AudioMonkey:

If the essence of your thread is to dribble the whole conversation, then I don't have a business being here.
I saw your thread and I joined it to learn and I also assume you would be sincere in the conversation.

At bolded, that's trying to be manipulative. Non of my discussion portrayed such. That is why I gave you enough chance to give solid reasons to back up your view, if you can, then I'll agree, why not. To learn is what I'm here for.
Outside the theoretical drawings of lines and shapes on paper, I already asked you severally, give instances of real life objects or microscopic matter that exist as 1D or 2D but you couldn't. Whereas I went ahead to back up my view and made my explanation as vivid as possible.
I'm still here to learn, not to argue. Give real life instances of 1D/2D objects and how they formed 3D objects, if we know that, it would definitely help us to understand 4D objects.
Let's discuss not argue.

🫡

LordReed:

Actually we have observed effects that preceed causes so it is not always true that causes preceed effects.

Valid or invalid, your composition looks catchy and I'll be happy to know what you mean by this.

I've casually come across few of your posts in the past and it made me assume you're counterpart to the likes of Workch, hopefullandlord, hellvictorihno and some others.

LordReed:


You think I am saying nonsense so why do you need my confirmation? I have indulged you long enough. Bye.

how should i express my disagreement?

AudioMonkey:

You just dropped a big scientific/logical heresy, unless you explain yourself clearly, or else your post is an incoherent babble.

if u are sure the universe exists, then why not say how the singularity comes into existence? u are bound to fail to explain how 'all that exists' is something. how can u have 'all that exists' when u cannot determine 'all that does not exist' ? Maynmann assumed that 'things' refers to a thing,LordReed said google is to blame 4 this error in thought. I call it an error since reed himself cant explain what is considered verifiable by him in this case...the universe.

AudioMonkey:

If the essence of your thread is to dribble the whole conversation, then I don't have a business being here.
I saw your thread and I joined it to learn and I also assume you would be sincere in the conversation.

At bolded, that's trying to be manipulative. Non of my discussion portrayed such. That is why I gave you enough chance to give solid reasons to back up your view, if you can, then I'll agree, why not. To learn is what I'm here for.
Outside the theoretical drawings of lines and shapes on paper, I already asked you severally, give instances of real life objects or microscopic matter that exist as 1D or 2D but you couldn't. Whereas I went ahead to back up my view and made my explanation as vivid as possible.
I'm still here to learn, not to argue. Give real life instances of 1D/2D objects and how they formed 3D objects, if we know that, it would definitely help us to understand 4D objects.
Let's discuss not argue.

Your argument is extremely weak and will not lead us to anywhere.

Your arguments sound like these:
Example:
"The Meridians do not exist, they are just mere lines drawn on paper. Same with Longitude and Latitude!"
Can you show us any line on the globe?

The magnetic lines of force does not exist. They are just mere theoretical imaginary lines drawn round a magnetic source.
Can you show the thickness of the lines?

The fact that you can't see beyond the 3D is not your fault. Not everyone can think abstracticatlly! Therefore there is no point in continuing what will lead no where.

Just like the Meridians,and the magnetic fields, mathematical tools like the Cartesian coordinates have been used to represent 1D, 2D and 3D, to you they don't exist except 3D. They are just lines on paper:
What else do you expect?

Thanks anyways for your time.

AudioMonkey:

Valid or invalid, your composition looks catchy and I'll be happy to know what you mean by this.

I've casually come across few of your posts in the past and it made me assume you're counterpart to the likes of Workch, hopefullandlord, hellvictorihno and some others.

meaning?

AudioMonkey:

I think the issue with you is, you're mixed up in book theories so much you don't easily understand simple reality concepts. I keep making my discussion as basic as possible. Even with that you're still finding it hard to get things.
There are physical objects and there are physical quantities or attributes of the objects.
You're a 3D object but you produce a quantity/attribute called heat. The heat is real but it's not an object, it's just a measurable attribute of you (the object). The globe has meridian, latitudes etc but these are not the real physical globe, rather they're merely attributes of the real object (globe) employed for scientific, mathematical, analytical purposes. Same applies to 2D shapes, lines, cross sections etc. They're not physical objects.
You're confused and mixing things up so bad. You know a lot of theories but maybe, not a lot real life understanding of these things.

Funny enough, I just had to google 2D objects and Google is saying exactly all I've been saying. It was like Google was reading my comments all along.
You can go to Quora, Reddit etc, I'm sure anyone with practical knowledge of reality will say exactly all I said here.
Seems you like arguing blindly even when you realize you're wrong or maybe you just don't understand some things.

