2d and 4d space

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:39 pm

I can see that your point makes mathematical sense.
But it does not work empirically & therefore neither logically
(The combination of the empirical and math)

Let me explain in financial terms.
Suppose you borrow money from me, and promise to pay it back @ 1% per month. (let this = M)
We could also interpret this to be 12.6825% per year. (Let this = Y)

But just because M=Y does not mean that you are paying both Y AND M
because then you would be paying me twice.

You either pay me Y OR M.

But just because M=Y in total, does not mean that they are identical.
Obviously paying each month or each year is different.

Now if we could divide the amount paid back into infinitely small portions
the amount that you needed to pay would end up being zero
due to the same problem in Zeno's paradox.

We could keep infinitely dividing forever, and the amount would get smaller
and smaller until at infinite time you would owe me nothing.

We MUST identify the minimum quantity of time in order to make the calculation.

Try going to the bank and telling them that you do not need to pay them
because time can be infinitely divided.

Tell them about Zeno, and that because Hercules is slower than a tortoise
you can therefore take ALL their money, and do not need to pay it back!

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:04 pm

It's not easy but try and think it this way. You are bound to the surface of the earth because time passes more quickly at your head than it does at your feet. This is an unimpeachable fact.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Sat Jun 27, 2015 3:02 pm

Jonathan Ainsley Bain wrote:The notion that time has a fundamental smallest point is indeed realized by Zeno's paradox.
This is completely contrary with time slowing or speeding up.

Not if time and gravity are seen as two different expressions of the same phenomenon. This is the central plank of my entire philosophy because this is what unifies all of physics under the single umbrella of quantum gravity and the single meta-law of cause and effect.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Sat Jun 27, 2015 7:25 am

The notion that time has a fundamental smallest point is indeed realized by Zeno's paradox.
This is completely contrary with time slowing or speeding up.
If the unit of time can become infinitely smaller, then we end up back with Zeno's paradox.

Any measurement of time slowing can be easily realized as a change in the velocity.

Seeing as though the relativists devised the formula for time slowing from that for
velocity slowing (as the object approaches the velocity of light), they do
the same calculation twice. One of them is therefore logically redundant.

Time slowing, is a logical tautology which also results in the impossibility of Zeno's paradox.

If time becomes zero (infinitely slow) at the velocity of light, then a photon cannot move.
Photons do move. Achilles is faster than a tortoise.

The appearance of a slowing of time is just a slowing of velocity.

The 'speed of time' concept is clearly a tautology, as it implies two dimensions of time.
One of these will be primary, be constant, and be quantum time.
The other is reduced to a change in velocity:

6 units of space in 1 unit of time is 'slowed' to 6 units of space in 2 units of time.
All this is actually a reduction in velocity to 3 units of space in 1 unit of time.

(There is a bit of ambiguity in 'time slowing' or 'speeding up' depending on vantage point.)

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Zlatan Stojanovic on Fri Jun 26, 2015 5:02 am

Obvious Leo wrote:I think I've read that article already, Zlatan, as well as a number of other "holographic universe" ideas.

The final word about Reality will always come from the physicists. They have tools for the verification of hypotheses derived by philosophy of nature.

As in the presented link, there are tools to verify reduction of space to 2D.

One space dimension lesser?  Smile  

Sincerely
Zlatan

Zlatan Stojanovic
Forum philosopher

Posts : 20
Join date : 2015-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Fri Jun 26, 2015 3:50 am

I think I've read that article already, Zlatan, as well as a number of other "holographic universe" ideas. The important difference between most of the hologram ideas and my own philosophy is that I do NOT claim that the universe is a hologram. What I'm actually claiming is that the observer observes a hologram and the distinction is not a trivial one, as Kant would agree. Because the speed of light is finite it is utterly impossible to observe the real world because by the time we make our observation the real world has changed into a new real world. What we imagine ourselves to be observing no longer exists. Instead we observe a holographic representation of our own past and this has significant metaphysical implications for the ontological validity of the 3D space. To put it simply but crudely the notion of a space physically existing between an observer and a no-longer-existent observation is metaphysical horseshit because what we're actually doing is spatialising a time interval, just as Minkowski did in SR. Thus physics is modelling the hologram of the observer, just as Leibniz claimed all those centuries ago.

