[Fredrick]

Sure,

But I have to warn you that even though I consider the difference to be paramount, the actual difference is truly minor in character.

Let me first use the example that we live in a 2 + 2 makes 4-world, and that nobody has a problem knowing that 4 can be achieved by either adding 2 + 2 or by multiplying 2 X 2. What I am trying to show is the common knowledge that 4 is build up from two 2's and not from four 2's. Everyone agrees on this, but when it comes down to dimensions, everyone all of a sudden wants to follow the path that states that 4 is build up out of four 2's, because they say there is 2 + 2 and there is 2 X 2.

With M-theory I am of the opinion that their practitioners allow themselves to add directions as if all new additions are separate directions. The mini-dimensions are still going in the same directions as the maxi-dimensions, and the main reason M-theory is so fascinating is that once you allow yourself to do something this double, a lot of extra information can come available. I would say, very similar to opening up a second eye (but not ten or eleven eyes).

3D also contains that bit of extra that seemingly is there, but that isn't there (because the extras we experience occur within us and our perceptions, but not in the outside world). 3D are based on singular directions, and they do not exist. Only as a team do the parts of directions exist. Of course, this may come as a surprise; if you have known a certain house down your street to have a brick wall, and you always considered the wall to be made up out of separate bricks plus cement, then it is a big surprise if you walk by the building one day, while they are tearing the building down and the brick wall turned out to be a larger single wall, prefabricated to look like a brick wall. The bricks are merely an inch thick, and the wall is an entire slab. That's a big surprise.

In reality, there are no singular directions, so if we want to use the word dimension and have it be based on itself and not on the whole (which, by the way, is possible, but only if you so desire) then we have to state that a single dimension has at least two directions. A picture, a screen, a piece of paper are all flat and can as such contain information for us to interpret and be considered dimensional (whether rightfully so or not is up to the critics).

In truth, there is only reality, but within this reality we can create something that is fake (art). While we may consider the art to be (one-)dimensional, our reality must then be considered two-dimensional. Yet, if we state that art is nothing but fake and does only contain tricks to the eye, then we live in a one-dimensional world. According to me, that is then the perspective of someone who has one eye shut. I prefer both eyes open and recognize that two eyes deliver something extra: 2D+.

[dipayankar]

Though I am not for too many complications, I guess additional dimensions do exist. They are not curled up though as we know them. It is just that our perception is oriented in such a way that we cannot perceive more than or less than 3 dimensions.

Originally Posted by Fredrick Sure, But I have to warn you that even though I consider the difference to be paramount, the actual difference is truly minor in character. Let me first use the example that we live in a 2 + 2 makes 4-world, and that nobody has a problem knowing that 4 can be achieved by either adding 2 + 2 or by multiplying 2 X 2. What I am trying to show is the common knowledge that 4 is build up from two 2's and not from four 2's. Everyone agrees on this, but when it comes down to dimensions, everyone all of a sudden wants to follow the path that states that 4 is build up out of four 2's, because they say there is 2 + 2 and there is 2 X 2. With M-theory I am of the opinion that their practitioners allow themselves to add directions as if all new additions are separate directions. The mini-dimensions are still going in the same directions as the maxi-dimensions, and the main reason M-theory is so fascinating is that once you allow yourself to do something this double, a lot of extra information can come available. I would say, very similar to opening up a second eye (but not ten or eleven eyes). 3D also contains that bit of extra that seemingly is there, but that isn't there (because the extras we experience occur within us and our perceptions, but not in the outside world). 3D are based on singular directions, and they do not exist. Only as a team do the parts of directions exist. Of course, this may come as a surprise; if you have known a certain house down your street to have a brick wall, and you always considered the wall to be made up out of separate bricks plus cement, then it is a big surprise if you walk by the building one day, while they are tearing the building down and the brick wall turned out to be a larger single wall, prefabricated to look like a brick wall. The bricks are merely an inch thick, and the wall is an entire slab. That's a big surprise. In reality, there are no singular directions, so if we want to use the word dimension and have it be based on itself and not on the whole (which, by the way, is possible, but only if you so desire) then we have to state that a single dimension has at least two directions. A picture, a screen, a piece of paper are all flat and can as such contain information for us to interpret and be considered dimensional (whether rightfully so or not is up to the critics). In truth, there is only reality, but within this reality we can create something that is fake (art). While we may consider the art to be (one-)dimensional, our reality must then be considered two-dimensional. Yet, if we state that art is nothing but fake and does only contain tricks to the eye, then we live in a one-dimensional world. According to me, that is then the perspective of someone who has one eye shut. I prefer both eyes open and recognize that two eyes deliver something extra: 2D+.

