• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.

the four dimensions of reality: space time energy distance

sushi

Active Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
340
#1
here are the four dimensions of reality i percieved:

space
time
energy
distance

nothing can escape these four dimension
If there is any extra dimension, feel free to comment.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#2
The spiritual realm. I don't mean in like a benny hinn type of way, but there is definitely shit in the universe that isn't explained by those four dimensions. Like black holes. We prolly know very little about the complexity of such things.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#4
Errr... Is distance not just the space between two points?
I think they all kinda relate in one way or another and are all kinda the same thing if you think about it.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,932
#5
Yeah I've got a vague notion that time=space, and energy=mass kinda etc., but I don't really understand it and have learned piss all about it. Distance=space was the most straight-forward counterexample that was within my understanding. Didn't really pay attention in science :/
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#6
Yeah I've got a vague notion that time=space, and energy=mass kinda etc., but I don't really understand it and have learned piss all about it. Distance=space was the most straight-forward counterexample that was within my understanding. Didn't really pay attention in science :/
TBH, I am kinda appalled that scientists don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark for this reason. It could explain a lot, but the scientists are choosing to look at other things. No idea why though.
 

Cognisant

Condescending Bastard
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
7,687
#7
Hang on let me repeat that back to you:
Scientists don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark.

I just... how do I... *sigh* I'm going to get in trouble for ad homming again.
C'mon how do I address this without calling him stupid?

Ok here's an idea, QuickTwist please provide some basis for you assertion that scientist don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark.
A quote would be fantastic :)
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,657
#8
Errr... Is distance not just the space between two points?
Yeah space is just 3 dimensions of distance.

Unless there is some kind of abstract space. I'm thinking of something like Kant's a priori conception of space. Something like... having an essence which can be perceived in some manner. But that's quite a stretch... I would say that having both space and distance is an error.

Another dimension would be electric charge.

QuickTwist said:
The spiritual realm.
There's probably something to this one, but it's a mystery as to what.

I think of structure as existing outside of space, like a topology where you remove definite distances but still have relations between the aspects of the space. Structure/form, that kind of thing.

TBH, I am kinda appalled that scientists don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark for this reason. It could explain a lot, but the scientists are choosing to look at other things. No idea why though.
More importantly: scientists don't want to look at the spiritual realm. There is a ton of both ancient and modern spiritual knowledge out there which scientists won't touch since it goes too far outside of what they know how to test.

If you have a mind of your own, you can test it out yourself. I promise results if you've got your eyes set in the right direction.
 

QuickTwist

Soothsayer
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
6,452
Location
A hut in the woods
#9
Hang on let me repeat that back to you:
Scientists don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark.

I just... how do I... *sigh* I'm going to get in trouble for ad homming again.
C'mon how do I address this without calling him stupid?

Ok here's an idea, QuickTwist please provide some basis for you assertion that scientist don't want to look at anything smaller than a quark.
A quote would be fantastic :)
There was a female theoretical physicist that worked with string theory that I heard this from. Not sure what her name was, but apparently she is some hot shot in the science field. Sorry, don't have a quote.

If you have evidence to the contrary (that scientists are trying to look at things smaller than a quark), I am all ears.

[Edit] Pretty sure it was in here somewhere:

 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,932
#10
@Artsu
If it goes so far outside of what they know how to test, then what are you expecting them to do? If they can't measure it, they can't science it. Keeping in mind that, if it's immeasurable, it would be very difficult to know that it even existed. Scientists have done crazy feats of measurement... detecting blackholes, the temerature of the sun, quantum entanglement, the distance between stars... They're very good at measuring things that people might conventionally think difficult to measure. But somehow you've observed things they couldn't figure out, and you put this down to their disinterest? That doesn't seem plausible.

@QT
While I disapprove of Cognisant's tone, I am skeptical of such a claim coming from anecdote. Scientist's careers benefit greatly from successfully sciencing the previously unscienced. If they haven't measured it there's probably more practical concerns than mere disinterest. It might be really hard.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,657
#11
Hadoblado said:
If it goes so far outside of what they know how to test, then what are you expecting them to do?
I expect them to use their fcuking brains and think of ways to observe the universe that they haven't already found, rather than simply exploring the implications of methods currently available. A dedicated spiritualist can pull off powerful feats. If spiritualists and scientists worked together they could probably construct something that gives empirical form to the spirit world. I personally tend to just ignore science, I don't see the point to it. I know others like science, but I think a lot of those people just don't know about the spiritual.