The argument is a fairly simple one at this level because all we need to do is understand the nature of the object of our observation. My dog is lying at my feet and I observe her. How quickly is my dog changing into a new dog? Some sub-atomic processes take place at the speed of light, thus my dog is changing into a new dog at the speed of light. An alternative and more intuitive way of expressing this is to simply say that my dog is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light. My dog is simply made of matter and energy like any other physical entity in the universe, thus every physical entity in the universe is continuously coming into existence at the speed of light. Therefore the speed of light is simply a way of expressing the speed at which time passes and the speed at which time passes is determined by gravity. Believe it or not this alternative way of thinking the world is all that a unification model of physics is and all the various paradoxes go the way of phlogiston and the luminiferous aether because in a spaceless and fractal universe time and gravity can be quantised equivalently at the Planck scale with mass/energy and the speed of light.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Zlatan Stojanovic on Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:57 am

Obvious Leo wrote:Zlatan is a very astute philosopher with the Kantian perspective appropriate to an understanding of what physics is able to tell us about the nature of reality and what it can't. All the various paradoxes and counter-intuitive problems implied by modern physics are to do with the nature of an observation and understanding the nature of an observation falls outside the remit of the science of physics. In other words the problem of physics is not a problem of physics but a problem of metaphysics and I'm pretty sure that Zlatan and I are in broad agreement on this. Telling it to the physicists seems to be the only stumbling block.

Leo,
Thank you for your words.

On The Physics Forum cincirob has pointed to an interesting link about holographic Universe.

Link> symmetrymagazine.org/article/august-2013/holographic-universe-experiment-begins


Sincerely
Zlatan

Zlatan Stojanovic
Forum philosopher

Posts : 20
Join date : 2015-05-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:24 pm

I agree that in the common usage infinity is not the same thing as eternity. In mathematical physics infinity is an abstraction which can be applied to describe the way a variable in a physical system tends but not to describe the actual physical state of a system. The same can be said of zero, so in this sense zero and infinity are nothing more than conceptual placeholders and the universe is not to be regarded as infinite in terms of its information content. ( In my philosophy I always intend the term "information content" of a system to be regarded as synonymous with its mass/energy content.)

However that the universe is infinite in its temporal extension, in other words eternal, is a proposition which is metaphysically mandated as self-evident. The reason why I say this is that the alternative proposition places the universe beyond the reach of scientific or philosophical enquiry by defining it as something other than everything which exists. If we do this we hoist the white flag without landing a blow because we define the universe as unknowable, which means we may as well pack up our philosophical crap and go fishing. In fact that the universe is everything that exists is one of only two propositions in my entire philosophy which I regard as a priori axiomatic, the other being that all effects must be preceded by a cause.

The theory of infinitesimals, on which the calculus is based, is a rather complex subject in mathematical philosophy but it is probably most easily understood in terms of Zeno's paradox and the philosophy of the quantum. In order for any entity to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible, which means that the calculus can be used to describe a way a system tends but not the way a system is at any given point in time. Newton and Leibniz developed very similar formulations of the calculus but they fundamentally disagreed on this metaphysical point because they had diametrically opposite understandings of the existential nature of space and time. The Newtonian world cannot be quantised yet I claim that both time and information must have a smallest possible bit and in a true unification theory these must be quantised equivalently. In my philosophy I do this and I call my fundamental unit of physical reality a monad, in honour of Gottfried Leibniz.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Mayflow on Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:44 pm

Leo, I have a concern. Someone said to me today that infinity is not the same as eternity.

