A Fifth Dimension?

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260843#p1260843)

'Nothing' does not exist, Iacchus, it the absense of existance. 'Inside the universe, there is existance.This is not the question though ... Was there ever time when only nothing existed? Or, what was the something that existed before the Universe began?

If you're saying that the Universe occurred as a result of the Big Bang, meaning the Universe did not exist prior to that and, that this "thing" which the Universe began to expand into which, is the same thing you refer to as "nothing" that currently exists/not-exists outside of it, what is the Universe expanding into? ... if not nothing and/or something? It would seem to me you've just discovered the existence of a fifth dimension. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[kmortis]

But we've known about a Fifth Dimesnion for a long time. Here (http://www.classicbands.com/Fifth.html)

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260934#p1260934)

Two dimensions is not "nothing".How so? A second dimemsion can only exist if there are two oppossing surfaces, where each surface represents a dimension containing its own volume if you will. Hence you have dimension A, containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface, pressing against dimension B, it too containing its own volume and extending out as far as its surface as well. So really all you have is dimension A, pressed up against dimension B with, nothing in-between! This "is" the nothing that you folks are looking at! :eye-poppi :eye-poppi :eye-poppi

Yeah, it goes much quicker when you are not constrained by truth.I hear you there brother! ;)

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1262245#p1262245)

Well see that's the point. You're still thinking about the 2-dimensional analogy in 3-dimensional sense. the surface of the balloon is supposed to be representative of our 3-dimensions. Yes, but why is the balloon expanding in the first place? Do you think it could have something to do with the expansion of the volume of air on the inside, versus the displacement of the air on the outside? This tells me that something has changed on both the inside as well as outside of the balloon, regardless of the surface area (of both surfaces of the balloon and the air), which is directly proportional to this expansion/displacement "thingee."

[Iacchus]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1262272#p1262272)

Please understand, that balloon is an analogy, there is no inside or outside, only the surface.

It is just a picture to descripe the expansion of our universe. And as analogies go, it isn't perfect.Are you saying "something" is not getting displaced in order to allow the balloon to expand? Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, unless it were a hologram (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram) or something.

[Timble]

Don't know why you're worried about a fifth dimension. Some theories call for as many as 11, but those are by people who have some understanding of maths, physics and what they're talking about.

[uruk]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1262245#p1262245)

Yes, but why is the balloon expanding in the first place? Do you think it could have something to do with the expansion of the volume of air on the inside, versus the displacement of the air on the outside? This tells me that something has changed on both the inside as well as outside of the balloon, regardless of the surface area (of both surfaces of the balloon and the air), which is directly proportional to this expansion/displacement "thingee."
Your still thinking in three dimensions. For the denizens of a 2 dimensional realm a third dimension would be very hard to grasp. They would not know where to point to a third dimension. "Up" would have no meaning to them.
Just like us pointing to "schmalts", which is our fourth spatial dimension, has no meaning to us. Which way do we point to schmalts?
Quantum theory says there may be as much as nine other spatial dimension to our universe. Where are they? We don't know where to point.

Ponder a tessarect or hyper cube. It is a 3d representation of a 4d object. To us it looks like a small cube within a larger cube with thier corners connected each other by a line. in our 3 dimensions the line appear to be 45 degrees. in 4 dimendsion the line are 90 degrees. Impossible in our 3d realm.
See here:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Hypercube.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/

[Iacchus]

But we've known about a Fifth Dimesnion for a long time. Here (http://www.classicbands.com/Fifth.html)Or, how about here ...

A Newborn Baby (http://www.dionysus.org/index.htm?x0501.html)

8 I fell back asleep shortly after this while laying on my back. And was only asleep a short while when I re-awoke to this incredible screeching noise—wailing in my ears! And I opened my eyes to the sight of this newborn baby, which completely filled my vision before me! (I lay on my back looking up at the ceiling of the cab.) Again I was wide awake! It was a breathtaking sight to behold, and when this child cried, he cried in such a demanding way (it was a boy and he cried about ten times), letting the whole world know he had just been delivered and required immediate attending to. I soon became uncomfortable, due to the immediacy of the moment, and desired that the child be removed, for fear I would cause it harm. I kind of backed away, as I lay there crouched in the front seat, and the child was removed, and taken up into heaven.

9 I lay there for a moment, as my mind was struck with wonder. And I heard a song, from up above. It was faint and barely audible but still discernable. It was the song, Age of Aquarius, by the popular musical group, The Fifth Dimension. I know they say we're living in the Aquarian Age, but I'm still not sure what that means? And for another moment I lapsed into a state of unconsciousness. When I re-awoke, there was a vision of a cross, held suspended in the middle of the sky and arrayed in a very special way (as portrayed in the next chapter). It's funny, but I'd always kind of wondered about the connection to the Fifth Dimension here (the musical group). While here it is 18 years later and, now that I've posted the thread, it kind of makes more sense. ;)

[kmortis]

Ooo...we just added another book to your reading list, Iacchus. Wrinkle in Time.

[Iacchus]

Don't know why you're worried about a fifth dimension. Some theories call for as many as 11, but those are by people who have some understanding of maths, physics and what they're talking about.Albeit we are speaking of that which stands outside of time and space aren't we?

[Iacchus]

Your still thinking in three dimensions. For the denizens of a 2 dimensional realm a third dimension would be very hard to grasp. They would not know where to point to a third dimension. "Up" would have no meaning to them. Except that there is no thickness to the second dimension whatsover, and without thickness you can't have volume. Which in effect says the second dimension is wholly imaginary ... with respect to the notion of any "beings" living there. This is also the "nothing" I was referring to above by the way.

[TobiasTheViking]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1262272#p1262272)

Are you saying "something" is not getting displaced in order to allow the balloon to expand?
Yes i am. Everyone have been trying to explain you that for a few days.


Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, unless it were a hologram (http://www.earthportals.com/hologram) or something.
Makes perfect sence. And hologram doesn't enter into it. Hologram isn't valid.

You might just as well have written "Doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me, unless it were a CAR or something."

[uruk]

Except that there is no thickness to the second dimension whatsover, and without thickness you can't have volume. Which in effect says the second dimension is wholly imaginary ... with respect to the notion of any "beings" living there. This is also the "nothing" I was referring to above by the way.
The 2D denizens version of "volume" would be "area". "Volume" is simply the area occupied within boundry a of 3 dimensions. For them 'volume" is unheard of and nonexistant. "Volume" would be nothing to them. So from thier POV, thier universe is expaning into nothing. Now project that in to our 3 dimensions. What is our universe expanding into?

