Okay, basicaly, over months I have thought about our world, and more-over the univerese in and of itself, in it's base simplicity.

Over broad, the seemingly specific thoughts, I have come up with my idea for a religon, which yet has no name.

So, lets begin, shall we?



It all starts with our home dimension, the 3rd or course. Then begin to think about all the little logical fallacys. (Unexplained dissapearances, the ever irrational PI, and of course The '1=0' equasion.) The way I see it, those are the imperfections of our universe, the cracks an leaks, if you will.

So, assume that our dimension in a 1 dimension box, with 3 walls. One of them is missing, and this, as I have surmised from my thinking, would be the source of the errors. Now assume that you mind, your consiousness is held within this box. Could it be assumed that the missing wall is a break in our awareness? A mental block of sorts?

Now, could it be at all possible, that there are other dimensions, the First, the Second, and the Fourth?

So my theroy is this, the Fourth dimension is a completed square, a realm of pure, clean awareness, and the preceeding dimensions are simply trials if you will, markers for our minds. They all train out conciousness until it can pass to the the Fourth, and handle the ultimate awareness.

So I ask you this. Logical? Somewhat belivable? Or am I just an overthinking dumbass? Discuss.

I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a response.

We live in three dimensions. If you have taken any math classes at the high school level, you'll recognize this graph below: http://vitia.org/pictures/figure5.gif (Ignore the axis labels)

Also, could you please elaborate on this 1=0 paradox?

No I don't think you are a dumbass and over think. You want to escape out of this box that you have created. This is what the SSUN Project teaches.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum31/HTML/004202.html

If you can understand the project, then your over thinking is required. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

But once you are able to observe yourself living in the "box" that is when you are able to act from outside of the box to create one path for yourself. Have a read of it, your comments would be appreciated.

Cheers

Evan



[This message has been edited by realitycourse (edited 06-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

I can't believe I'm dignifying this with a response.

We live in three dimensions. If you have taken any math classes at the high school level, you'll recognize this graph below: http://vitia.org/pictures/figure5.gif (Ignore the axis labels)

Also, could you please elaborate on this 1=0 paradox?

We don't live in 3 dimensions. It's unclear how many dimensions there actually are, but it's well known that there are at least 5 and that we are in the 4th dimension.

Get your quantum physics straight before you flame.

Cheers,

Lost

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

Okay, basicaly, over months I have thought about our world, and more-over the univerese in and of itself, in it's base simplicity.

Over broad, the seemingly specific thoughts, I have come up with my idea for a religon, which yet has no name.

So, lets begin, shall we?



It all starts with our home dimension, the 3rd or course. Then begin to think about all the little logical fallacys. (Unexplained dissapearances, the ever irrational PI, and of course The '1=0' equasion.) The way I see it, those are the imperfections of our universe, the cracks an leaks, if you will.

So, assume that our dimension in a 1 dimension box, with 3 walls. One of them is missing, and this, as I have surmised from my thinking, would be the source of the errors. Now assume that you mind, your consiousness is held within this box. Could it be assumed that the missing wall is a break in our awareness? A mental block of sorts?

Now, could it be at all possible, that there are other dimensions, the First, the Second, and the Fourth?

So my theroy is this, the Fourth dimension is a completed square, a realm of pure, clean awareness, and the preceeding dimensions are simply trials if you will, markers for our minds. They all train out conciousness until it can pass to the the Fourth, and handle the ultimate awareness.

So I ask you this. Logical? Somewhat belivable? Or am I just an overthinking dumbass? Discuss.

Our home dimension isn't the third, I think you are confused about the concept of dimensions. A three dimensional object has both length, width, and height meaning it "exists" in all three dimensions not just the "third".

How is PI being irrational a logical fallacy? The 0=1 equation works only when you divide by zero, assuming we are thinking of the same one. You can't have a 1 dimension box because by definition a box must have length width and height. You go on further to talk about other dimensions missing the entire concept as I already went over. I enjoyed you post, but you definitely are an over thinking dumb ass.

