Maynmaynmayn:


You don’t understand what you are saying.

Yes 1D and 2D are used to explain PHYSICAL OBJECTS, if a thing is not a physical object why do they need to have dimensions?

The question is do they exist or not?

Do you know anything that exist in 1D or 2D space?

TenQ:

The question is do they exist or not?

Dimension exists SOLELY for physical objects.
First look up the definition of “dimensions” and why it is needed.

In a one-dimensional space, objects are represented as lines or curves along a single direction. This dimension is often used to describe objects that have length but no width or height. Examples of one-dimensional objects include a piece of string, a wire, or a straight road.

In a two-dimensional space, objects are represented on a plane, defined by two perpendicular axes (such as x and y). This dimension allows for the description of objects with length and width, but no height.
Examples of two-dimensional objects include squares, circles, triangles, or images on a screen.

If a supernatural being and angels are not physical object why do they need to have dimensions talkless of having more and more dimensions?

Maynmaynmayn:

Dimension exists SOLELY for physical objects.
First look up the definition of “dimensions” and why it is needed.

In a one-dimensional space, objects are represented as lines or curves along a single direction. This dimension is often used to describe objects that have length but no width or height. Examples of one-dimensional objects include a piece of string, a wire, or a straight road.

In a two-dimensional space, objects are represented on a plane, defined by two perpendicular axes (such as x and y). This dimension allows for the description of objects with length and width, but no height.

If a supernatural being and angels are not physical object why do they need to have dimensions talkless of having more and more dimensions?

You are not getting the point

In 3D space, the three axis x, y and z are unconstrained: therefore objects can move in any direction

In 2D space, one of the axis is constrained to zero: therefore objects can only move in a plane

In 1D space, two of the axis is constrained to zero: therefore objects can only move in a line

What then happens to this hypothetical object when the three axis are constrained to zero?

Leave the supernatural for now

TenQ:

You are not getting the point

In 3D space, the three axis x, y and z are unconstrained: therefore objects can move in any direction

In 2D space, one of the axis is constrained to zero: therefore objects can only move in a plane

In 1D space, two of the axis is constrained to zero: therefore objects can only move in a line

What then happens to this hypothetical object when the three axis are constrained to zero?

Leave the supernatural for now

You are the one not getting it.

In 3D space, objects have the freedom to move and occupy positions along three mutually perpendicular axes: x, y, and z. Each axis represents an independent direction, and objects can move and interact in any combination of these three directions ONLY.

In 2D space, objects are constrained to a plane defined by two perpendicular axes, typically represented as the x and y axes. In this case, objects can move and exist within the plane but do not have the freedom to move perpendicular to it (along the z-axis). The movement is limited to two dimensions.

In 1D space, objects are constrained to a single line defined by one axis, such as the x-axis. In this scenario, objects can only move along the line, and their movement is limited to a single dimension.

The number of dimensions determines the number of independent directions in which objects can move or be positioned.

In 3D space, objects have three independent axes, and movement can occur in any combination of these three dimensions.
In 2D space, objects are limited to movement within a plane defined by two axes, typically x and y.
In 1D space, objects are restricted to movement along a single line defined by one axis, such as the x-axis.

TenQ:


What then happens to this hypothetical object when the three axis are constrained to zero?

If all three axes in a three-dimensional space are constrained to zero, it effectively means that the object is restricted to a single point. When all three dimensions collapse to zero, the object loses any extent or spatial size. It becomes an infinitesimally small point in space.

In this scenario, the object no longer possesses any dimensions or the ability to move or exist in any spatial direction. It is static and confined to a single location in the zero-dimensional space.

This hypothetical object, reduced to a point with zero extent, loses the concepts of length, width, and height. It becomes indistinguishable from other points in the space, effectively merging with them.

Maynmaynmayn:

If all three axes in a three-dimensional space are constrained to zero, it effectively means that the object is restricted to a single point. When all three dimensions collapse to zero, the object loses any extent or spatial size. It becomes an infinitesimally small point in space.

In this scenario, the object no longer possesses any dimensions or the ability to move or exist in any spatial direction. It is static and confined to a single location in the zero-dimensional space.

This hypothetical object, reduced to a point with zero extent, loses the concepts of length, width, and height. It becomes indistinguishable from other points in the space, effectively merging with them.

Exactly!
This is what I've been saying!

Now, can we agree then that
1. 0 D space is a subset of a 1 D space which is a subset of of a 2D space and the 2D space is a subset of the 3D space
2. There are infinite number of 0D space within a 1D space and an infinite number of 1D space within a 2D space and there exist an infinite 2D space within a 3D space!

TenQ:

No one has read your views!

You are not confident of yourself!?

You read my view and decided to wallow in ignorance.

TenQ:

Exactly!
This is what I've been saying!

Now, can we agree then that
1. 0 D space is a subset of a 1 D space which is a subset of of a 2D space and the 2D space is a subset of the 3D space
2. There are infinite number of 0D space within a 1D space and an infinite number of 1D space within a 2D space and there exist an infinite 2D space within a 3D space!

each dimension is not considered a subset of the previous one. Instead, each higher-dimensional space encompasses and contains the lower-dimensional spaces within it. So, a 0-dimensional point can exist in a 1-dimensional line, a 1-dimensional line can exist within a 2-dimensional plane, and a 2-dimensional plane can exist within a 3-dimensional space.