[Robin]

From this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1260843#p1260843)

This is not the question though ... Was there ever time when only nothing existed? Or, what was the something that existed before the Universe began?

If you're saying that the Universe occurred as a result of the Big Bang, meaning the Universe did not exist prior to that and, that this "thing" which the Universe began to expand into which, is the same thing you refer to as "nothing" that currently exists/not-exists outside of it, what is the Universe expanding into? ... if not nothing and/or something? It would seem to me you've just discovered the existence of a fifth dimension. :eek: :eek: :eek:
As far as I am aware science is up to about 10 or 11 dimensions.

Is your fifth one of those? Or should it be the 12th dimension.

[TobiasTheViking]

As far as I am aware science is up to about 10 or 11 dimensions.

Is your fifth one of those? Or should it be the 12th dimension.
Ed Widden got it up to 11 with M-Theory. Before that it was mostly 10, though there have been a few String Theories out there with as much as 26 i think.

But, with the unification into M-Theory, we are at 11.

Sincerely
Tobias.

[TragicMonkey]

The 2D denizens version of "volume" would be "area". "Volume" is simply the area occupied within boundry a of 3 dimensions. For them 'volume" is unheard of and nonexistant. "Volume" would be nothing to them. So from thier POV, thier universe is expaning into nothing. Now project that in to our 3 dimensions. What is our universe expanding into?

I read somewhere, and cannot recall where, that a 2D resident would perceive a 3D object passing through the 2D as an event occuring over time and not a single unified object. If the second dimension were a sheet of paper, and you shoved a baseball through it, they couldn't perceive it as a single sphere. They'd see a point appear, expand to a circle, then contract back to a point and vanish. Unless they were very imaginative, 2D residents wouldn't conclude that the strange event was actually an object from another dimension.

The eerie possibility, then, is that there might be things we perceive as events that are actually objects from a higher dimension passing through. We just can't connect the dots to figure out what they might be.

[alfaniner]

I recommend Flatland by Abbott. I read it in high school upon recommendation from my math teacher and found it simple to understand, yet fascinating.

I haven't gotten to Sphereland yet but it's in my "to read" stack.

[Iacchus]

If the second dimension were a sheet of paper, and you shoved a baseball through it, they couldn't perceive it as a single sphere. They'd see a point appear, expand to a circle, then contract back to a point and vanish. Unless they were very imaginative, 2D residents wouldn't conclude that the strange event was actually an object from another dimension.A piece of paper? How so? Even a piece of paper has thickness to it. And for that matter, I suppose even atoms do don't they?

[Upchurch]

A piece of paper? How so? Even a piece of paper has thickness to it. And for that matter, I suppose even atoms do don't they?
:eye-poppi This metaphor is too abstract for you to understand? Seriously?

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?

[uruk]

I read somewhere, and cannot recall where, that a 2D resident would perceive a 3D object passing through the 2D as an event occuring over time and not a single unified object. If the second dimension were a sheet of paper, and you shoved a baseball through it, they couldn't perceive it as a single sphere. They'd see a point appear, expand to a circle, then contract back to a point and vanish. Unless they were very imaginative, 2D residents wouldn't conclude that the strange event was actually an object from another dimension.

The eerie possibility, then, is that there might be things we perceive as events that are actually objects from a higher dimension passing through. We just can't connect the dots to figure out what they might be.

Carl Sagan talks about this in one of the episode of Cosmos.

[Iacchus]

:eye-poppi This metaphor is too abstract for you to understand? Seriously?

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know? :confused:

[uruk]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know? :confused:

Boy I'd say you got it wrong. If there is no third dimension there would not be the zero for the height. It's not even a variable to be considered. The formula for area is simply length X width. No height. 2D means no third dimension.

[TobiasTheViking]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know? :confused:
You just calculated volume of something that doesn't have a volume.

The two dimensions would just go 3*4=12

[Upchurch]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know? :confused:Yep. Your mind appears to be solidly locked into only thinking in three dimensions. hmm....

Iacchus, how many dimensions does height have?

[Iacchus]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? I don't know? :confused:So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

[Upchurch]

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."
Your not understanding dimensionality means that the universe had to have been designed? Iacchus, please don't be so naive. There are much simpler conclusions that can be drawn from this one fact.

[Iacchus]

You just calculated volume of something that doesn't have a volume.Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

The two dimensions would just go 3*4=12Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?

[uruk]

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

Willfull........ignorance....appro...approaching critical.....mass....Head will....soon .....im....implode.........YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! !!! -==SSSUUUUUUUUKK.==-*pop*


Seriously, who said it evolved one piece at a time?

[TobiasTheViking]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?
I know i'll regret saying this, but.

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"

And the answer is. YES YOU CAN.

[Iacchus]

I know i'll regret saying this, but.

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"

And the answer is. YES YOU CAN.:cool: :cool: :cool:

[uruk]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

Two dimensions or, the surface area, is wholly contingent upon the volume or substance which lay beneath. You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?
What ever the substance of this 2d realm is would also be two dimensional. although there would be some 2D physicists who postulate a thoeretical 3rd spatial dimension for which they would have mathmatical description of but would have a hard time visualising. Though I'm certain that others will say that there is an intelligent entity that existed beyond thier 2d universe that created them.

[.13.]

"you can't have a three dimensional bubble existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?"


That sounds something like Iacchus-4D would say... :)

[TobiasTheViking]

That sounds something like Iacchus-4D would say... :)
<sarcasm>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, you don't say</sarcasm> :/

Sincerely
Tobias

Preaching to the Choir

[kmortis]

Forward, not up.

Or words to that effect. :D

[TobiasTheViking]

Forward, not up.

Or words to that effect. :D
huh?

[kmortis]

huh?



SPHERE. Now stretch your imagination a little, and conceive
a Square in Flatland, moving parallel to itself upward.

I. What? Northward?

SPHERE. No, not Northward; upward; out of Flatland altogether.

Ok, I should have said "Northward, not upward".

[drkitten]

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?

Of course he does. He's seen Star Trek, and Superman 2, and so forth.

Of course, he apparently regards them as documentaries.....