Of course I'm oversimplifying the science/spirituality division here, but it points at real dilemmas that exist, and alternate modes of understanding life.
 

onesteptwostep

I'm smart and stuff.
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,754
#12
The four dimensions are actually height, width, length and time. Space is basically what you get with the first 3 dimensions. The first dimension gives you a point, the second allows you to create a line. Go youtube 'the 10 dimensions'.

Oh and black holes are explained by the 5th or 6th dimension or something. Something about folding the space-time. Go youtube it, it's a good video.

 

Pizzabeak

*Guardians of the Galaxy*
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,718
#13
Distance is the space between two points in time, or just the time between points in space. Energy isn't really a dimension but maybe it's the electric charge that is.
Spiritualism is science personified. There's "science" to it. Then again there's art or spiritualism to some science. But it certainly falls under the laws of nature. You can escape time.
Black holes are also explained by regular physics. But our laws of the mind aren't fully fleshed. They're looking for really really tinier particles with finer detection equipment but it might be something else. I don't think you can really find it the same way.
 

Hadoblado

The choicest fuckboi
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
4,932
#15
I expect them to use their fcuking brains and think of ways to observe the universe that they haven't already found, rather than simply exploring the implications of methods currently available. A dedicated spiritualist can pull off powerful feats. If spiritualists and scientists worked together they could probably construct something that gives empirical form to the spirit world. I personally tend to just ignore science, I don't see the point to it. I know others like science, but I think a lot of those people just don't know about the spiritual.

Of course I'm oversimplifying the science/spirituality division here, but it points at real dilemmas that exist, and alternate modes of understanding life.
Okay.

I'm finding it difficult to relate to your perspective.

Scientists as a category of people, are insanely good at measuring things. The spiritual has been around for millennia, and measured comparatively sweet fuck all. I cannot stress the competence required to come up with the ways of measuring things that science has. Even something basic like the earth being round, is proven through pretty ingenious methods.

For you to demand they just come up with a way to measure something they are yet to observe... It doesn't seem fair. I could make up any number of things and blame science for not having measured it, and it would put scientists in the exact same position as you put them not having objectively verified your beliefs.

What feats does a dedicated spiritualist pull off? Can they put people on the moon? Can they make people fly?
 

Pizzabeak

*Guardians of the Galaxy*
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,718
#17
How?

Is it always escaped and never escaped at once?

Or is it some times escaped and sometimes isn't?

:confused:
Both. It's non duality. We are waves of energy condensed out the ether. Particle anomalies vibrating out the fabric of spacetime. There are points in time where it can be accessed. It's serotonin. You have to feel good for ultimate survival. It's all one sea of information. The goal of escaping time has been the subject of much debate since time immemorial. Such as when you die and go to Heaven with God, that's outside of time, but we all know it to be bullshit anyway. Yet there's still a mechanism for it, it just isn't that ("religion"). So you can have the illusion of having escaped time, which gives you a pretty good idea of what it is. It's like a dream. Time is kind of different in those. You can extrapolate and get different modes.
You can also meditate into infinity and experience timelessness that way. Some zen masters are known to have done it. Biologically there must be a mechanism or neurotransmitters for it but it might not be DMT that does it. It was just a hypothesis. We still don't know how dreams work. Or do we? None of the proposed chemicals do it. Eastern thought is increasingly becoming acceptable to western physics and sciences. Eastern philosophy is older than science though so it is kind of different.
 

Artsu Tharaz

Resident Resident
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
Messages
2,657
#18
It's like a dream. Time is kind of different in those.
Heh, was just thinking this today.

It's still time though, just... condensed. Much meaning, little time lapse.

The story is set in stone.

In one way we're always outside of time because of the whole thing about the present moment, although I think the present is actually future+past as well.

:confused: chemicals schmemicals

We can certainly experience altered states of time. Non-linearity and such.

I have heard of the acausal, yet to look into it too far.

I'll do some experimentation with it and see what I come up with.

:cthulhu:
 

Pizzabeak

*Guardians of the Galaxy*
Joined
Jan 24, 2012
Messages
1,718
#19
Heh, was just thinking this today.

It's still time though, just... condensed. Much meaning, little time lapse.
It's like condensed and expanded. It can reach a zero point. Then be mostly meaning. It's that. Life is a meme generating machine. When people get abducted by aliens or fairies it's like traveling at near light speeds. Sometimes they're gone for a few days but outside years have passed. So it's a similar concept. Dreams can also skip around like the pets in between are hard to remember.
The story is set in stone.

