What people belive is true on these forums

Anything else
User avatar
tallyl.iii
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:52 pm
Location: Just ask the CIA
Contact:

Post by tallyl.iii » Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:22 pm

rudel_ic wrote: Take all places all humans in all time of their existence were and you end up with such a tree if you make a spacetime graph of it. That's a 4D graph, it's not easy to imagine, but that's how it is.
Wow, I feel so proud of myself now. :D
I'd actually been debating with myself, and, with no outside direction, decided upon time as being the fourth dimension and that the only way to visualize it in two dimensions would be a bubble type graph. It's probably not much of an accomplishment, but this is the first support for this idea I've found. I can't wait until college so that I can actually learn something interesting.

User avatar
Usagi
Screenshot Superhero
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:13 am

Post by Usagi » Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:32 pm

Well, I have to admit, this is the one of the most interesting and hilarious threads Wolfire has ever had.

I'm reminded of the old story about the blind men and the elephant.

After examining the elephant (by touch alone, obviously), they all were convinced they knew what an elephant was like. One said it was like a snake, one said it was like a tree trunk, one said it as like a wall, one said it was like a palm frond.

They were all right, and all wrong. None could comprehend the whole elephant. The best one was the guy who insisted it was like a rope, hanging down from heaven: you pull it, and the sky opens up with waste.

But I know graphics, and you can represent a four dimensional object in two dimensions. It's the same way you represent a three dimensional object in two dimensions: with Cartesian coordinates.

Orthographic projection allows you to show the three essential views of any objects: plan, front elevation and side elevation. It's based on an X, Y and Z axis.

Descriptive Geometry, using the same axes, allows you to determine the true size and shape of any face of any object graphically, whether it is linear, planar, spherical or anything in between.

Adding a horizon and vanishing points allows you, using the same axes, to portray in two dimensions the way objects look to your eyes.

Drawing two versions of the same object in either of the above systems, directly on top of one another but rotated by 5 degrees (about the separation between your eyes) allows you to see them in 3-D (actually, you just trick your brain and eyes) using either the red-green or red-blue trick or the mirror trick.

You can also represent an object in three, four or any number of dimensions, with he correct number of coordinates: 2 for 2-D, 3 for 3-D, etc.

This is based on a simple progression:
- A Zero dimension object is a point; when a point moves in space, it sweeps out a line, a 1-D object.
- When a line moves in space, it sweeps out a plane, a 2-D object.
- When a plane moves in space, it sweeps out a solid, a 3-D object. If the plane is square, and moves a distance equal to its sides, it sweeps out a cube.
- When a cube moves in space, it sweeps out a hypercube, a 4-D object.

Here's an example: a hypercube drawn on four axes. If you look at it correctly, you'll see 4 pairs of connected cubes.

Image

If you're good, you can make two 3-D versions of the hypercube, connected together, separated by 5 degrees of rotation, one painted red, one painted green or blue. Put it on a slowly rotating turntable, put on your special glasses, watch it turn itself inside out, then puke if you watch too long.

Want more info? Here's a start.

Even more? Try this.

As for God, I take my lead from Pierre-Simon Leplace, a French cosmologist, who wrote one of the earliest books on the topic. He was introduced to the Emperor Napolean, who had been given Leplace's book.

Napoleon said, "You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe."

Laplace replied, "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis."

Later when told by Napoleon about the incident, Louis-Joseph Lagrange (who correctly predicted what became known as Lagrange points in planetary orbits) commented, "Ah, but that is a fine hypothesis. It explains so many things."

Boring post? Complain to Silb.

Silb
Master cartographer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Map Guild

Post by Silb » Fri Jan 05, 2007 12:21 pm

David wrote:That is true about pantheism, I hadn't really thought about that. I have never formally (or otherwise) studied religious history, but I get the distinct impression that the Judeo-Christian religion has always been founded on the Will, Power, and Personality of God, and the virtue of accepting Him and His Word as the Ultimate Authority on Everything (hence the Capitalization). While philosophers and scholars sometimes try to soften it and make it more compatible with education; I get the impression that most people believe not so much because it fills the void left by the scientifically unknowable, but because of the comfort of inertia (like NickD's atheism), of believing that there is 'meaning' in everything, and of believing that absolute justice is realised after death.
I haven't studied religious history either. I only have basic notions. I would argue the following about modern faith being just a softening of previous beliefs though:

From the start Chrisianism was defined by its relative softness, as compared to the classical Greek philosophies. Granted, giving inherent value to life and the emotion of pity was not possible in the midst of continual Greek wars which "each year would reap their harvest of young men". Stoicism expressly despises pity (at least Seneca does). Life by itself was not considered valuable: you had the right to abandon in wilderness unwanted babies; the antique adage cited in Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy is: "the greatest good is not to be born; the next greatest, to die soon". Achilleus was praised for choosing a glorious but short life and over a long one*. Only the life of a free man was valuable, and because it was free, not because it was life: slaves were considered lesser beings by the mere fact that they did not revolt to their condition. Someone knowledgeable about this could go on forever with examples.