Find out please
Is a Triangle or a Circle 2D object ?

HellVictorinho6:
if u are sure the universe exists, then why not say how the singularity comes into existence? u are bound to fail to explain how 'all that exists' is something. how can u have 'all that exists' when u cannot determine 'all that does not exist' ? Maynmann assumed that 'things' refers to a thing,LordReed said google is to blame 4 this error in thought. I call it an error since reed himself cant explain what is considered verifiable by him in this case...the universe.

Hey yo boy, i'm over familiar with these your usual lines. I'm not stepping into a debate with you on this at the moment. We did a lot of that way way back, it always got us nowhere.
Right now, I think you should be about how to inject yourself into Sisterfire's DM so you can plan a day for your meet-cute. You two freaks have a lot in common. Lol
You both emit psychotic vibes and other traits.
Worst case, she can improvise you as a labia-wiping object in the absence of her partners. You need a helper, now you found one.

Jokes aside, both you really need Jesus.

HellVictorinho6:
meaning?

Meaning whatever it means to you boy.

AudioMonkey:

Hey yo boy, i'm over familiar with these your usual lines. I'm not stepping into a debate with you on this at the moment. We did a lot of that way way back, it always got us nowhere.
Right now, I think you should be about how to inject yourself into Sisterfire's DM so you can plan a day for your meet-cute. You two freaks have a lot in common. Lol
You both emit psychotic vibes and other traits.
Worst case, she can improvise you as a labia-wiping object in the absence of her partners. You need a helper, now you found one.

Jokes aside, both you really need Jesus.

i know u 4rm where?

AudioMonkey:

Meaning whatever it means to you boy.

false

AudioMonkey:

Hey yo boy, i'm over familiar with these your usual lines. I'm not stepping into a debate with you on this at the moment. We did a lot of that way way back, it always got us nowhere.
Right now, I think you should be about how to inject yourself into Sisterfire's DM so you can plan a day for your meet-cute. You two freaks have a lot in common. Lol
You both emit psychotic vibes and other traits.
Worst case, she can improvise you as a labia-wiping object in the absence of her partners. You need a helper, now you found one.

Jokes aside, both you really need Jesus.

ask KnownUnknown how the singularity comes into existence

HellVictorinho6:
ask KnownUnknown how the singularity comes into existence

A 5D leprechaun farted.

KnownUnknown:


A 5D leprechaun farted.

does existence itself have to exist? does it require a function? must it have a totality called universe?

HellVictorinho6:
does existence itself have to exist? does it require a function? must it have a totality called universe?

Those are basically unanswerable questions.
Why something instead of nothing?
Universe is just the totality of what exists whether we perceive it or not. For example, the totality of what scientists that study the nature of what we call the universe know is approximately 5 percent. Most of what we call the universe are things they don’t understand so they term them “dark matter” and “dark energy”.
Gradual and painstaking accumulation of knowledge over millennia is how we come to understand the universe. Maybe one day we will accumulate enough knowledge to determine whether it has a function, maybe but probably not.

AudioMonkey:

Valid or invalid, your composition looks catchy and I'll be happy to know what you mean by this.

I've casually come across few of your posts in the past and it made me assume you're counterpart to the likes of Workch, hopefullandlord, hellvictorihno and some others.

Wilgrea7:


That's an interesting concept. Could you please give an example?

TenQ:

Who are the "WE" you talk about here?
AND
Can you please give the name of the scientist, the year and the laboratory where
retrocausality have been verified?

Retrocausality is still a theory and these idea remain highly controversial and are not yet widely accepted within the scientific community.

Actually it is not as clear cut as I assumed. There are some experiments which indicate that direction but not overtly so.

Stuff like certain exact solutions of Einstein's field equation, two-state vector formalism (TSVF) in quantum mechanics, Feynman's interpretation of the positron as an electron moving back in time, tachyons which appear to move backwards in time and so on. All these point to retrocausality but obviously there needs to be more work done to be certain.

TenQ:

Okay sir!
I hear you!

Everything that cannot be physically seen does not exist!

That's not what AudioMonkey said or meant.

TenQ:

Your argument is extremely weak and will not lead us to anywhere.

Your arguments sound like these:
Example:
"The Meridians do not exist, they are just mere lines drawn on paper. Same with Longitude and Latitude!"
Can you show us any line on the globe?

The magnetic lines of force does not exist. They are just mere theoretical imaginary lines drawn round a magnetic source.
Can you show the thickness of the lines?