Maynmaynmayn:

each dimension is not considered a subset of the previous one. Instead, each higher-dimensional space encompasses and contains the lower-dimensional spaces within it. So, a 0-dimensional point can exist in a 1-dimensional line, a 1-dimensional line can exist within a 2-dimensional plane, and a 2-dimensional plane can exist within a 3-dimensional space.

Let assume you have an infinitely thin paper typifying a 2D space within our 3D space, is the paper not a subset of our 3D space?

We can theoretically stack infinite layers of the 2D papers in our 3D space.

It is a subset because the 2 D space can be completely described from the 3D space.

TenQ:

Let assume you have an infinitely thin paper typifying a 2D space within our 3D space, is the paper not a subset of our 3D space?

We can theoretically stack infinite layers of the 2D papers in our 3D space.

It is a subset because the 2 D space can be completely described from the 3D space.

it's important to note that the paper's 2D nature restricts its extent and capability compared to the full 3D space. While the paper exists within the 3D space, it does not occupy or utilize the entire third dimension. It is confined to its two dimensions within the larger 3D context.

Maynmaynmayn:

it's important to note that the paper's 2D nature restricts its extent and capability compared to the full 3D space. While the paper exists within the 3D space, it does not occupy or utilize the entire third dimension. It is confined to its two dimensions within the larger 3D context.

This is why it is right to say that
1. The 0 D space is a subset of the 1 D space
2. The 1 D space is a subset of the 2 D space
3. The 2 D space is a subset of the 3 D space

The word subset because for instance the 2 D space can be completely described from within the 3D space.


Now, can we agree then that
1. 0 D space is a subset of a 1 D space which is a subset of of a 2D space and the 2D space is a subset of the 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 0D space within a 1D space and an infinite number of 1D space within a 2D space and there exist an infinite 2D space within a 3D space!

TenQ:

This is why it is right to say that
1. The 0 D space is a subset of the 1 D space
2. The 1 D space is a subset of the 2 D space
3. The 2 D space is a subset of the 3 D space

The word subset because for instance the 2 D space can be completely described from within the 3D space.


Now, can we agree then that
1. 0 D space is a subset of a 1 D space which is a subset of of a 2D space and the 2D space is a subset of the 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 0D space within a 1D space and an infinite number of 1D space within a 2D space and there exist an infinite 2D space within a 3D space!

the zero-dimensional space is the simplest form of space and does not contain any additional dimensions beyond a single point. It represents a location or a position without any extent or direction. It is not a subset of the 1D space because the 1D space requires at least one dimension of length or extent to exist.

In the context of dimensional hierarchy, the 0D space can be considered as a building block or a foundational point, from which higher-dimensional spaces can be constructed.

TenQ:

All you need to do is understand the difference in complexity between 2D and 3D then use your imagination to work out the difference between 3D and the elusive 4D or higher. A lower dimension is just a tiny "slice" of the higher dimension

I already worked it out and found that leprechauns live in 5D.

KnownUnknown:


I already worked it out and found that leprechauns live in 5D.

😂😂 lwkmd

Maynmaynmayn:

the zero-dimensional space is the simplest form of space and does not contain any additional dimensions beyond a single point. It represents a location or a position without any extent or direction. It is not a subset of the 1D space because the 1D space requires at least one dimension of length or extent to exist.

In the context of dimensional hierarchy, the 0D space can be considered as a building block or a foundational point, from which higher-dimensional spaces can be constructed.

LOL!

Even though extremely simple to comprehend, it seems you have a problem with 0D? Let me go your way

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

KnownUnknown:


I already worked it out and found that leprechauns live in 5D.

Good for you!

TenQ:

LOL!

Even though extremely simple to comprehend, it seems you have a problem with 0D? Let me go your way

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

You are the one that is having problems with it.
1D and 100D contains at 1 dimension and more, now how can you compare it with a thing that has no dimension? Which property are you using?

Other dimensions emerged from 0 dimension, the source.

Maynmaynmayn:

You are the one that is having problems with it.
1D and 100D contains at 1 dimension and more, now how can you compare it with a thing that has no dimension? Which property are you using?

Other dimensions emerged from 0 dimension, the source.

Stop spamming with your Monad: this has nothing to do with it
I've reduced it to suit your ....

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

TenQ:

Stop spamming with your Monad: this has nothing to do with it
I've reduced it to suit your ....

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

It has everything to do with it.
Before talking about 1D, let us talk about the most basic. Understand the basics.
Hope you know there is a difference between beginning and first.

zero dimension refers to a point, it is the most fundamental building block in higher-dimensional spaces. One dimension, on the other hand, introduces the notion of length or distance along a straight line.
zero dimension is a concept that forms the basis for constructing higher-dimensional spaces, including one-dimensional spaces or 100000- dimensional spaces.

