TenQ:

I don't know why you insist on changing the course of narration.

Let me oblige you so that we can move forward!

Definition Dimensions:
1. In mathematics and physics, a dimension refers to the number of independent directions or coordinates required to describe an object or space . It provides a quantitative measure of the extent or complexity of a system.

2. In the context of geometry, the term "dimension" often refers to spatial dimensions. For example, in two-dimensional (2D) space, two coordinates (such as length and width) are needed to specify the position of an object. In three-dimensional (3D) space, three coordinates (length, width, and height) are required. Higher-dimensional spaces, such as four-dimensional (4D) spacetime in physics, involve additional independent directions.

3. Dimensions can also be abstract and apply to other mathematical structures beyond physical space. For instance, a vector space may have a finite number of dimensions or even an infinite number of dimensions.

In general, the concept of dimension provides a framework for understanding the properties, relationships, and complexity of objects and spaces in various mathematical, geometric, and physical contexts.


What happens if there is no Dimensions?
Then objects and space will not exist except as an abstract theoretical objects as a point, dot or pixel in a graphical or space representation.

Now that I have answered your QUESTIONS (did I miss any?), Please respond to mine.
1. It is possible to have a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?


2. If the above is possible,
Is it possible for a hypothetical point object in a 1D space know by any means that he is within a 2D or 3D or nD space?

If the question 1 is impossible, can you explain why?

Inanimate/hypothetical objects do not have the ability to gather information, process data, or have intentional awareness. They lack the cognitive faculties required for knowledge acquisition and understanding. While objects can interact with their environment or respond to external stimuli in predetermined ways based on their physical properties or programming, this is not equivalent to knowledge or understanding.

Maynmaynmayn:

Inanimate/hypothetical objects do not have the ability to gather information, process data, or have intentional awareness. They lack the cognitive faculties required for knowledge acquisition and understanding. While objects can interact with their environment or respond to external stimuli in predetermined ways based on their physical properties or programming, this is not equivalent to knowledge or understanding.

You were supposed to respond to my questions: but it is obvious you won't.

So sorry to have disturbed you!
Have a nice day!

TenQ:


You were supposed to respond to my questions: but it is obvious you won't.

So sorry to have disturbed you!
Have a nice day!

Which i did.
How can a object without consciousness know?
There are so many flaws in your assertions.

Maynmaynmayn:


Which i did.
How can a object without consciousness know?
There are so many flaws in your assertions.

Let me oblige you for the last time

Now that I have answered your QUESTIONS (did I miss any?), Please respond to mine.
1. It is possible to have a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?


2. If the above is possible,
Is it possible for a hypothetical point object in a 1D space know detect by any means that he it is within a 2D or 3D or nD space?

If the question 1 is impossible, can you explain why?

Like a connered slime, I expect you to fain ignorance as usual!

TenQ:

Let me oblige you for the last time

Now that I have answered your QUESTIONS (did I miss any?), Please respond to mine.
1. It is possible to have a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?


2. If the above is possible,
Is it possible for a hypothetical point object in a 1D space know detect by any means that he it is within a 2D or 3D or nD space?

If the question 1 is impossible, can you explain why?

Like a connered slime, I expect you to fain ignorance as usual!

hypothetical point object without consciousness in a one-dimensional space would not have the capacity to detect or know that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces such as 2D, 3D, or nD.


You don’t understand what you are saying, maybe if you leave beliefs you will.

Maynmaynmayn:


hypothetical point object without consciousness in a one-dimensional space would not have the capacity to detect or know that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces such as 2D, 3D, or nD.


You don’t understand what you are saying, maybe if you leave beliefs you will.

I am not sure if you are feigning Dumb or you are actually it.

Even when I replace the word know with detect, you still have a problem!?
You are NOT remotely qualified to discuss on this issue as
It is obvious that you do NOT have an IOTA idea of this subject.

Please have a nice day: thanks anyways!
You do not need to respond as you have been deleted from this thread!

TenQ:

I am not sure if you are feigning Dumb or you are actually it.

Even when I replace the word know with detect, you still have a problem!?
You are NOT remotely qualified to discuss on this issue as
It is obvious that you do NOT have an IOTA idea of this subject.

Please have a nice day: thanks anyways!
You do not need to respond as you have been deleted from this thread!

What does “detect” mean?
Tell me how a paper can detect.
You are the dumb one here, are you talking fiction or science?

HellVictorinho6:
they see those facts as a proof of god rather. Ten died but i survived the crash ,praise god. He had mercy on me ,hell.

Exactly. They'd rather hold on to the belief.

The evil in these people is amazing!
They want to avoid to talk but throw jabs.
Once that see that your questions will expose them, they scram after their tantrums.

The questions were simple:
1. It is possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have objects in a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?