Then there was some stuff he said regarding calculus and subsets and limitations. What do you think about this?
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:24 pm

Zlatan is a very astute philosopher with the Kantian perspective appropriate to an understanding of what physics is able to tell us about the nature of reality and what it can't. All the various paradoxes and counter-intuitive problems implied by modern physics are to do with the nature of an observation and understanding the nature of an observation falls outside the remit of the science of physics. In other words the problem of physics is not a problem of physics but a problem of metaphysics and I'm pretty sure that Zlatan and I are in broad agreement on this. Telling it to the physicists seems to be the only stumbling block.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Mayflow on Thu Jun 25, 2015 5:30 pm

Leo, if you think time is the most inconstant state in the Universe, you have "obviously" never seen me drive or even walk. Do you know how fuel efficient it can be to speed up and coast a lot? but. It is never said that light travels at in invariant speed in anything but a vacuum. Therefore I have not created the forum as a vacuum. That may be hard to follow. It is for me, so now I have made myself a challenge. Why would I want the forum to not be an invariant in a vacuum? You and that guy whose name I can never remember are the forum philosophers, correct? Z something.
avatar
Mayflow
Admin

Posts : 131
Join date : 2015-05-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:48 pm

Time is indeed one dimensional but it's a fractal dimension, not a Cartesian one, because Cartesian dimensions are bi-directional.

Jon. You are quite wrong about the speed of time, as demonstrated in GR and empirically proven time and again. It is the most inconstant speed in the universe because it is moderated by the cosmic metronome of gravity and is thus variable all the way down to the Planck scale. The clock on the carpet ticks faster than the clock on the bare floorboards beside it. The clock on the electron ticks faster than the clock on the nucleus it orbits. Time passes at a different speed for each of the sub-atomic particles in the atom and the reason why QM makes no sense is because it ignores this inescapable fact. Try thinking through a real-time algorithm for the sub-atomic world and all the counter-intuitive absurdities of QM simply vanish because random events are actually chaotic events. Questions of locality and non-locality cease to exist.

If you lean a ladder against the wall of your house and then climb up it then as you climb your proper time will speed up. This also means that the speed of light is the most inconstant speed in the universe. I'm not great with sums but if v=d/t then v cannot be a constant if the speed of t is continuously variable. Light travels at 300 million meters/sec wherever it may be measured in the universe but the second is not the same time interval anywhere. This is quantum gravity.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Wed Jun 24, 2015 4:24 pm

Well in dimensional space you can move in both directions along each dimension as you please.

In time, we move in 1 direction, and we cannot stop, go backwards, slow down, or speed up.

So time is probably at best only half a dimension,
with less than half the properties of a normal dimension of space.
Our minds are confined to it in a way which our bodies are not confined to space.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by 28Seadrops on Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:26 pm

Hi guys!
I'd just like to say: isn't time one-dimensional tough? xxx Seadrop

28Seadrops

Posts : 2
Join date : 2015-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:56 pm

Jon. We are brothers in heresy and may burn at the stake together but we've been travelling a similar journey. Much will be written about the history of 20th century physics and the priesthood will be shown in a most unflattering light. My philosophy is still a work in progress but I've written a synopsis of it which I suspect will interest you greatly. I'm in the process of revising it at the moment but this link will give you a fair idea of what I'm banging on about.

https://austintorney.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/the-philosophy-of-the-bloody-obvious-by-johann-de-jong/

A word of warning. I've condensed it as much as I sensibly could but it'll still take a quiet afternoon and at least half a bottle of red. It'll also require an indulgence of a literary style not commonly adopted in works of philosophy but since I know no other I can make no apology for it.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Fri Jun 19, 2015 3:14 pm

Well luckily I am a computer programmer, with a formal education in philosophy and psychology.
(So I'll save my heresy accusations and bonfires for the relativists)

I dropped out of Physics 101  (even though I was elected class leader)
due to their inability to even try and tackle the problems you highlight.
That, and their mindless approach to memorizing math without meaning,
as well as other more hideous forms of corruption.
(It was a year after this that I kicked out the old South African govt.
Politics seemed more relevant then. But that's another story.)