*wonders if 5th dimension could be computers/virtual reality*

haha give him a break. He just needs to read a little more, and understand what he is talking about before coming to conclusions.

They are all mental states.

Great read, in fact, try reading it backwards, one paragraph at a time. That way you can get most of the good stuff and stop whenever you want

Lots of interesting developments are coming soon when the worlds of spirituality and science get closer and closer together...

=====================8<==========================

Consciousness, Causality, and Quantum Physics

David Pratt

From http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jse.htm

Reprinted with permission from Journal of Scientific Exploration, 11:1, Spring 1997

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Allen Press, 810 East 10th St., Lawrence, KS 66044, USA

Phone: 800-627-0932, ext. 284

Email: scunningham@allenpress.com

JSE Homepage

Abstract -- Quantum theory is open to different interpretations, and this paper reviews some of the points of contention. The standard interpretation of quantum physics assumes that the quantum world is characterized by absolute indeterminism and that quantum systems exist objectively only when they are being measured or observed. David Bohm's ontological interpretation of quantum theory rejects both these assumptions. Bohm's theory that quantum events are party determined by subtler forces operating at deeper levels of reality ties in with John Eccles' theory that our minds exist outside the material world and interact with our brains at the quantum level. Paranormal phenomena indicate that our minds can communicate with other minds and affect distant physical systems by nonordinary means. Whether such phenomena can be adequately explained in terms of nonlocality and the quantum vacuum or whether they involve superphysical forces and states of matter as yet unknown to science is still an open question, and one which merits further experimental study.

I've been away so long I no longer know what the fuck pople are talking about.

Let me clarify this up.

We live in the 3rd Dimension.

The 4th Dimension, if real, is what some people consider time itself to be.

Other people consider the 5th Dimension to be time.

For more on this crap, Google it, or find it in the Wikipedia sources.

M-Theory= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

Fifth Dimension= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_dimension_%28geometry%29

The way I understand it, the first three dimensions are spatial- the first dimension is a straight line _______ - it can only be measured one way. The second dimension is squaring the line, to make a square. It can be measured two ways. The third dimension would be sqaring the square, to make a cube, which can be measured three ways. All things which are brain can comprehend is in one of the three dimensions. But the forth dimension is time. To clarify, is there such thing as an instantaneous cube?? In other words, can a cube exist which lasts no time at all? It is simply harder to for us to understand this fourth dimension because our consiousness travels along it in one direction--forward. But, theoretically, one can travel back through time with one simple device--memories.

Even though The Time Machine (Wells, H.G.) is a work of fiction, I recommend reading the first chapter (or is it the intro) in which the learned men discuss the dimensions. I also advise reading Time Travel in Einstein's Universe (I forget the author).

[This message has been edited by Jesuisqui (edited 06-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by LostCause:

We don't live in 3 dimensions. It's unclear how many dimensions there actually are, but it's well known that there are at least 5 and that we are in the 4th dimension.

Get your quantum physics straight before you flame.

Cheers,

Lost

We live in three spatial dimensions. A fourth dimension is time. The fourth spacial dimension you speak of is still theoretical. If there happens to be absolute proof of this fourth spacial dimension, I'd love for you to enlighten me (I've taken my fair share of physics courses, including a course on quantum physics, so you need not worry about using too much jargon).

Edit: typo

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 06-20-2006).]

First of all, the 1=0 equasion. http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/humor/onezero2.html

Second, why PI is irrational. http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~hr/numb/pi-irr.html

Alright, now, you all have completely missed the point. First of all, I KNOW the 3rd dimension is cube, I only put it into terms of a square so it would be easy to understand. A simple metaphor for the missing part of our dimension. Second of all, I also know our understanding of the dimensions. (4th being time ect.) but what I'm asking is, What if they are wrong? We cannot honestly say that we have ANY understanding of our world, from a mathematical veiwpoint. What I'm saying, and what I'm asking, is that you completely disregard all we THINK we know, because that's what it takes to see this theory.