[JamesANicholson]

Although not much about human beings--our physiology--comes in threes, I think we could make a case for the building blocks being three molecules that come together to code our DNA.

Also, I think you could say that my ToE has three main parts.
Coming.
Going.
Staying.

And there is something very satisfying about a repetition of three in music, literature and art--probably in food seasoning as well, (not sure about that, though--just a hunch). Nice job.

Aaron

[dipayankar]

This is true for phychology. Physologically we follow the rule of two. Two lobes of the brain, two eyes, two ears, two nostrils etc..

Originally Posted by JamesANicholson Although not much about human beings--our physiology--comes in threes, I think we could make a case for the building blocks being three molecules that come together to code our DNA. Also, I think you could say that my ToE has three main parts. Coming. Going. Staying. And there is something very satisfying about a repetition of three in music, literature and art--probably in food seasoning as well, (not sure about that, though--just a hunch). Nice job. Aaron

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Though I am not for too many complications, I guess additional dimensions do exist. They are not curled up though as we know them. It is just that our perception is oriented in such a way that we cannot perceive more than or less than 3 dimensions.

I only perceive two dimensions, Dipayankar, and I do not believe that anyone has ever experienced a single dimension all by itself. Or do you disagree and say you have? If so, please elaborate.

It also sounds interesting what you state about more than 3 dimensions. How do you propose this takes place? Are you referring to time as an additional dimension? Do you have other options in mind?

[dipayankar]

My perception is that we see only three dimenions, zero, one or two dimensions can be explained in terms of three dimensions only. Do you know of a true single dimenion particle?

Originally Posted by Fredrick I only perceive two dimensions, Dipayankar, and I do not believe that anyone has ever experienced a single dimension all by itself. Or do you disagree and say you have? If so, please elaborate. It also sounds interesting what you state about more than 3 dimensions. How do you propose this takes place? Are you referring to time as an additional dimension? Do you have other options in mind?

[Fredrick]

The commonly known three dimensions are in reality the three directions, and not the three dimensions. When the word dimension is used, something is implied with a (time-)spatial aspect.

A single direction is something that cannot exist all by itself, and can therefore not display anything dimensional.

Something that has two directions, such as a screen (though the screen has a thickness, too), can be used as a medium on which something dimensional can be portrayed that itself is not based on thickness, just on left-right and up-down, like a projected movie (thickness of a movie is not part of the dimensional experience, though there can be some in the plot). It is easy to show that this dimensional feature is fake/art. Nevertheless, it is dimensional.

Something that has three directions can always be considered as dimensional because it can not only be experienced as such, but unlike the two directional experience of dimension it can also be measured in three directions.

I do not know why the word dimension was ever used as if it were the same as direction. My guess is that in the enlightment one tried to capture our reality in packages, and the directions and the dimensions were too much related for people to question any distinction between both. I do know that scientists tend to not have the best sense of language, and many words that scientists use get their own explanation in dictionaries as such, next to the usual explanations.

You may find it interesting that the word dimension is based on Latin for to measure out. Direction and 'to measure out' may appear the same, but they are only similar, not the same.

In as far as the three directions are concerned, they do not portray dimensional reality in a complete way, though they can get close. The dimensional aspects of a round object, say the earth, is not captured fully by 3 directions, for it does not state anything about density of layered material from which the earth is build up. Gravity also has a dimensional aspect that is not captured either by 3 directions (similar though not the same to the example of the round object). Inward and outward, an experience one can call dimensional (see Latin root), is not captured by the 3 directions (except as a very complex state, while in reality it is very simple as the action of 'to measure out' already shows).

I have no objections to you using the word three-dimensional, and when communicating with others I conform to the common use, but we live in a world where a single direction never exists by itself, so for me two spatial dimensions is all there is (unless when also talking about time).

[JamesANicholson]

Fredrick,

I am so glad to see someone bring up questions about the way we use the idea of dimensions. I really feel that this discussion of Dimensions deserves its own Thread, because I think the Three Theory is really about something else. Is there already a thread started about dimensions in general but especially the interpretation of our "standard" Cartesian three dimensions?