In one way we're always outside of time because of the whole thing about the present moment, although I think the present is actually future+past as well.
Is it? I suppose there is some foundation to the path time takes. It follows a predestination route. The signs are all there but hard to remember. They can't always be perceived. PKD saw Ancient Rome layered over reality. We were repeating the same events. There's just updated architecture. Future generations will go through the same patterns.
:confused: chemicals schmemicals

We can certainly experience altered states of time. Non-linearity and such.

I have heard of the acausal, yet to look into it too far.

I'll do some experimentation with it and see what I come up with.

:cthulhu:
They thought endogenous MAO inhibitors played a role in mind vision, such as that when dreaming. But there's no evidence. When you take pinoline (6-MeO-1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-β-carboline) nothing happens. So it doesn't cause a dream like state directly, and might not be made by the pineal. I think you have to reason backwards and conclude you experienced something like non-linearity. Synchronciities are like acausal phenomenon. Like an indirect cause and effect of sorts. Spooky action at a distance. But you have to filter a lot of stuff out using stats. I think there's still room for it to happen probably. I'll have to see what I find too.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,148
Location
US of A
#20
Distance is the measure between two points. The distance in time is the measured difference between two events. Energy is what defines those events. Time is one dimension and space is three. Space-time is four dimensions. Energy is the interaction of those dimension. Distance is nothing but a ruler to measure those interactions.

The spirit isn't a dimension. Dimensions are the folds of this reality. This existence. Who knows what deminsions the spiritual metta reality has.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,095
#21
The only issue I have with people that use science (but not the scientific method) is that it's often used to create a model of what something is and creates this bias towards defending that model against all new evidence. It shouldn't be like that.

For example, there's strong academic support behind theories that reinforce particle physics, despite that we don't know if there is a fundamental particle, since we keep finding smaller particles that make up bigger ones, and we have a lot of evidence that shows an inherent vibrational energy to what we think of as particles. There's too much grey area and the concept of a particle is a little misleading in that regard and fails to explain the over-arching properties of matter on tiny tiny (and perhaps infinite) scales. I mean it's weird that we have electricity and an understanding of electro-magnetism, yet we don't actually know what say an electron looks like (something fundamental to electricity). We do know that if we shoot electrons at other electrons, we can see imprints of electron blobs, but that doesn't tell us jack shit about what is it and what makes it up or even hint at its inherent properties. We're like cavemen impressed with the fact that we can create fire, but we don't know what it really is.
 

Grayman

Team Ignorant
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
4,148
Location
US of A
#22
It is false to define a thing as thing. A thing is not an object as we perceive an object to be. All things are but a description of its interactions. As one thing interacts differently with one thing than another thing we can then separate those things and call them objects. It is an interaction that can be quantized, hence quantum mechanics. Understanding this particular interaction means understanding the photoelectric effect and how a photon was determined to be a particle.
 

Reluctantly

Resident disMember
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
3,095
#23
Okay, sure. But it's misleading to represent a photon as a particle when it has no mass, acts as a wave as well, and relates the time between different objects. Objects also vibrate as well. So if it's quantized to make some kind of sense of it, that's fine. If that quantization is used to justify it in an abstract sense as some absolute particle, that's a misnomer and it's bullshit and you're full of it.
 

TransientMoment

_ _ , - _ , _ -
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
57
#24
@Reluctantly & @Grayman
Assuming I understand you both correctly (possibly not), I'd say you're both correct about particles. The reality is, we only have reality to describe reality. We don't have some reference point outside of reality by which to discuss the foundations of what we're talking about. And even then, it would only be another reference point. To ask "What is this?" on a fundamental level seems to imply that you want to "grok" it (to steal a phrase) and not merely "know" or "understand" it. Human knowledge and understanding is limited to relationships. But yes, it gives the false impression that somehow we "grok" all of the fundamentals about it and can therefore discuss its limitations and abilities and such.
As for the nomenclature, it's a "particle" in the sense that, in certain contexts, it acts like a particle and not a wave. Look up the de Broglie relationship. To say it's a "particle" conjures up ideas about what we perceive to be macroscopic "particles", but even this implies these macroscopic particles are as we perceive them. If all particles are actually waves, then all objects are like massive waves, and it's not technically a misnomer to call them that, though it is a source of confusion because they don't fit the traditional idea.
 
Top Bottom