The fact that you can't see beyond the 3D is not your fault. Not everyone can think abstracticatlly! Therefore there is no point in continuing what will lead no where.

Just like the Meridians,and the magnetic fields, mathematical tools like the Cartesian coordinates have been used to represent 1D, 2D and 3D, to you they don't exist except 3D. They are just lines on paper:
What else do you expect?

Thanks anyways for your time.

Wait are you saying you think the meridians exist as real objects as opposed to concepts used to describe the world?

Nice topic, @TenQ. I find the subject of higher dimensions to be very interesting. Hopefully, I might contribute to this when I'm less busy and have read the OP properly. Bookmarked.

AudioMonkey:

I've casually come across few of your posts in the past and it made me assume you're counterpart to the likes of Workch, hopefullandlord, hellvictorihno and some others.

If that means asking if I am an agnostic atheist then yes.

An interesting watch



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmvHNatZgVI

LordReed:


Actually it is not as clear cut as I assumed. There are some experiments which indicate that direction but not overtly so.

Stuff like certain exact solutions of Einstein's field equation, two-state vector formalism (TSVF) in quantum mechanics, Feynman's interpretation of the positron as an electron moving back in time, tachyons which appear to move backwards in time and so on. All these point to retrocausality but obviously there needs to more work done to be certain.

It's okay!

That was why I said:
Retrocausality is still a theory and these idea remain highly controversial and are not yet widely accepted within the scientific community.

LordReed:


That's not what AudioMonkey said or meant.

I helped him to blow what he said.

His argument was that every other dimensions other than 3D does not exist. If they don't exist, then objects within don't either

So I asked him if a Triangle or a Circle are 2D Objects or not.

Whatever makes 3D to exist will make both 1D and 2D exist for they are tools we use to comprehend our space

LordReed:


Wait are you saying you think the meridians exist as real objects as opposed to concepts used to describe the world?

Meridians are not real objects just as 3D space or 2D space or 1D space are not objects. Things within them are objects!

Is a triangle an object or they don't even exist!

Dream17:
Nice topic, @TenQ. I find the subject of higher dimensions to be very interesting. Hopefully, I might contribute to this when I'm less busy and have read the OP properly. Bookmarked.

No problem!
Anytime you are chanced. It's a field of many unknowns and we all seek better understanding.

Mind you, as a Christian, I also see higher dimensions in other perspective: I don't claim my position is the reality, but it helps to explain the supernatural in natural point of view

TenQ:

I helped him to blow what he said.

His argument was that every other dimensions other than 3D does not exist. If they don't exist, then objects within don't either

So I asked him if a Triangle or a Circle are 2D Objects or not.

Whatever makes 3D to exist will make both 1D and 2D exist for they are tools we use to comprehend our space

When are you going to understand that dimension doesn't mean realm? A dimension is a descriptive term for a type of measurement. Length, breath, height, time, etc are all the dimensions that describe the universe we live in. They are not realms!

TenQ:

Meridians are not real objects just as 3D space or 2D space or 1D space are not objects. Things within them are objects!

Is a triangle an object or they don't even exist!

Then your statement is just an exercise in taking something to absurdity for no reason since you aren't really disagreeing. A meridian, longitude and latitude are not real objects just concepts for describing the earth for location purposes same with the dimensions we are discussing.

A triangle is a concept and exists as much as concepts exist. Also you can make an object the follows the principles of the concept of a triangle that would also be described as a triangle so yes triangle can be an object.

TenQ:
Good morning!

A great morning to you as well.

I will like to make a clarification before proceeding.
1. As a person, I believe that spiritual things should be explainable to some extent
2. All these discuss by me are just THEORIES and by no means a claim of reality
3. As such, they are NOT Doctrine but attempts to comprehend spiritual truths.



Yes, I think that the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

I also think that humans may even have hypothetically Dimensions like 3.2D or 3.01D or 3.6D because we are also spiritual beings (according to the bible) and our dispositions to spiritual matters is a function of how higher up than 3.0D we are.

Once again, Interesting theory. I can't argue much against your belief, as we both lack evidence for or against the position to either substantiate or refute it. So it more or less falls into the category of an unfalsifiable claim.

However there's something I wanted to point out. When thinking about the idea of something like a 3.2D or 3.4D object, in relation to how you described us humans, I don't think such quasi dimensions can truly exist. Let me try to explain.

Your idea seems to focus not on the actual simultaneous existence in multiple 3d planes, which would make up 4d. Instead, it focuses more on the object's ability to experience these parallel planes by something you called "disposition of spiritual matters". While the term seems rather ambiguous, and more like a blanket term for any sort of claimed unverified knowledge, I won't touch on that for now.