*: In Plato's myth of Er (I think), Ulysseus chooses otherwise, but Socrates was not mainstream. He was saying crazy stuff.

Christianism on the other hand was born at the time of the "Roman Peace". Early Christians were a (small) fraternal community whose members knew and supported each other, and valued mutual love as a principle. Maybe that religion was not as soft as some would make it, but it was much more "humane" than was (or could be) anything before. The very idea that God would pity men and descend among them to suffer for them is just incredible (at least it was). Some argue this humanity is precisely what gave that particular religion so much appeal at the time. In a sense, it was more adapted to the political situation - precisely because older philosophies were unnecessarily harsh for a time of relative peace.

The impression you seem to have of that religion only came around when the Church later rose to a major political power (I'd say IIIrd century on but I can be off). It was meant to assert their power. Faith became a means of control and power, and that's were things went wrong. It was also dumbed down for the masses, which were completely deliberately left in the dark (which is utterly un-Christian). That might be the greatest example of corruption by power.

That being said, I agree with you that there have been numerous retroactive patches to the faith to avoid contradicting education, and also to soften things a bit for the modern world. It is pretty funny how the Church grew a lot more tolerant all of sudden once it found itself in minority.

I also agree about people not believing "because it fills the void left by the scientifically unknowable", but for reasons like inertia. I would object though that most atheists aren't really aware of the implications of their non-faith either. Namely most modern atheists still believe in Christian values - like the ones mentioned earlier: value of life, value of emotions of pity (recall that thread where desentization to violence was discussed here a while ago? Well apparently everyone still holds real-world desentization as a very bad thing - IIRC only Jeff thought it might not be a big deal even in a virtual context.) Well even though it probably is a very good thing that atheists still do have Christian morals, I don't think many of them have thought about any real reason to believe in them, apart from the fact that they are imprinted in us from early life by our culture.

And now for something completely different:
Usagi wrote:But I know graphics, and you can represent a four dimensional object in two dimensions. It's the same way you represent a three dimensional object in two dimensions: with Cartesian coordinates.
The process is pretty simple: project the 4D object onto a (3D) hyperplane through a fixed point. That generalizes the way the eye works (retina = plane, pupil=point). With an appropriate basis, it also amounts to isolating one coordinate and dividing all others by that one.
Usagi wrote:Boring post? Complain to Silb.
...Wha? Hey now!
Revenge. Revenge.

_______________________
If you found this post boring, play this fun game: go here. You'll find an intriguing blank field which you are encouraged to fill with bizarre and creative combinations of insults. When you are satisfied with your work, click "submit".

You might also let drop allusions to the fact that a certain someone is called Pierre-Simon de Laplace and not Pierre-Simon Laplace, much less Leplace (and also that everyone and their grandmother has read the elephant analogy in the introduction of "String Theory for Dummies" and every odd article on the subject).
:P

User avatar
Usagi
Screenshot Superhero
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:13 am

Post by Usagi » Fri Jan 05, 2007 2:21 pm

Silb wrote:...a certain someone is called Pierre-Simon de Laplace and not Pierre-Simon Laplace, much less Leplace...

Do you mean Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace, called (in most texts and reference works) Laplace, or Pierre-Simon Laplace, or P.S. Laplace? His friends called him Post Script, but at least his friends knew how to spell his name, unlike a certain someone called Usagi (known to his friends as "Ol' Bonehead").
Silb wrote:(and also that everyone and their grandmother has read the elephant analogy in the introduction of "String Theory for Dummies" and every odd article on the subject).:P
It's obvious that most people on this forum, and their grammas, haven't read most of the stuff you have; I haven't read "String Theory for Dummies," for instance.

One final question: were ya gonna get a 4-D object to project?Image

User avatar
NickD
Charlotte Brontë
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by NickD » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:24 pm

Ok, 2D is up, down, left and right. 3D is all of those plus depth. 4D is (I think) never going to be discovered. What other type of dimension is there other than height width and depth? It's almost impossible to think about. the 4th demension displayed in a 2D way would be pretty hard for somebody to understand. We will never know what it's like in the 4th demension, so why bother thinking about it?
rudel_ic wrote:Come on, I didn't want to piss you off. Take it like a man, not like a Cartman
I think that followers of evil principles or opposants to religion itself make the discussion interesting. Otherwise, it's just a long thread of "Yeah, I agree" and "You're right, of course" - damn boring if you ask me.
You're right, now here I am. But I couldnt talk yesterday, cuz our other computer broke and my sister was hogging my laptop in her bedroom (the door was locked, and I was | | that close to knocking it down).