As for how the mind interacts with the purely physical 3-d world.
Its like looking your whole life through a blue tinted mirror.
The reality of the world is different from our perception of it.
The perception is partly a result of the limits on our perceptions, (preceptions?)
even though it is also partly a result of what the world actually is.
(Kant called these the 'noumenon' (reality) and
the phenomenon (our constrained perception of that reality.)

If we only ever saw the world through a blue-tinted window,
how could we know that other colors or other landscapes existed?

Well, others may have escaped this prison of perception
and used the mystical tool called language to describe it to us,
and give us hints on how to 'break down the wall'.

As for physics not making sense,
well I sympathize; as most of what passes for physics nowadays
certainly makes no sense. But if you find anything on my website
that does not make sense, then the error is likely mine, and the
narrative needs to be explained using better language.

Alternatively, if you can point out any contradictions in what I say,
or any counter-empirical claims, then please do so as I can only see this
as an opportunity to define another piece of the great cosmic puzzle.

Physics took a wrong-turning at relativity, and has been going backwards
ever since then, buoyed on the success of advances in technology,
all of which are as a result of 19th century physics.

Philosophy itself needs to get physics in order by returning to Descartes,
and his notion that geometry is the second foundation of knowledge
after the mystical 'self'.

But I'd like to hear more about your discoveries in neuroscience...

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Obvious Leo on Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:42 pm

Jon. I have a well-deserved reputation as a heretical contrarian and to suggest that I regard our traditional notions of dimensionality in an unorthodox light would be an understatement of rare calibre. I claim that the dimension we exist in is not the same thing as the dimensions we observe. Our existence can only be defined as a journey through time but we observe it as a journey through the 3D Cartesian space, which is nothing more than a holographic representation of our own past. I claim that this spatialisation of time is solely a construct of our own consciousness and that the Cartesian space itself is not a physical property of the universe. The observer problem of physics has long since been shunted into the too hard basket but it'll never go away until this simple fact is acknowledged.

To a cognitive neuroscientist this is a simple statement of the bloody obvious but to a physicist this is an unforgivable heresy. I'll freely admit that I'm somewhat relieved that burning blokes at the stake is no longer fashionable and I find great solace in the fact that cognitive neuroscience is a science which makes sense whereas physics is one which doesn't.

Obvious Leo
Forum philosopher

Posts : 48
Join date : 2015-05-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

2d and 4d space

Post by Jonathan Ainsley Bain on Fri Jun 12, 2015 4:42 pm

I don't see how we can conceive of a 2D world? Our piece of paper we talk of drawing on has 3 dimensions. Anything we use to draw on it with has 3 dimensions, the marks of lead, ink, paint or what not have 3 dimensions. At least it seems that way according to our senses and what we have learned to perceive by them, but I suppose that does not make it necessarily true. How many dimensions are there in our dreams?

I don't see how we can conceive of a 2D world?
Well, in order to program a 2-d computer game, like lunar-lander for example,
I need to imagine the math and physics of that 2-d world in precisely 2-d terms.
Yes, the screen has a 3-d nature to it, but the math of the program itself
is conceptualized in a rigid 2-d set of laws.

How many dimensions are there in our dreams?
As many as your subconscious mind can appreciate.
I have had several dreams that are certainly 4-d.
Its difficult to describe what its like to be able to look at your hand,
and also be able to see within it and around it at the same time.

It takes lots of practice to visualize 4-d space.
The best place to start is to read Edwin Abbot Abbot's Flatland (published 1884)

But when we empathize with another person, we are doing something similar to 4-d thinking.
We conceptualize the world from our own and from the other's perspective simultaneously.

_________________
www.flight-light-and-spin.com
avatar
Jonathan Ainsley Bain
forum physicist

Posts : 185
Join date : 2015-05-24
Age : 47
Location : Africa

View user profile http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: 2d and 4d space

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum