Now I ask you, what if the actual "dimensions" don't represent SPACE? Of course you can draw the data but it will not "look" nicely, because it is not space, it is something else. The only thing that we have is the matrix and vectors of the graph, which are numbers (values) but they are not visualizable at all.
Any attempt at visualizing uses SPACE for "graphs". What if I want you to plot a 128D graph? Can you? No because we only have 3 space to "use" for drawing, that doesn't mean that's how it looks like!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 05, 2008 10:20 PM |
|
|
I see what you mean. But the concept is not difficult, it's just difficult to visualize. It's kind of similar to what I was saying about love.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2008 08:14 AM |
|
|
Well, it's scientifically proven that "reality" is not what it seems: our universe has been defined as behaving the same way than the surface of a balloon that's blown up (no matter where you are, everything is moving apart from everything else in all directions and there is no "centre point").
That makes at least a 4th dimension necessary - a dimension that is "around" as the same way than a 3rd dimension would be around for creatures able to observe only two dimensions.
Which puts humans in the position of "people" on a TV screen speculating about what might be behind the veil of their observable existance.
Which means, materialism is a wrong concept by default since it ignores the fact that there definitely and proven is MORE than the realm of what we can observe.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2008 02:27 PM |
|
|
Not really. If we see how the universe is expanding, that means that it's observable, which means that it's something physical and material. Additional dimensions don't mean that they're not material.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 06, 2008 02:36 PM |
|
|
|
Nope. If you are a 2D creature on a balloon, you can see the Universe expanding, but you will not see the third dimension! Of course some scientists find excuses and call it "dark matter" and all other stuff but it won't hold much.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2008 02:50 PM |
|
|
Err, not really. What you observe, has only 3 dimensions - the 4th is plainly unobservable. So what we CAN observe is at most the imprint something 4-dimensional leaves in the 3 we can observe.
If you think about this, this might lead to the conclusion that this whole 3-dimensional material space is nothing but a "projection", a 3-dimensional projection of a multi-dimensional reality.
Which might include humans. A human might just be the 3-dimensional projection of something, that has a reality ultimately higher than hours, like our reality is ultimately higher than a TV or PC reality.
You know, as there are different qualities of infinity in mathematics: integers and even rational numbers are infinite, but countable infinite (I hope that's the right term in English). Irrational numbers are incountable infinite and therefore more infinite than infinite. 
In this way there might be different qualities of realities as well, and since there must be more than 3 dimensions it's clear that our reality is simply not of maximum quality.
Materialism ignores this completely.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 06, 2008 11:56 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So what we CAN observe is at most the imprint something 4-dimensional leaves in the 3 we can observe.
Which is what I'm talking about. If it can leave some kind of imprint on what we can see, that means it can interact with or have an effect on what we can see - which means that it's material. We can't observe magnetism with our naked eye either - just its effects. Yet magnetism is quite a material thing.
Quote:
Which might include humans. A human might just be the 3-dimensional projection of something, that has a reality ultimately higher than hours, like our reality is ultimately higher than a TV or PC reality.
A square can be the 2-dimensional projection of a cube. Does that mean that the cube has a "higher reality"? 
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 07:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If it can leave some kind of imprint on what we can see, that means it can interact with or have an effect on what we can see - which means that it's material. We can't observe magnetism with our naked eye either - just its effects. Yet magnetism is quite a material thing.
No, I don't think so. "Imprint" doesn't mean material at all. Imprint can be just anything. "Effect" doesn't mean material at all. I mean, the universe grows, but in a way as if something would blow it up. How? What? Where's that "air"? It might be anything, actually. And as opposed to magnetism it's not in "our" dimensions. It's like you lived in a TV that goes from B/W to Color. How? What? What is happening "outside"?
Quote:
A square can be the 2-dimensional projection of a cube. Does that mean that the cube has a "higher reality"?
Mathematically spoken the reality is "mightier" since it has another dimension, let's call it height, while the square has only width and length. Now, the cube doesn't create reality itself, it is part of the overall reality. The cube, though, shows more "aspects" of the overall reality: if someone would analyze the square and move from that to conclusions about the overall reality, the square reality would be a part of the cube reality which was a lot more complex. If there was 2-dimensional life, i.e., a giant, endless TV screen with a slight curve, so that it would build the surface of a sphere, the "people" there would observe only said surface, neither what was within, nor what was without: they wouldn't even know the meaning of within or without.
Therefore, yes, the reality of the cube is "higher" than that of the square. It's "more" real, since it represents more facettes of the overall reality than the square.
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 07:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I don't think so. "Imprint" doesn't mean material at all. Imprint can be just anything. "Effect" doesn't mean material at all. I mean, the universe grows, but in a way as if something would blow it up. How? What? Where's that "air"? It might be anything, actually. And as opposed to magnetism it's not in "our" dimensions. It's like you lived in a TV that goes from B/W to Color. How? What? What is happening "outside"?
You could say the same for gravity.
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 07:49 AM |
|
|
"The same"? What do you mean? The same as what?
I mean, correct me, if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, CURRENTLY(!) gravity is a property of mass that curves space. Please continue or explain your thought.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 02:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
"Effect" doesn't mean material at all. I mean, the universe grows, but in a way as if something would blow it up.
How can a non-material thing have an effect on a material thing?
Quote:
Therefore, yes, the reality of the cube is "higher" than that of the square. It's "more" real, since it represents more facettes of the overall reality than the square.
So the graph of w = x + y + z is more real than the graph of y = x ? Not really.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 02:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can a non-material thing have an effect on a material thing?
How can it not?
I mean seriously what kind of question is that, and what kind of answer do you actually expect?
Quote:
So the graph of w = x + y + z is more real than the graph of y = x ? Not really.
You see, there is this thing, it's called lack of information. 100% "Real" is impossible to achieve because for something to be "real" you will have to know ABSOLUTELY ALL the data. If you live on a square as a 2D creature, and you are actually part of a cube (yet you cannot see the third dimension!), then it means the cube IS REAL and the square is partially, VERY partially, real, since of course there are infinite squares forming a cube. Since the square is 1/infinite parts of the cube (i don't mean division, I mean it's like part 1 of infinite parts), and since infinity is impossible to approach you'll pretty much never ever "experience" the "reality" cube.
Oh and by the way, "graphs" only exist because of SPACE like I have explained previously. They are not accurate and don't represent anything "how it looks like" without space. They are like an "art" if you will, more like human intuition than actual DATA.
Or was I talking to the walls? 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 07, 2008 03:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
"Effect" doesn't mean material at all. I mean, the universe grows, but in a way as if something would blow it up.
How can a non-material thing have an effect on a material thing?
Define matter for that matter.
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, yes, the reality of the cube is "higher" than that of the square. It's "more" real, since it represents more facettes of the overall reality than the square.
So the graph of w = x + y + z is more real than the graph of y = x ? Not really.
I don't think any graph is "real" at all. Neither is a cube or square. The question is, how many dimensions reality has. We can observe only 3 (of space), but can conclude that in fact there is at least one more (and there is or has been a 10-dimensional model of "reality" as well).
If reality has 4 or more dimensions, but we can only observe 3 we are obviously missing a vital part of reality. What is there to discuss about this?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2008 02:43 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
I mean seriously what kind of question is that, and what kind of answer do you actually expect?
How can a thing that is not physical cause a thing that is material to move? How does it work?
Quote:
If you live on a square as a 2D creature, and you are actually part of a cube (yet you cannot see the third dimension!), then it means the cube IS REAL and the square is partially, VERY partially, real, since of course there are infinite squares forming a cube. Since the square is 1/infinite parts of the cube (i don't mean division, I mean it's like part 1 of infinite parts), and since infinity is impossible to approach you'll pretty much never ever "experience" the "reality" cube.
But if the square can detect the third dimension, as we can detect the fourth, then it has reason to believe that it exists. But it has no basis for saying that it's not like one of the dimensions that it knows. The graph of y = x is not much different from the graph of z = y, despite the fact that they represent different dimensions. (Yes, I know that graphs are simply representations, but I hope you understand what I mean.)
JJ:
Quote:
Define matter for that matter.
Anything that has mass.
Quote:
The question is, how many dimensions reality has. We can observe only 3 (of space), but can conclude that in fact there is at least one more (and there is or has been a 10-dimensional model of "reality" as well).
You can make a model of reality with as many dimensions as you want, but it won't make it true.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted October 08, 2008 03:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How can a thing that is not physical cause a thing that is material to move? How does it work?
How can a thing that is physical cause a thing that is material to move? How does it work?
nono don't tell me "because it can" or "because we've seen that" that's not an answer to how.
That's like asking me how can a black thing not be white. (no it's not the same question but I don't know how am I supposed to answer).
Or "how can gravity pull objects"?? How is that possible?
Quote:
But if the square can detect the third dimension, as we can detect the fourth, then it has reason to believe that it exists. But it has no basis for saying that it's not like one of the dimensions that it knows. The graph of y = x is not much different from the graph of z = y, despite the fact that they represent different dimensions. (Yes, I know that graphs are simply representations, but I hope you understand what I mean.)
Yes but by "detect" it does not detect that directly, it has the "effects" of it. But you can of course anytime "make up" a new thing, "dark matter" or anything else, that does not require a new dimension (but heck, it "explains" it more nicely than "God", it's so nice to say "dark matter did it" instead of "God did it" ) -- note that it is inevitable and I hope people will soon realize that.
oh and btw, magnetic fields don't have mass, and you said they are material
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