As a simple analogy, take 2 cubes, one measuring 5x4x10 cm, and another measuring 5x4x6 cm. We'll agree that both objects are very much 3d objects, although one is shorter than the other.

Now imagine these cubes were somehow sentient. One might notice that the other seems "longer" than it, seems it seemingly occupies more space in 3 dimensions. But it wouldn't mean the shorter one is any less of a 3d being. Even if a different shape, like a cylinder or prism were to be brought into the equation, they would still be regarded as fully 3d shapes, even though their structure would be quite different.

Similarly, even if we were to assume a 4th dimension exists, and we call it this "spiritual" plane. People's experience of other parts of this dimension by virtue of something like a "disposition of spiritual matters" would only translate to them being able to notice more of the same 4d space, and not necessarily being in a quasi fractional form of 3d.

Just as someone with partial blindless would still very much be a 3d being despite being only able to see a tiny portion of what normal people see, a 4d being would still very much be 4d, despite only having a fraction of the experience other alleged 4d beings have.

I think evidence of NDE is compelling enough as a proof of Life existing after death just from this aspect of NDE alone.

Out of Body Experience:
It takes just one example of an OBE where the subject is able to see or describe physical events AFTER his death that is technically impossible. Eg. A revived patient describing exactly what transpired in his physical environment while he was dead.
Just one true example is enough: any objections to this is just an excercise in denial.

This kind of OBE proves either that
1. An Immaterial component of man exist or
2. Life continues after death.

I feel like these things just more or less raise more questions about the nature of consciousness, and rightly so. There are several theories on the nature of these things and why they happen, but still, we don't know anything for sure to reach a concrete conclusion.

I'm quite aware of the situations where some people recalled what happened in the room after they were "clinically dead", and even in one story, what was said in the next room. These are quite interesting things, but I still feel like the idea that somehow, this happened because their "spirit" or "soul" somehow wandered around due to some higher dimensional phenomenon, is just one among the many possible attempts, at explaining something we don't quite understand yet.

There are alternative theories, like the idea that consciousness is a thing which cannot exist for a long period of time outside a brain, and disintegrates shortly after death, which explains why the consciousness can pick up certain information about the surrounding, and only relay them after said person comes back to life.

Just like how you can hold your breath under water for a while but eventually need oxygen after some time, similarly the human consciousness can observe these things but requires a brain to translate them or interpret them, or else like a flame, it eventually burns out and fades away.

Once again, there's no definitive proof for any of these claims. And as much as I hate to relegate things to the "we just don't know yet" category. We truly, do not know.

Actually, the most plausible explanation is the Existence of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything.
Why?
1. In our physical universe (eliminating randomness) every event must have a cause.
2. Our physical universe plus all the scientific laws has a beginning
3. In our physical universe, infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
Implication:
Therefore, whatever Caused our Universe must not be subject to the Laws and Principles that apply in our space.

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am Wrong): that whatever Caused our Universe must also have its own cause.

Not really.

My argument has mostly been that the question of what caused our universe, eventually leads back to a more fundamental question, which is why something exists rather than nothing.

The only possible answers are that something has always existed, and that something came from nothing. Both positions are equally absurd. Because we're left asking the question 'Why?'

Since we know our universe had a beginning, you posit that higher dimensions exist, and at the highest dimension, something has always been existing. You call this something a "God". You're arguing in favor of the "something has always existed" position.

I only brought up the idea that if we agree that what caused the universe cannot be subject to the laws within the universe, then BOTH positions, are equally feasible in some sense. Or equally absurd if you will.

I'm not advocating for either. And we've both agreed that our understanding of our current universe would be insufficient in comprehending these things. So to me, they are both equally unfalsifiable claims, and it painfully, regrettably and shamefully leads us to the uncomfortable phrase "we don't know"

Unfortunately, this assumption has violated the implication that, whatever Caused our Universe cannot be subject to our Physical laws.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that this Cause of our Universe cannot be necessarily caused else, we are subjecting it to laws that exist after our universe was created .

The Question of this Uncaused First-Cause of Everything being a SOMETHING or SOMEONE is for another Debate!

TenQ:

No problem!
Anytime you are chanced. It's a field of many unknowns and we all seek better understanding.

Mind you, as a Christian, I also see higher dimensions in other perspective: I don't claim my position is the reality, but it helps to explain the supernatural in natural point of view

You don leave you crane matter.
Werey don enter spirituality... 😆😆

Epic 👇🏿