2. If the above is possible,
Is it possible for a hypothetical point object in a 1D space know detect by any means that he it is within a 2D or 3D or nD space?

If the question 1 is impossible, can you explain why?



What could be difficult in this?

No, it is not possible for a hypothetical point object in a one-dimensional space to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces such as 2D, 3D, or nD.

The reason for this is rooted in the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective. A point object in a one-dimensional space has no spatial extent or dimension beyond its single linear dimension. It can only perceive and interact within that one dimension and lacks the necessary degrees of freedom to comprehend or perceive additional dimensions.

To understand higher-dimensional spaces, one needs to have the capacity to perceive and reason about those dimensions. This typically requires having at least as many dimensions as the space being considered. A one-dimensional object lacks the spatial framework to grasp the concept of higher-dimensional spaces, as its entire existence is confined to a single linear dimension.

Additionally, the notion of dimensions beyond its own would be inaccessible to the hypothetical point object because it lacks the cognitive abilities or sensory apparatus to gather information about its environment or analyze spatial relationships in a broader context.

Therefore, due to the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective, the hypothetical point object in a 1D space would not be able to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces.

Maynmaynmayn:
No, it is not possible for a hypothetical point object in a one-dimensional space to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces such as 2D, 3D, or nD.

The reason for this is rooted in the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective. A point object in a one-dimensional space has no spatial extent or dimension beyond its single linear dimension. It can only perceive and interact within that one dimension and lacks the necessary degrees of freedom to comprehend or perceive additional dimensions.

To understand higher-dimensional spaces, one needs to have the capacity to perceive and reason about those dimensions. This typically requires having at least as many dimensions as the space being considered. A one-dimensional object lacks the spatial framework to grasp the concept of higher-dimensional spaces, as its entire existence is confined to a single linear dimension.

Additionally, the notion of dimensions beyond its own would be inaccessible to the hypothetical point object because it lacks the cognitive abilities or sensory apparatus to gather information about its environment or analyze spatial relationships in a broader context.

Therefore, due to the inherent limitations of a one-dimensional perspective, the hypothetical point object in a 1D space would not be able to know or detect, by any means, that it exists within higher-dimensional spaces.

Actually the question is a nonsensical one. It is like asking what the inhabitants of an atom would think of our solar system simply because the atom superficially resembles our solar system so one could imagine that an electron is a planet with inhabitants. Any exercise in imagining what such 'people' would think like would be purely fictuonal. Same way it is purely fictional to attempt to construct what a person in 1 dimension would think because dimensions are not realms.

Maynmaynmayn:

That was your own question.

cuz u assumed things refer to a thing

TenQ:

Universe mean EVERYWHERE?

We are constrained in a 3D universe my friend!
SMH!

Don't forget, your question was about

everywhere in what? How can everything have no container? Google says the universe has no outside but it cannot state where the content comes from. Spits on google.

LordReed:


Actually the question is a nonsensical one. It is like asking what the inhabitants of an atom would think of our solar system simply because the atom superficially resembles our solar system so one could imagine that an electron is a planet with inhabitants. Any exercise in imagining what such 'people' would think like would be purely fictuonal. Same way it is purely fictional to attempt to construct what a person in 1 dimension would think because dimensions are not realms.

if the universe exists,then where does the content come from?

HellVictorinho6:
everywhere in what? How can everything have no container? Google says the universe has no outside but it cannot state where the content comes from. Spits on google.

Another dumb personality speaking like one high on Crystal methamphetamine.

Just check up what you just wrote whenever you become sober.

Same disease , same symptom! SMH!

Please get off my mention at least for this thread! You TRULY got no Shame!

LordReed:


Exactly. They'd rather hold on to the belief.

they do not plan to believe. The world is twisted.

TenQ:

Another dumb personality speaking like one high on Crystal methamphetamine.

Just check up what you just wrote whenever you become sober.

Same disease , same symptom! SMH!

Please get off my mention at least for this thread! You TRULY got no Shame!

are u japanese?

HellVictorinho6:
if the universe exists,then where does the content come from?

The content is the universe.

LordReed:


The content is the universe.

where does the time and space come from?

For the sake of rational readers who will at least throw off the bias of Atheism away or at least put on their thinking cap, let me answer the questions these cowards have been dodging.

It is a two step Question;

PART ONE:
1. It is possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have objects in a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?
Answer:
Of course it is very possible.
A circle object drawn on An infinitesimally thin flat paper is a 2D object in a 2D space. This 2D object is in a 3D space because we live in a three Dimensional world.