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

First of all, the 1=0 equasion. http: //www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/humor/onezero2.html (http: //www.pen. k12.va.us/ Div/Winche ster/jhhs/ math/humor /onezero2. html)

Both of those proofs are flawed. The page explicitly states that you are dividing by zero.

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

Second, why PI is irrational. http:// www.lrz-mu (http: //www.lrz- muenchen.d e/~hr/numb /pi-irr.ht ml) enchen.de/ ~hr/numb/pi-irr.html

Again, I realize pi is irrational. I never challenged this.

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

Alright, now, you all have completely missed the point. First of all, I KNOW the 3rd dimension is cube, I only put it into terms of a square so it would be easy to understand. A simple metaphor for the missing part of our dimension. Second of all, I also know our understanding of the dimensions. (4th being time ect.) but what I'm asking is, What if they are wrong? We cannot honestly say that we have ANY understanding of our world, from a mathematical veiwpoint.

Sure we can. It's called the "Scientific Method." Through reproducible experiments we have been able to learn a great deal about the way the world works. I hope you're a troll.

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

What I'm saying, and what I'm asking, is that you completely disregard all we THINK we know, because that's what it takes to see this theory.

So you believe that I should disregard all I can observe about this universe and accept your baseless assumptions about it on faith alone? I really, really fucking hope you're just a troll.

[This message was deleted by the user because the user would be flamed for it]

There is no imperfection with the laws governing the universe, just feeble human intellect.

Also for better understanding look into string theory.

String theory info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory)

String theory explained in movie form (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html)

Artist depiction of multi-demensional space (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/Calabi-Yau_art.jpg)

M-theory,

a type of string theory which unites the others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory)

Explains what branes are (other demensions) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane)

Quantum Mechanics info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics)

I also suggest the book Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

P.S. In no way is any of this religous, your understanding of physics, quantum physics, string theory ect (assuming you have heard of these things) is VERY limited.

Demensions 1-3 are space demensions.

(non-technical - up down, side to side, back forth)

Demension 4 is time.

(Einstein proposed time is actual a demension that we are moving through and there could be other time demensions)

Demension 5 is thought to be an extremely small space demension

It is known that there are at least 5 demensions, and it is most often theorized there is 11, although some theories suggest there are as much as 26.

Shown in the movie posted above it compares the other demensions to a loaf of bread, and our universe is one slice.

(The reason they do this is to comply with Freynman's model that if you can't explain something to a freshmen you yourself do not understand it)

The Elegant universe book goes into much more detail and includes equations. It will also start with classic physics move to quantum physics then the string theory.

I could post more but hopefully you will research things on your own.

I would like to add pi being irrational proves nothing. I don't see how it means the universe is flawed. In fact I would propose a perfect circle is not flawed, but instead perfect.

[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

It is known that there are at least 5 demensions

Where are you getting this from?

The only evidence I have seen whatsoever is the Kaluza-Klein theory, and I would hardly call that proof.

Then again, this is the religion forum, and maybe it is unreasonable for me to expect people to back up their claims with logical scientific reasoning...

quote:Originally posted by Jesuisqui:

The way I understand it, the first three dimensions are spatial- the first dimension is a straight line _______ - it can only be measured one way. The second dimension is squaring the line, to make a square. It can be measured two ways. The third dimension would be sqaring the square, to make a cube, which can be measured three ways. All things which are brain can comprehend is in one of the three dimensions. But the forth dimension is time. To clarify, is there such thing as an instantaneous cube?? In other words, can a cube exist which lasts no time at all? It is simply harder to for us to understand this fourth dimension because our consiousness travels along it in one direction--forward. But, theoretically, one can travel back through time with one simple device--memories.