[Upchurch]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.:confused:

...what is the volume of a dream? or a spirit? How tall, wide, and deep are dreams and spirits?

You think these things exist, right? So, according to your ...statement... above, these things must have substance and, thus, volume.
You can't have a two dimensional "plane" existing out in the middle of nowhere can you?The two dimensional plane would be the somewhere, but don't worry about that now. You are so mired in 3-dimensionality, you aren't prepared to think in those terms yet. We have to get you crawling before we can get you to fly.

[Iacchus]

:confused:

...what is the volume of a dream? or a spirit? How tall, wide, and deep are dreams and spirits?

You think these things exist, right? So, according to your ...statement... above, these things must have substance and, thus, volume.Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no.

The two dimensional plane would be the somewhere, but don't worry about that now. You are so mired in 3-dimensionality, you aren't prepared to think in those terms yet. We have to get you crawling before we can get you to fly.Apparently not, because I believe that spirits exist. Why don't you? And we all know that Uruk doesn't believe in spirits or, this is what I have assessed, but why would he/she say something like this? ...

What ever the substance of this 2d realm is would also be two dimensional. although there would be some 2D physicists who postulate a thoeretical 3rd spatial dimension for which they would have mathmatical description of but would have a hard time visualising. Though I'm certain that others will say that there is an intelligent entity that existed beyond thier 2d universe that created them.

[kmortis]

Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no.

Apparently not, because I believe that spirits exist. Why don't you? And we all know that Uruk doesn't believe in spirits or, this is what I have assessed, but why would he/she say something like this? ...

The belief in spirits is not neccessary to use extra dimensions. According to certain cosmologies, more than 4 dimensions fit the mathematics quite nicely.

This, however, is not the frelling point, idit? No, the point is, multiple people have been trying to explain the 2nd dimension to you. You, on the other hand, have either been pulling their chain, or being willfully ignant. Do you grasp the 2-D concept or not? Can we advance this point or do we have to stay mired here?

[Iacchus]

:eye-poppi This metaphor is too abstract for you to understand? Seriously?

I've asked this before, but if you've answered, I've never seen it. Iacchus, do you know what a dimension is? And, if so, what is it?So which came first, "volume" as a whole? Or, dimension A + dimension B + dimension C. How can any of these be defined without their reference to "the whole?" Shouldn't the whole exist first, before you can begin to decide it has any dimensions? Or, if not, then what do we have that exists outside of "nothing?"

[Iacchus]

This, however, is not the frelling point, idit? No, the point is, multiple people have been trying to explain the 2nd dimension to you. You, on the other hand, have either been pulling their chain, or being willfully ignant. Do you grasp the 2-D concept or not? Can we advance this point or do we have to stay mired here?And yes, "understanding" is a dimension in and of itself, and this is the dimension that I prefer most to work with. ;)

[Mojo]

Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no. Time and space are not, as this statement of yours implies, "a dimension." Space is three dimensions in itself, for a start.

[uruk]

Apparently not, because I believe that spirits exist. Why don't you? And we all know that Uruk doesn't believe in spirits or, this is what I have assessed, but why would he/she say something like this? ...
No I don't believe in spirits because I have not seen one or experianced anything that would lead me to believe that they exist. I'll believe as soon as I have that experiance.

The first sentence of what you quoted was an attempt to get you to think in 2d concerning the balloon issue. Remeber the 2D people only know of thier 2D realm any other dimensions are not observable to them and, for all intents and purposes, are non-existant as far as they are concerned. Now apply that to our 3d realm. We can only observe our 3 spatial dimensions. Any other spatial dimentions are beyond our ability to grasp or observe (at the moment) and are therefore, for all intent and purposes, non-existant to us.

The second sentence was an illustration that though we cannot yet experiance any other spatial dimensions we can at least hypothesis and theorise about them because we have a tool and language to do so. Mathmatics.

The third sentence was just sarcasm. Sorry

[Iacchus]

Time and space are not, as this statement of yours implies, "a dimension." Space is three dimensions in itself, for a start.I prefer to think in terms of "planes" of existence. And time and space is a plane of existence in that sense ... just as the spiritual world -- if it exists? -- is a plane of existence.

[uruk]

I prefer to think in terms of "planes" of existence. And time and space is a plane of existence in that sense ... just as the spiritual world -- if it exists? -- is a plane of existence.
Then your talking about two different things. "planes of existance" and spatial dimensions are not the same thing.

[Mojo]

I prefer to think in terms of "planes" of existence. And time and space is a plane of existence in that sense ... just as the spiritual world -- if it exists? -- is a plane of existence.You think the universe is two-dimensional?

[Mojo]

So which came first, "volume" as a whole? You usually have "Gain" first, followed by "Treble," "Middle" and "Bass," then "Reverb" and "Master Volume."

[Iacchus]

No I don't believe in spirits because I have not seen one or experianced anything that would lead me to believe that they exist. I'll believe as soon as I have that experiance.And by experience, do you mean in the sense that you find a means to contact them? Or, would it be enough to make it sound plausible? For example, in the way scientists "predict" that black holes exist?

The first sentence of what you quoted was an attempt to get you to think in 2d concerning the balloon issue. Remeber the 2D people only know of thier 2D realm any other dimensions are not observable to them and, for all intents and purposes, are non-existant as far as they are concerned. Now apply that to our 3d realm. It's just kind of hard to imagine anything existing in less than three dimensions. Since the surface area of an object with "no height" (meaning it doesn't exist) is equal to zero.

We can only observe our 3 spatial dimensions. Any other spatial dimentions are beyond our ability to grasp or observe (at the moment) and are therefore, for all intent and purposes, non-existant to us.Well, yes, then I guess I shouldn't be made to feel like an idiot for trying to understand things in these terms.

The second sentence was an illustration that though we cannot yet experiance any other spatial dimensions we can at least hypothesis and theorise about them because we have a tool and language to do so. Mathmatics.Could it be because the mind itself is the fifth dimension? It seems to be able to conceptualize everything in the first four dimensions -- and then some!

The third sentence was just sarcasm. SorryI was kind of wondering about that. ;)

[Iacchus]

You think the universe is two-dimensional?Well, without the surface area of the water -- contingent upon the water beneath it that is -- would you be able to float your boat? :D

[Upchurch]

I prefer to think in terms of "planes" of existence. And time and space is a plane of existence in that sense ... just as the spiritual world -- if it exists? -- is a plane of existence.