Aaron

[JamesANicholson]

Consider that the Cartesian Coordinate system on which our notion of three and only three dimensions is derived or based in, is really an entirely arbitrary artifice of 90 degrees or "right angles" that is a very useful way of modeling the construction of human inventions, gadgets, cars, houses, bridges, toys of all sorts; it is not necessarily in any way an accurate way to describe or to model the Forces of nature as they influence our lives, however.

And they totally ignore what are obvious influences, like density, pressure, charge, heat, taste, smell, sound and sight or any other informational type of densities.

Furthermore in practical practice, the three dimensions cannot even be taken as equals when applied to the "real" world. There is a huge difference in trying to move something three feet to the right and three feet up into the air or three feet down into the ground. You have to fight against Gravity to go "up" and fight a physical barrier of dirt and rocks and just massive obstacles to go "down" in actual real world application.

It just seems to me that if physics is the discipline of trying to describe the physical attributes of the world as we perceive it, that it (we) need(s) to revamp the basic parameters that we use as the intrinsic variables that contribute to our perceptions, i.e. our definition or understanding of dimensions.

Supposed three dimensional "Space" is certainly not homogeneously dense, so to treat it all the same in all directions is not a very accurate representation of how things are. Therefore, trying to use a three dimensional model that assumes that space and movement through space is equitable in all directions is patently absurd.

There is nothing a-priori that there has to be 90 degree distinction between the variables that influence the movement of an object from a starting point. You could just as easily have constructed a model based on a 60 degree separation, and, in fact, you would probably be moving in the correct direction to model the real world by doing so. Although I suspect that there are many more actual dimensions that could be represented mathematically as additional variables that would much more accurately model the true influences that affect the movements of Points of attention. (any point of interest or focus or concern or investigation or just reference)

A much better definition of a "dimension" that more accurately describes the real world might be: A unique type of force that influences the relative directional movement of an object from a mutually established originating reference point.

Such that: Dimensions represented as Vectors, 'a' through 'n', might be mathematically represented by:

(a^n) + (b^n) + (c^n) + . . . (n^n) = C (some constant as the resulting combined vector and/or spherical extremity of the set of all the variable solutions)

This allows for any number of unique variables that might influence the "movement" or path of an object, "Doe" (as in John Doe or Jane Doe).

This is also a part of the mathematics for my proposed ToE.

Humbly submitted for your comments, Aaron

[dipayankar]

Which would be your two dimensions (directions?). Length and breadth? Then where would you fit in depth?

Originally Posted by Fredrick The commonly known three dimensions are in reality the three directions, and not the three dimensions. When the word dimension is used, something is implied with a (time-)spatial aspect. A single direction is something that cannot exist all by itself, and can therefore not display anything dimensional. Something that has two directions, such as a screen (though the screen has a thickness, too), can be used as a medium on which something dimensional can be portrayed that itself is not based on thickness, just on left-right and up-down, like a projected movie (thickness of a movie is not part of the dimensional experience, though there can be some in the plot). It is easy to show that this dimensional feature is fake/art. Nevertheless, it is dimensional. Something that has three directions can always be considered as dimensional because it can not only be experienced as such, but unlike the two directional experience of dimension it can also be measured in three directions. I do not know why the word dimension was ever used as if it were the same as direction. My guess is that in the enlightment one tried to capture our reality in packages, and the directions and the dimensions were too much related for people to question any distinction between both. I do know that scientists tend to not have the best sense of language, and many words that scientists use get their own explanation in dictionaries as such, next to the usual explanations. You may find it interesting that the word dimension is based on Latin for to measure out. Direction and 'to measure out' may appear the same, but they are only similar, not the same. In as far as the three directions are concerned, they do not portray dimensional reality in a complete way, though they can get close. The dimensional aspects of a round object, say the earth, is not captured fully by 3 directions, for it does not state anything about density of layered material from which the earth is build up. Gravity also has a dimensional aspect that is not captured either by 3 directions (similar though not the same to the example of the round object). Inward and outward, an experience one can call dimensional (see Latin root), is not captured by the 3 directions (except as a very complex state, while in reality it is very simple as the action of 'to measure out' already shows). I have no objections to you using the word three-dimensional, and when communicating with others I conform to the common use, but we live in a world where a single direction never exists by itself, so for me two spatial dimensions is all there is (unless when also talking about time).