Even though The Time Machine (Wells, H.G.) is a work of fiction, I recommend reading the first chapter (or is it the intro) in which the learned men discuss the dimensions. I also advise reading Time Travel in Einstein's Universe (I forget the author).



Well put. My mind grasped this pretty well.

quote:Originally posted by Jesuisqui:

The way I understand it, the first three dimensions are spatial- the first dimension is a straight line _______ - it can only be measured one way. The second dimension is squaring the line, to make a square. It can be measured two ways. The third dimension would be sqaring the square, to make a cube, which can be measured three ways.

Close. One dimension is a single point. Second dimension is planar. Both a straight line square are 2 dimensional as they can lay flat on a plane, composed of first dimensional points. And the 3rd dimension would be composed of compounding multiple planes (as a paper cube could be said to consist of 6 planar squares, one for each side). The 4th dimension is then composed of compounding multiple instances of a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dimensional object over the course of its existance. In terms of measurement, 1st dimension is simply a point, 2nd has length and width, 3rd adds depth and mass, and forth adds a measurable timeline.

At least, I think that's how it goes. If I'm wrong, pwn me gently. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 06-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

Where are you getting this from?

The only evidence I have seen whatsoever is the Kaluza-Klein theory, and I would hardly call that proof.

Then again, this is the religion forum, and maybe it is unreasonable for me to expect people to back up their claims with logical scientific reasoning...

Mathematics supporting it must not be logical, scientific, or reasonable then?

Also it integrates into the string theory quite nicely, read the book the elegant universe.

(Theres math there too.)

Since this is a religous forum I guess you would just ignore mathematical proof, logic and reason. I'm not that kind of person, can't speak for you though.

quote:Originally posted by Aft3r ImaGe:

Mathematics supporting it must not be logical, scientific, or reasonable then?

Also it integrates into the string theory quite nicely, read the book the elegant universe.

(Theres math there too.)

Since this is a religous forum I guess you would just ignore mathematical proof, logic and reason. I'm not that kind of person, can't speak for you though.

What part of string theory don't you understand?

I've got no problem with people saying there might be dimensions other than the three of space and one of time that we are familiar with. However, when one makes the claim that "we know" these dimensions exist, I feel it is completely reasonable to demand proof. If someone feels this is unreasonable, please, speak up.

Personally, I feel you are accepting all of this science on complete faith. You have no proof whatsoever to demonstrate that your claims are true. If you do, please give me an experiment that will demonstrate, without question, that there are other dimensions. I have read much of The Elegant Universe (I thought it was a really bad book that was too dependent upon analogy to have any credibility, hence I stopped reading it). I have taken 5 physics courses, yet I have yet to see any proof whatsoever substantiating the claims of extra dimensions. If you could enlighten me, that would be great.

Edit 2: If the Elegant Universe happens to have a proof it that I'm not aware of, please, by all means, simply give me a page number. I have a copy of it on my bookshelf and I'd be more than happy to look it up.

[This message has been edited by jsaxton14 (edited 06-20-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Close. One dimension is a single point. Second dimension is planar. Both a straight line square are 2 dimensional as they can lay flat on a plane, composed of first dimensional points. And the 3rd dimension would be composed of compounding multiple planes (as a paper cube could be said to consist of 6 planar squares, one for each side). The 4th dimension is then composed of compounding multiple instances of a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd dimensional object over the course of its existance. In terms of measurement, 1st dimension is simply a point, 2nd has length and width, 3rd adds depth and mass, and forth adds a measurable timeline.

At least, I think that's how it goes. If I'm wrong, pwn me gently. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)



No. The 0th dimension is 1 point. The 1st dimension is an infinite number of points going in a direction. The 2nd dimension is an infinity of lines (1st dimensions') going in a direction, which forms a plane. The 3rd dimension is an infinity of planes (2nd dimensions) going off in a direction.