And yes, "understanding" is a dimension in and of itself, and this is the dimension that I prefer most to work with. ;)
It would really help things along if you learned to use words correctly rather than relying on sci-fi definitions. What you are saying doesn't match up with what I think you are trying to say.

Understanding is not a dimension in and of itself. However, in a futile exercise to show you why, let me ask: If understanding is a dimension, how do you measure understanding?

[Iacchus]

Yeah, it's too bad it wasn't all in "French" either. ;)

[uruk]

And by experience, do you mean in the sense that you find a means to contact them? Or, would it be enough to make it sound plausible? For example, in the way scientists "predict" that black holes exist? Both would be equaly well. The only difference would be that a personal contact experiance would be less reliable especially if I'm the only one that can see or hear them. Without independent, objective verification or evidence I would have to assume that those experiance could be delusional or hallucinatory.
BTW, Black holes have been proven to exist. The Hubble space telescope provided the evidence. (enough at least to convince the majority of astronomers and physicist 99.9%)
See here:
http://amazing-space.stsci.edu/resources/explorations/blackholes/teacher/sciencebackground.html#9
Quoted from above article:
"10. How does the Hubble Space Telescope search for black holes?

A black hole cannot be viewed directly because light cannot escape it. Effects on the matter that surrounds it infer its presence. Matter swirling around a black hole heats up and emits radiation that can be detected. Around a stellar black hole this matter is composed of gas and dust. Around a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy the swirling disk is made of not only gas but also stars. An instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, called the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), was installed in February 1997. STIS is the space telescope's main "black hole hunter." A spectrograph uses prisms or diffraction gratings to split the incoming light into its rainbow pattern. The position and strength of the line in a spectrum gives scientists valuable information. STIS spans ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths. This instrument can take a spectrum of many places at once across the center of a galaxy. Each spectrum tells scientists how fast the stars and gas are swirling at that location. With that information, the central mass that the stars are orbiting can be calculated. The faster the stars go, the more massive the central object must be.

STIS found the signature of a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy M84. The spectra showed a rotation velocity of 400 km/s, equivalent to 1.4 million km every hour! The Earth orbits our Sun at 30 km/s. If Earth moved as fast as 400 km/s our year would be only 27 days long!"

It's just kind of hard to imagine anything existing in less than three dimensions. Since the surface area of an object with "no height" (meaning it doesn't exist) is equal to zero. I guess it would be equally hard for a 4D being to visualize a realm with only 3 spatial dimensions since no "schmalts" (meaning that it does not exist) or is equal to zero. That's the point i'm trying to make. It very hard to think in terms we are unfamiliar or have no experiance with. But we do have math to help us out in this particular situation.

Well, yes, then I guess I shouldn't be made to feel like an idiot for trying to understand things in these terms. I know. it's very difficult for me too.
The thing is that you need some sort of frame work that is self consistant before you go into trying to describe something that is outside our everyday experiance or understanding. We can talk about extra dimensions using math because it is a self consistant framework.

Could it be because the mind itself is the fifth dimension? It seems to be able to conceptualize everything in the first four dimensions -- and then some I don't think it falls under the accepted definition of what a spatial dimension is. Just be warned that you redefine words at your own risk.

Speaking of which....
I was kind of wondering about that. ;)
Sorry, I am pathalogicaly sarcastic. Sometimes I don't even know when I'm being sarcastic. My wife usualy smacks me in the back of my head when I am.

[Iacchus]

Could it be because the mind itself is the fifth dimension? It seems to be able to conceptualize everything in the first four dimensions -- and then some!Perhaps another way to look at this is with the image below ...

http://www.dionysus.org/art0608w.gif (http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html)

Here, the first circle (top left), albeit it is a representation of height versus width (two dimensions), can also be used to project the four dimensions of time and space -- "spherically" that is. Hence where all four points come together, in the center of the circle as well as the sphere, we have "perception" (5). Which, is the whole point ... If we don't perceive (5), we don't understand.

Also, since our perception comes from heaven above (5), and we are grounded to the earth below (6), a synchronicity exists between heaven and earth ... ESP or, the sixth sense anyone? Hence the marriage (7) of Heaven (5) and earth (6) ... (567).

[uruk]

And evidence to support this frame work?

[kmortis]

Perhaps another way to look at this is with the image below ...

http://www.dionysus.org/art0608w.gif

Here, the first circle (top left), albeit it is a representation of height versus width (two dimensions), can also be used to project the four dimensions of time and space -- "spherically" that is. Hence where all four points come together, in the center of the circle as well as the sphere, we have "perception" (5). Which, is the whole point ... if we don't perceive (5), we don't understand.

And, since our perception comes from heaven above (5), and we are grounded to the earth below (6), a synchronicity exists between heaven and earth. ESP or, the "6th sense" anyone? Hence the marriage (7) of Heaven (5) and earth (6) ... (567).

If we're gonna pull a Kilik, let's do it right....

http://www.projectmind.org/treenew.gif

So, at the top, we have Keter. This is the path to the divine. Some link it to the Crown Chakra.

Next, there is Binah and Chocomah (Understanding and wisdom). You notice that two of the three connections from Keter connect to these two. Obviously this implies that our understanding and wisdom are supplied to us by our connection to the divine.

Now we move to Gevurah and Chesed (rigor and compassion). As Gevurah follows Binah, so does our rigidness flow from our understanding. They are tempered, however, with Chesed; Chesed comes from our wisdom.

In the middle is Tifferet (Beauty). Tifferet is the sum of the divine, our wisdom, understanding and everything else. It is obvious that this beauty isn't necessarily our physical beauty, but our spiritual as well.


Aww, hell, you get my point; which is I can ramble off a bunch of mystical crap that doesn't get us any closer to explaining to you about the different dimensions.

Let me try it this way. They're mathematical constructs we use to help us analyitically describe the universe and its resultant phenomenon (doo-doo-dee-doo-doo). Ever do any linear algebra? the fifth dimension is the fifth cell in a 10-dimensional array. Get it?

[Iacchus]

It would really help things along if you learned to use words correctly rather than relying on sci-fi definitions. What you are saying doesn't match up with what I think you are trying to say.

Understanding is not a dimension in and of itself. However, in a futile exercise to show you why, let me ask: If understanding is a dimension, how do you measure understanding?Please see the representation above. And no, I don't mean "Ricky Mortis'" either. Thanks.