Maynmaynmayn:

It has everything to do with it.
Before talking about 1, let us talk about the most basic. Hope you know there is a difference between beginning and first.

zero dimension refers to a point, it is the most fundamental building block in higher-dimensional spaces. One dimension, on the other hand, introduces the notion of length or distance along a straight line.
zero dimension is a concept that forms the basis for constructing higher-dimensional spaces, including one-dimensional spaces and 100000- dimensional spaces.

You are the one having problems with Zero Dimension. For your sake, I have removed it from the discussion as it doesn't make or break my case!

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

Maynmaynmayn:
The notion of volume arises when we have at least three dimensions to describe the extent of an object in space. In a zero-dimensional context, the concept of volume does not have meaning.



You don’t understand what you are saying.

Yes 1D and 2D are used to explain PHYSICAL OBJECTS, if a thing is not a physical object why do they need to have dimensions?

TenQ as you can see I am not the only one who can perceive that you don't know what you are talking about.

TenQ:

You are the one having problems with Zero Dimension. For your sake, I have removed it from the discussion as it doesn't make or break my case!

You are the one that doesn’t know what zero dimension mean, otherwise you won’t say it is a subset.

The idea of higher dimensional spaces has been explored example is string theory, you are not saying anything new.

Understand the basics first!


zero dimension refers to a point, it is the most fundamental building block in higher-dimensional spaces. One dimension, on the other hand, introduces the notion of length or distance along a straight line.
zero dimension is a concept that forms the basis for constructing higher-dimensional spaces, including one-dimensional spaces or 100000- dimensional spaces.

TenQ:

Stop spamming with your Monad: this has nothing to do with it
I've reduced it to suit your ....

Now, can we agree then that
1. 1 D space is a subset of a 2 D space which is a subset of of a 3D space

2. There are infinite number of 1 D space within a 2D space and an infinite number of 2D space within a 3D space

You’re not even intelligible enough to have a conversation with. You use the concept of set wrongly and you use the concept of infinity wrongly. You are not saying anything comprehensible yet you keep on going. This isn’t a religious gathering where people get away with such chicanery.

We live in a 3D world or 4D (if you consider time a dimension). If planes such as 5D or more exists, we obviously can’t access them and if someone were to access 5D, such person would be hard pressed to describe his/her experience.

Your problem is using this obvious knowledge and attempting to equate your god and spiritual mumbo jumbo as having existence in higher dimensions which you will call “spiritual”. So, a 3D being can’t comprehend a 5D world just like an atheist can’t comprehend “spiritual” things. That’s your whole shtick. However, leprechauns occupy all higher dimensions so your god is shit out of luck.

Maynmaynmayn:

You are the one that doesn’t know what zero dimension mean, otherwise you won’t say it is a subset.

The idea of higher dimensional spaces has been explored example is string theory, you are not saying anything new.

Understand the basics first!


zero dimension refers to a point, it is the most fundamental building block in higher-dimensional spaces. One dimension, on the other hand, introduces the notion of length or distance along a straight line.
zero dimension is a concept that forms the basis for constructing higher-dimensional spaces, including one-dimensional spaces or 100000- dimensional spaces.

He thinks dimension or space here means realm. This is the problem with people who believe fiction more than reality.

KnownUnknown:


You’re not even intelligible enough to have a conversation with. You use the concept of set wrongly and you use the concept of infinity wrongly. You are not saying anything comprehensible yet you keep on going. This isn’t a religious gathering where people get away with such chicanery.

I even tried to help him by pointing him to find out what space and dimension mean in the context of what he is trying to discuss but here we are he's still wallowing in ignorance.

LordReed:


TenQ as you can see I am not the only one who can perceive that you don't know what you are talking about.

He seems to have an End Objective that he wants to achieve (i.e “His god and angels) even if it means disregarding certain established facts or principles. He is seeking validation for his beliefs.

LordReed:


He thinks dimension or space here means realm. This is the problem with people who believe fiction more than reality.

You get it, he is trying to connect dots to this realm by whatever means disregarding facts.

Maynmaynmayn:

He seems to have an End Objective that he wants to achieve (i.e “His god and angels) even if it means disregarding certain established facts or principles. He is seeking validation for his beliefs.

Exactly. He wants to equate more dimensions with his "spiritual realms" yet doesn't even understand what dimension or space in this context means.

Maynmaynmayn:

You get it, he is trying to connect dots to this realm by whatever means disregarding facts.

Completely disregarding facts but embracing fiction.

TenQ:

This is the Spatial coordinates through which energy and forces can interact with matter in our universe!
In Cartesian coordinates, we speak of the x, y and z directions and these three constitute our allowed vector that projects our 3D space.

the universe can't exist. Google says an event requires space and time but the big bang does not. That is a contradiction.

LordReed:


Completely disregarding facts but embracing fiction.

why are most humans theists despite your stand? Why?

HellVictorinho6:
why are most humans theists despite your stand? Why?

If most humans are theists it’s because they’ve been inculcated with bullshit all their lives which comes in different flavors depending on geography and historical violence.