It is possible to visually understand the 4th spatial dimension with the human mind, it is just difficult. I will attempt to explain it but ultimately your understanding will not come through me but only comes if you really focus your mind and try to understand it.

Imagine the way that each dimension is formed. You take the previous dimension, and repeat them over and over superimposing them infinitely small, and the new dimension is created by having an infinite of old dimensions contained in a single point. Between and two points in a line, there are an infinite number of points. It's this infinity, the irreducibility (not to be confused with a bad creationism argument that comes from lack of understanding) that makes the new dimension.

The 4th dimension, then, is an infinite number of 3rd dimensions extending in a direction. This is terribly difficult to explain, but once you get it you will feel enlightened.

Google image search "hypercube" or "4th spatial dimension" and you will understand (and find some sites that explain this better then I do.

Another way to think of it:

Each dimension is perpendicular to the

other dimensions. So imagine what

would be at a right angle to the other

three dimensions.

quote:Originally posted by Viraljimmy:

Another way to think of it:

Each dimension is perpendicular to the

other dimensions. So imagine what

would be at a right angle to the other

three dimensions.



that's how i thought of it when i was 10...

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

What part of string theory don't you understand?

I've got no problem with people saying there might be dimensions other than the three of space and one of time that we are familiar with. However, when one makes the claim that "we know" these dimensions exist, I feel it is completely reasonable to demand proof. If someone feels this is unreasonable, please, speak up.

Personally, I feel you are accepting all of this science on complete faith. You have no proof whatsoever to demonstrate that your claims are true. If you do, please give me an experiment that will demonstrate, without question, that there are other dimensions. I have read much of The Elegant Universe (I thought it was a really bad book that was too dependent upon analogy to have any credibility, hence I stopped reading it). I have taken 5 physics courses, yet I have yet to see any proof whatsoever substantiating the claims of extra dimensions. If you could enlighten me, that would be great.

Edit 2: If the Elegant Universe happens to have a proof it that I'm not aware of, please, by all means, simply give me a page number. I have a copy of it on my bookshelf and I'd be more than happy to look it up.



You have every right to be sceptical considering for the most part we lack the technology to measure certain things at the sizes described by the theory, and yes it is a scientific theory, but so was general and speacal relativity, and various quantum field theories. The evidence I am refering to is the underlying mathematics predicting other demensions, branes, and strings. And yes, until a device capable of traditional experimentation to prove wether or not other demensions exist you have the right to assume they don't. The fact that it isn't completely verifiable at this moment does not discredit it short of a claim of it being scientific law. If by saying we know these demensions exist you interpret that as me saying it is scientific law then yes I am guilty of forgetting it is a theory. On the otherhand Einstein's theories were not accepted by many for several years after publishing his work due to the nature of the things he was describing. Thats just the nature of theoretical physics. Much of it is ahead of it's time and difficult to verify. The "elegance" of the theory lies in the way it unites Einstien's theories with quantum physics. I would think that increases the likelyhood of it being true, although you can have any oppinion on the matter you want for all I care. I do understand it is not scientific law, but I also see that there is a good possibility it may be one day.

I would like to add how ignorant your statement of the book using analogies to describe things as discrediting it. Analogies are sort of Brian Greene's Feynman diagram. Richard Freymen said that if you cannot describe a concept to a freshmen you do not yourself understand it. Greene is simply using this concept throughout his book and it shows his understanding of the field. Einstein used analogies to describe relativity. I'm not aware of how this could discredit the book. Since when is science not allowed to be discribed in analogies and diagrams?



[This message has been edited by Aft3r ImaGe (edited 06-22-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by ABANDONED:

First of all, the 1=0 equasion. http: //www.pen.k12.va.us/Div/Winchester/jhhs/math/humor/onezero2.html (http: //www.pen. k12.va.us/ Div/Winche ster/jhhs/ math/humor /onezero2. html)



That URL even includes the word "humor"...