[Iacchus]

If we're gonna pull a Kilik, let's do it right....Why? Just to obscure the issue? ... I don't see why else?

[kmortis]

Why? Just to obscure the issue? ... I don't see why else?

Why not? Nothing else has seemd to get the point across. Why not obfuscation?

[Tricky]

You usually have "Gain" first, followed by "Treble," "Middle" and "Bass," then "Reverb" and "Master Volume."
You forgot Iacchus' favorite. Distortion.

[Iacchus]

And evidence to support this frame work?Are we on the road to Damascus or what? Is this evidence that we are in Damascus? No.

[Iacchus]

You forgot Iacchus' favorite. Distortion.Or, resonance perhaps?

[kmortis]

Or, resonance perhaps?

:dl:

[Iacchus]

:dl:It's funny, yours doesn't resonate with me.

[uruk]

Are we on the road to Damascus or what? Is this evidence that we are in Damascus? No.
So there's nothing to back up the nifty little illustration you posted. It just looked kinda cool with all those words attached to it that sound deep, vague and mystical.

What is it that we determin from it? What predictions does it make? In what manner does it decsribe our existance in a way that we can test its veracity?
Just burn some insence, ring some bells and feel the vibe?

[kuroyume0161]

Okay, let's try this:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 0 = 0

Could it be that I'm missing something here? ... I don't know? :confused:

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 5
Schmalts = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 5 x 0 = 0

Yes, you missed something. Lack of a dimension is not lack of everything (i.e.: nothing)!

[Iacchus]

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 5
Schmalts = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 5 x 0 = 0

Yes, you missed something. Lack of a dimension is not lack of everything (i.e.: nothing)!Yes, and without Time and Space and any other "dimensions" that exist above that. Which is to say, without the existence of existence itself, we would have "nothing" to measure.

[Iacchus]

So there's nothing to back up the nifty little illustration you posted. It just looked kinda cool with all those words attached to it that sound deep, vague and mystical.

What is it that we determin from it? What predictions does it make? In what manner does it decsribe our existance in a way that we can test its veracity?
Just burn some insence, ring some bells and feel the vibe?Well, in effect I'm saying objectivity is the fifth dimension, i.e., the ability to understand and look at the first four dimensions, "objectively."

[uruk]

Width = 3
Depth = 4
Height = 5
Schmalts = 0

In which case you have: 3 x 4 x 5 x 0 = 0

Yes, you missed something. Lack of a dimension is not lack of everything (i.e.: nothing)!
Just incase anybody wanted to know the 10 dimensions that have been sofar named are as follows:

1. length
2. width
3. depth
4. schmalts
5. karkatoom
6. dingledorph
7. flegmarlbatros
8. dextromathoriphan
9. nu gersee
10. wookie-nipple-pinchie

There you have it. The top ten list of spatial dimensions. Back to you Dave! :)

[uruk]

Well, in effect I'm saying objectivity is the fifth dimension, i.e., the ability to understand and look at the first four dimensions, "objectively." But your using the word "dimension" in two mean different things. One usage is inappropriate in refrence to the accepted definition concerning spatial determination.
One definition of dimension could mean something like " one aspect of a thing or situation. The other is a measure of spatial extent or a mathmatical or physics term. Confusion abounds when you mix the same word for the two definitions in the same paragraph. I don't know if you did that intentionaly to imply some sort link between the two different ideas or by accident.
I would say that objectivity or the ability to understand the three spatial and one temporal dimension is not a spatial dimension in itself but rather a condition. It may sound poetic or mystical to use the same word for the two meanings, but it is confusing and dishonest. Your trying to imply a link where there is none.

[Iacchus]

Just incase anybody wanted to know the 10 dimensions that have been sofar named are as follows:

1. length
2. width
3. depth
4. schmalts
5. karkatoom
6. dingledorph
7. flegmarlbatros
8. dextromathoriphan
9. nu gersee
10. wookie-nipple-pinchie

There you have it. The top ten list of spatial dimensions. Back to you Dave! :)Or, look at it this way (regarding the first five):

Thinking is linear or, 1 dimensional.

Feeling is surface oriented (how things feel) or, 2 dimensional.

Substantial is definitive or, 3 dimensional.

Intuitive is progression (over time) or, 4 dimensional.

Understanding is objectivity (toward first four) or, 5 dimensional.

[uruk]

Or, look at it this way (regarding the first five):

Thinking is linear or, 1 dimensional.

Feeling is surface oriented (how things feel) or, 2 dimensional.

Substantial is definitive or, 3 dimensional.

Intuitive is progression (over time) or, 4 dimensional.

Understanding is objectivity (toward first four) or, 5 dimensional.

See? your linking two disparate concepts."Thinking", "feeling", "substantive", "intutive", "understanding" are concepts and ideas not related to spatial dimensions. The term "dimension" in the diagram possibly means aspects or facets of something. To delibrately shift the definition of dimension in this particular usage from "aspect" to "spatial measurment" is dishonest and serves just to confuse. Please explaine to me how "feeling" is equated to "spatial measurement"?

[Iacchus]

See? your linking two disparate concepts."Thinking", "feeling", "substantive", "intutive", "understanding" are concepts and ideas not related to spatial dimensions. The term "dimension" in the diagram possibly means aspects or facets of something. To delibrately shift the definition of dimension in this particular usage from "aspect" to "spatial measurment" is dishonest and serves just to confuse. Please explaine to me how "feeling" is equated to "spatial measurement"?This is very similar to what Jung came up with by the way, regarding the notion of two opposing pairs (thinking vs feeling and sensation/substantial vs intuition), which culminate into the fifth aspect, "enlightenment" (or wholeness). I'm merely suggesting a possible correlation between the two. Which does make sense, since these are the tools that we use to evaluate our environment.

And, when we begin to understand, yes, we become "enlightened."

[uruk]

This is very similar to what Jung came up with by the way, regarding the notion of two opposing pairs (thinking vs feeling and sensation/substantial vs intuition), which culminate into the fifth aspect, "enlightenment" (or wholeness). I'm merely suggesting a possible correlation between the two. Which does make sense, since these are the tools that we use to evaluate our environment.

And, when we begin to understand, yes, we become "enlightened."


It is opposing pairs of concepts dealing with the mind. To apply it to spatial concepts is inappropriate as it causes confusion. That is unless you can demonstrate a link or correlation. What is that correlation? Saying there is one and winking your eye is not sufficient. Again it seems like intentional confusion.

