Quote:
Originally Posted by JAK  I agree. Words are convenient to summarize complex issues of nature into "soundbytes" enabling fast and easy communication, but precisely defining words always seems to be difficult. Where do you draw a line across the mouth of a river? At which molecule of water? In nature, boundaries tend to be fuzzy - especially at the subatomic level where speeds are incredibly fast and our vision is rather poor. (Where is old Werner when you need him?)
Perhaps the sphere analogy remains elusive, but the concept of "spin" comes back again. "Spin" is beginning to fascinate me ...
And "pressure" is coming into the picture again like in the "Spin-off" thread. |
Good delivery, JAK,
In essence, 2D+ and 3D use different meanings to the word dimension. They overlap in most cases, but where they differ is that 2D+ has a single reality (with depth) plus the experience of something flat (1D), within that reality.
In the spatial concept of 3D, there is 3D (with depth), and 2D (flat), but 1D is flat as well. In essence, 1D (flat) and 2D (flat) belong to the same experience. Therefore, according to me, 3D contains a flaw in how it is build up because the 1D experience is not
essentially different from the 2D experience.
See also:
http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post53713