Edit: Wait... Silb, can I actually use my best insults on you? ...maybe you're not worthy though...
Last edited by NickD on Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Colicedus
forom-muppat-yoda
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:57 am
Location: Where ever your mind takes you

Post by Colicedus » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:28 pm

The 4D is time.

User avatar
NickD
Charlotte Brontë
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by NickD » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:31 pm

oh :oops: But time is nothing. It's an attribute. Why is time the 4th dimension?

User avatar
invertin
Sticky
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: IN A CAN OF AWESOME!

Post by invertin » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:32 pm

Colicedus wrote:The 4D is time.
No it isn't, while you are probably jk cause someone else said this somewhere. You can't measure time in four ways because time itself is a measurement!

Edit: we started off talking about gods, how did we get to 4D?
Last edited by invertin on Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Colicedus
forom-muppat-yoda
Posts: 2592
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 4:57 am
Location: Where ever your mind takes you

Post by Colicedus » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:33 pm

I don't know... I have a habit of just recoding facts into my brain and not even know why it is, but i just remember what was was said.

User avatar
invertin
Sticky
Posts: 3828
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:05 am
Location: IN A CAN OF AWESOME!

Post by invertin » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:36 pm

I used to have a habit of believing anything anyone said no matter how absurd, this lead to me thinking my friends were holograms from the future, one of the bullies was a vampire and that yu-gi-oh cards really did make monsters appear. Luckily I lost that habit when I was 5. Anyway, 4D is something that has confused me for some time, if we had 3 eyes would we see in 4D? And what does 4D look like anyway? We will never know, until someone invents an attachable 3rd eye

User avatar
NickD
Charlotte Brontë
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by NickD » Fri Jan 05, 2007 5:40 pm

I knew something was wrong there :P ...

Silb
Master cartographer
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:03 am
Location: Map Guild

Post by Silb » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:13 pm

Usagi wrote:
Silb wrote:...a certain someone is called Pierre-Simon de Laplace and not Pierre-Simon Laplace, much less Leplace...

Do you mean Pierre-Simon, Marquis de Laplace, called (in most texts and reference works) Laplace, or Pierre-Simon Laplace, or P.S. Laplace? His friends called him Post Script, but at least his friends knew how to spell his name, unlike a certain someone called Usagi (known to his friends as "Ol' Bonehead").
"Laplace", "Marquis de Laplace", "Pierre-Simon de Laplace" are correct, but not "Pierre-Simon Laplace". It's an oddity of French. Google "use of French particule de". However this was meant as a ridiculous objection that completely misses the actual point.
Same goes with the elephant example - I don't think "String Theory for Dummies" even exists. I hope I haven't offended you.
Usagi wrote:One final question: were ya gonna get a 4-D object to project?
I did that when I came up with the idea somewhere in high school. The drawings you linked to on Wikipedia are better though.
NickD wrote:Edit: Wait... Silb, can I actually use my best insults on you? ...maybe you're not worthy though...
The link I provided is Usagi's inbox. Please don't really insult him. :)

User avatar
BunnyWithStick
Gramps, Jr.
Posts: 4297
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:14 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by BunnyWithStick » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:19 pm

AFAIK, many people generally see the fourth dimension to be time, even though time is only a state of mind. (Strange thing to say, really. I wonder why people use that saying…)

On the lego website you can find a "4D" Lego Racers movie, for instance.

Technically, as it's a movie file of some sort, it has the aspect of time whether or not it's 3D or 4D.

Perhaps 4D could be two axes combined to form some sort of curved space?

Or it could be gravity, but I doubt that, as gravity doesn't fit in too well.

Wormholes could exist by utilising the fourth dimension if the fourth dimension is indeed two combined axes…

But I'm just rambling.

Zantalos
The Postman
Posts: 1589
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 10:43 pm
Location: Santa Clara,CA

Post by Zantalos » Fri Jan 05, 2007 6:49 pm

Silb wrote:
NickD wrote:Edit: Wait... Silb, can I actually use my best insults on you? ...maybe you're not worthy though...
The link I provided is Usagi's inbox. Please don't really insult him. :)
Ha ha I don't think you need worry about Usagi. It looks like somebody edited your post and changed 'Usagi' to 'Silb.'
...Or you just forgot to change it, I dunno.
Last edited by Zantalos on Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
NickD
Charlotte Brontë
Posts: 892
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:33 pm
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by NickD » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:13 pm

When I click the link the person who its being sent to is silb :P .

Post Reply