Your talking gorganzola when its clearly brie time, baby!

[.13.]

Or, look at it this way (regarding the first five):

Thinking is linear or, 1 dimensional.

Feeling is surface oriented (how things feel) or, 2 dimensional.

Substantial is definitive or, 3 dimensional.

Intuitive is progression (over time) or, 4 dimensional.

Understanding is objectivity (toward first four) or, 5 dimensional.

I'll complete your list:

Dreaming is the dimension where you dream about 3 dimensional world. 6 dimensional.

Movies is the dimension of what all movies are made of. 7 dimensional

Numerology is the dimension where you get your numbers for your numerical values of all other dimensions. 8 dimensional. (Actually it's sum of all previous dimensions. But using my obscure and arbitrary rules of numerology I'll just assign it 8)

Circular is the dimension where you apply logic. 9 dimensional

Reality. Where rest of the humanity lives. 10 dimensional (possibly)

[kmortis]

I'll complete your list:

Dreaming is the dimension where you dream about 3 dimensional world. 6 dimensional.

Movies is the dimension of what all movies are made of. 7 dimensional

Numerology is the dimension where you get your numbers for your numerical values of all other dimensions. 8 dimensional. (Actually it's sum of all previous dimensions. But using my obscure and arbitrary rules of numerology I'll just assign it 8)

Circular is the dimension where you apply logic. 9 dimensional

Reality. Where rest of the humanity lives. 10 dimensional (possibly)

but, I think that from what we've experienced, Circular is the first dimension, as it does seem to be his basis of all arguments.

[.13.]

but, I think that from what we've experienced, Circular is the first dimension, as it does seem to be his basis of all arguments.

But tell me, does a circle have a beginning?

[kmortis]

But tell me, does a circle have a beginning?

Yeah, where ever I put the pen to the paper.

[.13.]

Yeah, where ever I put the pen to the paper.

But you wouldn't have a circle yet, just a point. Besides, the circular dimension has to be at the "end" so you wouldn't accidentaly end up in reality. And that has to be so. Because I'm saying it is so. I wouldn't say so if it wasn't...

[Tricky]

Or, look at it this way (regarding the first five):

Thinking is linear or, 1 dimensional.
This explain's a lot. Iacchus' thinking is no more than one dimensional. It never branches. It never rises above the plain.

Um... is there such a thing as half a dimension?

[kuroyume0161]

There are fractional dimensions for fractals. Maybe Iacchus' thinking exists as a Cantor set (with dimension log2/log3 ~= 0.6309).

[Iacchus]

It is opposing pairs of concepts dealing with the mind. To apply it to spatial concepts is inappropriate as it causes confusion. That is unless you can demonstrate a link or correlation. What is that correlation? Saying there is one and winking your eye is not sufficient. Again it seems like intentional confusion.Well, what exactly does the mind interpret but these first four dimensions? If so, then there should be an inter-dimensional relationship within the mind. If this is so, then we have to ask, what aspect of the mind eixsts to allow it to consider the first four, if not the fifth? This may in fact have been where Jung came up with idea, I don't know. But, it does make sense.

Your talking gorganzola when its clearly brie time, baby!:boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

[Iacchus]

but, I think that from what we've experienced, Circular is the first dimension, as it does seem to be his basis of all arguments.And by circular, do you mean within the realm of experience?

[uruk]

Well, what exactly does the mind interpret but these first four dimensions? If so, then there should be an inter-dimensional relationship within the mind. If this is so, then we have to ask, what aspect of the mind eixsts to allow it to consider the first four, if not the fifth? This may in fact have been where Jung came up with idea, I don't know. But, it does make sense. Careful swinging them words around. If your not using them properly you might hurt yourself. I'm sure it makes sense to you when you use definitions so loosley and interchangably.

:boggled: :boggled: :boggled:
Exactly!!!

[Taffer]

High, Depth, Width, Time. These are dimensions, Iacchus. Not "aliens from the 5th dimension".

[Iacchus]

Careful swinging them words around. If your not using them properly you might hurt yourself. I'm sure it makes sense to you when you use definitions so loosley and interchangably.


Exactly!!!
So, what exactly is it that tells us about the first four dimensions anyway? Ever hear the expression, "It's all in you mind?" :jaw-dropp

[uruk]

So, what exactly is it that tells us about the first four dimensions anyway? Ever hear the expression, "It's all in you mind?" :jaw-dropp
Something has to be responsible for putting information of "dimensions" into your mind in the first place. In other words there has to be something for us to call "dimensions" before we call it "dimensions".

And please keep your mouth closed. It's rude to air your tonsels in public.

[Iacchus]

Oops!

[Iacchus]

So, what exactly is it that tells us about the first four dimensions anyway? Ever hear the expression, "It's all in you mind?" :jaw-droppAlso, consciousness (5), since it is a higher dimension, and exists within the volume of time and space, suggests that it also exists outside of time and space ... and, that in fact it has always existed. ;)

[Taffer]

Also, consciousness (5), since it is a higher dimension, and exists within the volume of time and space, suggests that it also exists outside of time and space ... and, that in fact it has always existed. ;)

Only because you don't understand what dimensions are, Iacchus. Please read my post above.

[uruk]

Also, consciousness (5), since it is a higher dimension, and exists within the volume of time and space, suggests that it also exists outside of time and space ... and, that in fact it has always existed. ;)
Gorganzola?

[.13.]

This explain's a lot. Iacchus' thinking is no more than one dimensional. It never branches. It never rises above the plain.

Um... is there such a thing as half a dimension?

You tripped on your dimensions there :). Planes are 2 dimensional and lines are 1 dimensional.

[Tricky]

You tripped on your dimensions there :). Planes are 2 dimensional and lines are 1 dimensional.
So, let's see. A line divided by a plane is half a dimension, right?

(And I'm really disappointed nobody acknowledged the plane/plain pun. Why do I even bother to try to amuse you guys.):mad:

[.13.]

(And I'm really disappointed nobody acknowledged the plane/plain pun. Why do I even bother to try to amuse you guys.):mad:

Oh, I thought it was just a typo. You should dumb it down a bit. To suit your audience :).