2. If the above is possible,
Is it possible for a hypothetical point object in a 1D space know detect by any means that he it is within a 2D or 3D or nD space?
Using the example of the Circle object in the 2D space, you will find out that even though it is in a three dimensional world, there is NO way it can detect it because every physical quantities can only act in 2 Dimensions in his space. The third Dimension and every physical quantities like force, direction, velocity , acceleration in this third Dimension is INVISIBLE to it.
Summary:
Whenever an object is in a space of lower dimension, it is impossible for it to experience ANYTHING in the extra dimension not common to its own existing Dimensions.

PART TWO:
1. Can we guarantee that the limit of spatial dimensions is 3. That is, can we guarantee that 4D, 5D or higher do not exist?
There is no guarantee that higher dimensions than 3D do not exist. Higher spatial dimensions is possible in mathematics and in physics

2. If our three-dimensional space is a subset of higher dimensions, is there anyway we can find out?
No!
Even the theoretical possibility of detecting higher dimensions where we expect the law of conservation of energy to be broken may not even help because we can only measure the total energy from the point of view of our 3D space and not the total energy from the point of view of the higher dimensions. On the average, the higher dimensions is invisible to the lower dimensions.

3. Must Objects in a dimension higher greater than three be Solid masses?
We can't tell because it may be that mass as we know it is only meaningful in the 3D space. Perception of the objects from higher Dimensions untonour 3D space will be projected as quantities normal to the 3D space like mass, volume, velocity etc, but the converse is impossible.

4. Does the law of physics and chemistry (the physical laws) operate also on Dimensions higher than 3?
Up till now, it seems all our physical laws originate from objects in the three-dimensional space.




Note:
1. It seems that objects in a lower dimension can either be INSIDE or OUTSIDE the higher dimensions.
2. It seems that it is also possible to have non-integer dimensions. Eg 2.1D, 3.6D
In mathematics, this exists as fractal dimensions.

These and more are the interesting philosophical question we all could have enjoyed except that childishness or is it immaturity will not allow some people to converse intellectually because they feel they should defend their demons

In Spite of this as a Christian, who sometimes want to be able to explain spiritual things through Logic, Philosophy, Mathematics and the Sciences
1. I believe that there is a possibility of a higher Dimension other than this 3D space
2. This possible higher dimension is what I like to call the spiritual realm/Dimension
3. Because we are at a lower dimension, we hardly perceive the spiritual dimensions but spiritual personalities can interact with us
4. When their interaction with us breaks or violates the physical or natural laws, we say a miracle has occurred.
5. I do not rule out the possibility of Dimensions like 3.1D, 3.4D, 3.6D as an explanation for why some people are more spiritually sensitive than others

It is good to know that this written above does NOT constitute DOCTRINE in any way or form. Doctrine is taken in what is clearly written in BLACK and WHITE in the Bible. In other words, this could be totally wrong. For now however, muse over it as a bridge in understanding between what is seen and what is not seen.


CASE CLOSED!

TenQ:

PART ONE:
1. It is possible to have a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?
Answer:
Of course it is very possible.
A circle object drawn on An infinitesimally thin flat

it is not possible to have a one-dimensional space within a two-dimensional space. A one-dimensional space cannot exist within a two-dimensional space because the additional dimension would violate the nature of the one-dimensional space. In a two-dimensional space, there are two independent directions of movement (usually referred to as the x-axis and y-axis), which are orthogonal to each other. However, in a one-dimensional space, there is only one direction of movement, so it cannot be embedded within a two-dimensional space.

On the other hand, your second question is about having a two-dimensional space within a three-dimensional space. This is indeed possible. For example, consider a flat sheet of paper lying on a table. The paper represents a two-dimensional space within the three-dimensional space of the table. The two dimensions of the paper are typically represented by the x-axis and y-axis, while the third dimension (the z-axis) corresponds to the height or depth of the table.

HellVictorinho6:
where does the time and space come from?

From the universe.

Maynmaynmayn:


it is not possible to have a one-dimensional space within a two-dimensional space. A one-dimensional space cannot exist within a two-dimensional space because the additional dimension would violate the nature of the one-dimensional space. In a two-dimensional space, there are two independent directions of movement (usually referred to as the x-axis and y-axis), which are orthogonal to each other. However, in a one-dimensional space, there is only one direction of movement, so it cannot be embedded within a two-dimensional space.

On the other hand, your second question is about having a two-dimensional space within a three-dimensional space. This is indeed possible. For example, consider a flat sheet of paper lying on a table. The paper represents a two-dimensional space within the three-dimensional space of the table. The two dimensions of the paper are typically represented by the x-axis and y-axis, while the third dimension (the z-axis) corresponds to the height or depth of the table.

An error of omission corrected

1. It is possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have objects in a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?

TenQ:

An error of omission corrected

1. It is possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space?
Is it possible to have objects in a two-dimensional (2D) space within a three-dimensional (3D) space?