[Iacchus]

Only because you don't understand what dimensions are, Iacchus. Please read my post above.You wouldn't be willing to assess that consciousness exists on an entirely different "plane" than time and space? If not, then how is it able to detach itself from and, perceive that these other dimensions exist? If it existed as a dimension, it would have to exist as a higher dimension wouldn't it?

[kmortis]

You wouldn't be willing to assess that consciousness exists an entirely different "plane" than time and space? If not, then how is it able to detach itself from and, perceive that these other dimensions exist? If it existed as a dimension, it would have to exist as a higher dimension wouldn't it?

Except that consciousness definatly demonstrates characteristics of being time-bound.

[Iacchus]

Except that consciousness definatly demonstrates characteristics of being time-bound.Only to the extent that it is more closely related to time. This is where the notion of intuition (as mentioned earlier) comes from by the way. Also, the only thing that we genuinely experience in relation to time is "the moment" ... i.e., the past doesn't exist in that sense, neither does the future.

[kmortis]

Only to the extent that it is more closely related to time. This is where the notion of intuition (as mentioned earlier) comes from by the way. Also, the only thing that we genuinely experience in relation to time is "the moment" ... i.e., the past doesn't exist in that sense, neither does the future.

Intuition is a form of inductive thinking. It is very fallable. Just because you are not always aware of the process of thinking, doesn't mean you don't go through it.

[Iacchus]

Something has to be responsible for putting information of "dimensions" into your mind in the first place. In other words there has to be something for us to call "dimensions" before we call it "dimensions".

And please keep your mouth closed. It's rude to air your tonsels in public.Yes, I agee. Something had to exist, before we did.

[Iacchus]

Intuition is a form of inductive thinking. It is very fallable. Just because you are not always aware of the process of thinking, doesn't mean you don't go through it.Intuition is very much like the doppler effect. That does not mean it's not possible to misconstrue what it is telling us though. Or, it is quite possible (according to Jung) that some of us don't have a fully developed sense of intuition. Which is the whole point, since intuition (4) only helps to serve, what we understand (5).

[.13.]

You wouldn't be willing to assess that consciousness exists on an entirely different "plane" than time and space? If not, then how is it able to detach itself from and, perceive that these other dimensions exist? If it existed as a dimension, it would have to exist as a higher dimension wouldn't it?

As far as I know consciousness is a function of the brain. And the brain exists in dimensional space. Brain itself isn't a dimension.

Only to the extent that it is more closely related to time. This is where the notion of intuition (as mentioned earlier) comes from by the way. Also, the only thing that we genuinely experience in relation to time is "the moment" ... i.e., the past doesn't exist in that sense, neither does the future.

Actually experiencing "the moment" is experiencing the past. Because it takes time for the signals to travel and it takes time for you to evaluate them. You can't see the present as it is now.

[Iacchus]

While here's something that further delineates the first four elements of the mind -- which, culminates into the 5th, 6th and 7th elements, etc., etc. ...

The Marriage Relationship (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html)

1 As I see it there are six elements (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#5) that culminate into the marriage relationship, which as I'll show, correlate equally well with the six churches (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html#16) on earth. These are the corresponding masculine and feminine qualities, brought into the relationship by the respective bridegroom and bride. The first four can be viewed as the couple's parents—or in-laws—with the bridegroom and bride constituting the fifth and sixth (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html#28) elements. And, as we're not the total by products of what our parents have instilled in us, they can be viewed collectively or, in a spiritual sense (as composites).

2 Both men and women have these tendencies, which have been nurtured by each of our parents. And, as shown by our left and right brains, the two receptacles of this, they tend to balance each other out. The masculine, which predominates in the man (qualities of his father here), represents the rational or intellectual side, which is also the understanding (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html#20). The feminine, which predominates in the woman (qualities of her mother here), is what makes her a woman, and is the reciprocal of the masculine: the emotional or feeling aspect or, the will (http://www.dionysus.org/x0101.html#21).

3 In this respect men and women are opposite human beings, as they approach each other from opposite ends of the spectrum. They aren't diametrically opposed though—or at least they shouldn't be!—for they were meant to be actual reciprocals, ruled by their predominant tendencies, in a state of balance with their lessor tendencies. And here, once a suitable pair is found, they become united—in marriage—and come together as a whole: "And the two shall become one flesh." http://www.dionysus.org/arrow_0.gifGenesis 2:24 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=English&version=KJV&search=&passage=Genesis+2:21-24)

4 When this occurs, although rare in earthly marriages, the two become—one human being (how it's commonly expressed in heaven). Which is best exemplified by the sperm striking the ovum to form the zygote, the two opposite organisms coming together to form a new one, as fertilization occurs. Whereas the zygote goes on to develop into a baby, to form a new human being or, half a human being. And so it is the birth of a child signifies a true testament to the consummation of marriage which, in the spiritual sense, signifies the birth of new doctrine (more so a boy child): the embodiment of faith or understanding, regarding this pact between God and The Church or, Husband and Wife. For an account of my own experience here, please refer to chapter 5 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html).

Six Elements of Marriage

5 The six elements of marriage are listed as follows:

1) The man's intellect (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#8): the masculine aspect of the man or his spiritual father.

2) The man's will (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#9): the feminine aspect of the man or his spiritual mother.

3) The woman's intellect (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#10): the masculine aspect of the woman or her spiritual father.

4) The woman's will (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#12): the feminine aspect of the woman or her spiritual mother.

5) The man himself (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#13): the understanding in the relationship or the spiritual husband.

6) The woman herself (http://www.dionysus.org/x0301.html#15): the will in the relationship or the spiritual wife.


6 Once these elements have been established, they culminate into a seventh state, a state of coalescence or, the marriage itself. There's also an eighth and ninth state, which correspond to the honeymoon (the 8th) and the life thereafter (the 9th). These two, along with the seventh, correspond to the numbers 21, 22 and 23, as detailed in the last chapter (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html#5). I'll be addressing this, along with the six elements and their number correspondents, further in chapter 4 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0401.html) and chapter 6 (http://www.dionysus.org/x0602.html#marriage).

[Belz...]

If you're saying that the Universe occurred as a result of the Big Bang, meaning the Universe did not exist prior to that and, that this "thing" which the Universe began to expand into which, is the same thing you refer to as "nothing" that currently exists/not-exists outside of it, what is the Universe expanding into? ... if not nothing and/or something? It would seem to me you've just discovered the existence of a fifth dimension. :eek: :eek: :eek:

No, no and NO. There is nothing "outside" the universe and the universe is not expanding "into" anything. We've been through this.

Fifth dimension ? Do you know what a dimension is ?

[Belz...]

A piece of paper? How so? Even a piece of paper has thickness to it. And for that matter, I suppose even atoms do don't they?

:jaw-dropp

[Belz...]

So guess what? Do you know what else this tells me? That you can't build a Universe from the ground up ... i.e., by allowing it to evolve one piece at time. Meaning, it's an "all or nothing" proposition. In other words there has always been someting here, in "full complexity."

That has to be the greatest leap since Evel Knievel.

[Belz...]

Volume is substance and nothing exists without substance.

In a 2D universe, nothing has substance, then ? I'll be sure to tell them you said that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Upchurch :


...what is the volume of a dream? or a spirit? How tall, wide, and deep are dreams and spirits?

You think these things exist, right? So, according to your ...statement... above, these things must have substance and, thus, volume.

Not in "this" dimension (of time and space), no.


You really don't know what a dimension is, then. That settles it.

[Belz...]

So which came first, "volume" as a whole? Or, dimension A + dimension B + dimension C. How can any of these be defined without their reference to "the whole?" Shouldn't the whole exist first, before you can begin to decide it has any dimensions? Or, if not, then what do we have that exists outside of "nothing?"

Dimensions weren't built up by some cosmic designer. They're just inherent properties of our universe.

[Belz...]

Could it be because the mind itself is the fifth dimension? It seems to be able to conceptualize everything in the first four dimensions -- and then some!

And then some what ? I surely can't imagine more than four. Though I can calculate equations using more than four.

[Belz...]

Well, in effect I'm saying objectivity is the fifth dimension, i.e., the ability to understand and look at the first four dimensions, "objectively."

As I've said before, I'm allergic to stupid and ridiculous things.

You should see the rash on me right now.

[Belz...]

Well, what exactly does the mind interpret but these first four dimensions? If so, then there should be an inter-dimensional relationship within the mind.

What ? How do you jump to so many conclusions in so few posts ??

Note: My post #666!! MOUAHAAAHAHAHAHAH

[Iacchus]

No, no and NO. There is nothing "outside" the universe and the universe is not expanding "into" anything. We've been through this.

Fifth dimension ? Do you know what a dimension is ?You in fact do not know this.

[uruk]

You in fact do not know this.
Can't seem to find an outside to the universe. can't point to it.don't even where to begin looking for it. Do you have any idea where the outside of the universe is?

Folks just incase you haven't noticed. Iaachus has gone to la la land on this subject. He can't stick to one single definition of dimension and can't even recognize when the definition shifts. It's kind of like beating a dead horse. It may be fun to do so, but it's getting you nowhere fast.

[Tricky]

Folks just incase you haven't noticed. Iaachus has gone to la la land on this subject. He can't stick to one single definition of dimension and can't even recognize when the definition shifts. It's kind of like beating a dead horse. It may be fun to do so, but it's getting you nowhere fast.
La-la land is Iacchus' homepage. But the deceased equine beating actually does serve a purpose. Even though Iacchus will never learn anything, many of us will be exposed to the knowledge of other posters on the boards. Threads like this are good for newbies because concepts are dumbed down in order to penetrate Iacchus' armor of ignorance. This allows them to participate without feeling intimidated.

The fun is just a fringe benefit.

[Belz...]

You in fact do not know this.

No, but I'm following the current, lead scientific theories. Now, arguing for new, competing theories is good, and that's basically what you're doing. Unfortunately since you have SQUAT in the argument and evidence department, obviously, you're not going anywhere.

[kmortis]

Dimensions weren't built up by some cosmic designer. They're just inherent properties of our universe.

To be fair, Belz, they're mathematical concepts that we use to help describe our universe. In a way, they're kind of like taxonomy in biology, a useful categorization tool.

[kmortis]

As I've said before, I'm allergic to stupid and ridiculous things.

You should see the rash on me right now.

Belz,
I've found that Fenyman's Lotion cures that rash lickity-split.

[Belz...]

To be fair, Belz, they're mathematical concepts that we use to help describe our universe. In a way, they're kind of like taxonomy in biology, a useful categorization tool.

Well, that's a better way to put it. Which brings up the question of WHY 11 dimensions in some theories.

[Belz...]

Belz,
I've found that Fenyman's Lotion cures that rash lickity-split.

YOU also now have 666 posts!! MOUAHAAHAHAHAH

[kmortis]

YOU also now have 666 posts!! MOUAHAAHAHAHAH

Now I don't. :evil grin:

Now I have 667, Neighbor of the Beast.

[H'ethetheth]

Iacchus, I might point something out to you:
When you say "consciousness is a dimension" in the context of this discussion, the people you're talking to take this to mean: "If necessary, consciousness can be measured in meters in some direction perpendicular to familiar space-time". This makes as little sense to them as it does to you.

Some examples of dimensions:
- temperature
- density
- number of chocolate chips
- nutrition value
- flour content relative to average

Incidentally, Here's a cookie:

[21.3ºC, 671kg/m^3, 14, 1854 kJ/100g, 1.0023]

Hope this helps.

[Iacchus]

Consciousness is "the center" (5), existing at all points (1) all the time (4). Much in the way the past and the future don't exist, to the extent that it's centered around "the moment."

http://www.dionysus.org/art0608w.gif (http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html)

[kmortis]

Consciousness is "the center," existing at all points (1) all the time (4). Much in the way the past and the future don't exist, to the extent that it's centered around "the moment."

http://www.dionysus.org/art0608w.gif (http://www.dionysus.org/x0601.html)

Iacchus,
Haven't we been down this road before?

Do I really have to go Quabbalistic on yer a$$?

[Belz...]

Consciousness is "the center" (5), existing at all points (1) all the time (4). Much in the way the past and the future don't exist, to the extent that it's centered around "the moment."

At all points, all the time ? How come I exist only here and now ?

[Iacchus]

At all points, all the time ? How come I exist only here and now ?Exactly! Time and space comes together in the "here and now!" ;) So, no matter where we go, we will always find ourselves "in the center."

[kuroyume0161]

"Wherever you go, there you are." - Confucious ;P

[Belz...]

Exactly! Time and space comes together in the "here and now!" ;) So, no matter where we go, we will always find ourselves "in the center."

That sounds remarkably circular.