It is not possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space. A one-dimensional space represents a line or curve that can be described by a single coordinate. In contrast, a two-dimensional space consists of points that can be described by two coordinates, typically referred to as the x-axis and y-axis.

Maynmaynmayn:

It is not possible to have objects in a one-dimensional (1D) space within a two-dimensional (2D) space. A one-dimensional space represents a line or curve that can be described by a single coordinate. In contrast, a two-dimensional space consists of points that can be described by two coordinates, typically referred to as the x-axis and y-axis.

A line is an object in 1D space

A circle is an object in a 2D space

TenQ:

A line is an object in 1D space

A circle is an object in a 2D space

A line and a circle are unable to detect anything.

Maynmaynmayn:

A line and a circle are unable to detect anything.

Help them please

TenQ:

Help them please

A line and a circle are unable to be helped. Have you helped one before?

LordReed:


From the universe.

how can something come 4rm itself?

HellVictorinho6:
how can something come 4rm itself?

Do the new cells replicating in your body come from outside your body?

Apologies in advance. Been qute busy, so my responses may be a bit slow.

TenQ:

I think we just have to get to a point where we conclude that it is impossible to comprehend with our existing facilities our present reality because it seems we are just a tiny subset of something infinitely higher than us.

I agree with you that we can't comprehend the totality of our present reality with our current tools. However, I'm not as hasty to attribute this to the possible hypothetical higher dimension, or something "infinitely higher than us".

Lots of things in the past have been attributed to things, or beings higher than us. gods. But today we understand these things as perfectly natural processes. Lighting doesn't happen because thor strikes a hammer.

Until we can somehow verify the existence of these higher things which make our understanding of reality, even in the future impossible, I don't think there's any reason to adopt such a view regarding the nature of reality.

I guess as Christians, we have resolved this totality of higher dimensions to be from God the Creator and Source of Everything.
Atheists on the other hand seem to believe that everything can be resolved within our present realities with more knowledge.

I don't think the position of the atheist is necessarily a problem.

Just as there's no reason to believe that higher dimensions can't exist, i also think there's no reason to believe that things can't be understood in our present reality by better tools and knowledge.

The difference is that one gives up in trying to explain reality by simply attributing it to something higher, and "beyond them" while the other just looks to try to improve it's current understanding of reality.

Look how far we've come. Lighning, sicknesses, and other things that were attributed to things or beings above us, have been shown to be very normal and understandable processes.

Sure we may never understand some things. But there's no reason to believe that we won't completely understand them either.

Who's stance is wrong and who's stance is right? Except if it can be proved that it is impossible to have a higher dimension AND it can be shown that we can attain a complete knowledge of our 3D space, I think the stance of the Christians is reasonable!

I don't think the burden of proof should be shifted away from the person making the claim here.

If someone makes a claim about higher dimensions, then the burden of proof is on them. There are other equally "possible" claims that try to explain reality. But without any evidence of such, it would really be difficult to take them serious.

Also, I'm curious as to how proving an impossibility would work, especially in this scenario. Like, how exactly would we prove higher dimensions to be impossible?

How do we go about proving that something, which is claimed to lie outsude our entire scope of existence, or experimentation, as non existent?

Even if we somehow understood everything about how our existence came to be, and how everything works, we've agreed that this knowledge would only apply to "our dimension"

How are we supposed to somehow jump "beyond our dimension" to prove that this same "beyond our dimension" does not exist.

It seems like an endless circle that ends before it could even begin

At least in our 3D spatial dimension, we know that infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible. It would be nativity to try to comprehend a higher dimension by what exist in our own dimension. Why?
1. Our existence is strictly a minor subset of the higher dimensions
2. Things that exist in a higher dimension may be completely absent in our own dimension.
Eg
In our dimension, Nothing can come into existence from nothing
However,
It is possible that Nothing come out into existence in our dimension from nothing if such thing is brought into our existence from a higher dimension.

I'm not trying to make a case for infinte regress here, or things coming into existence from nothing. Perhaps you slightly misunderstood my point.

I was trying to make a case for several generations of "creators" where the credit of each subsequent creation is given to the preceding creator and not the "first cause".

Using your dimensions analogy. Imagine if there exists 10 dimensions of space in reality. Let's imagine an "uncaused first cause" creating conscious 9d beings, which then on their own, choose to create 8d beings, and the chain continues down to 3d.

Just as the conscious creation of Microsoft is attributed to Bill gates, and not his grandfather, our creation, would hypothetically be attributed to these 4d beings, and not the 10d one.

Of course there's no proof for any of these claims, and they remain purely theoretical. But i just thought it was interesting to mention nonetheless, since we're talking about "possibilities"

LordReed:


Do the new cells replicating in your body come from outside your body?

they replicate 4 as long as i get something useful 4rm outside the body.