₦airaland Forum

Maynthemayn:
The universe is within Nothing.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcYPL3s2Mmw

No problem!
The only problem is that no one knows the limit of either Nothing or the Universe

HellVictorinho6:
that means there is where those do not exist. U cant have a sum without a limit.

No one knows as non has seen the limit of the universe

kkins25:
You're aaking me to imagine my self to be an amoeba and tell you how the amoeba can perceive the world. No amount of philosophy will solve the problem. The universe we live in is assumed to be 3D,because thats what our eyes permit. We don't fully understand the univeese, we barely know it. You want to use science that is not clearly understood to debunk the same science that exposed the concept of 3D etc to us? Are you normal? 😂

You see how you just betrayed yourself as unable to think independently

Have a nice day!

HellVictorinho6:
LordReed,TenQ,Maynman,etc.

The Universe is EVERYWHERE matter, space and energy exist. It can't be simpler than this

TenQ:
The universe is EVERYTHING within the 3D space including Space, Matter and Energy.

The location can only be described relative to our position on the earth: meaning, everything around us.

It seems like our universe is a subset of a higher dimension other than the 3D spatial dimension to which our universe is constrained.

kkins25:
is this a philosophical question or an empirical scientific one. they aren't mutually exclusive either

Does The Question appear like a physical science to you or as aspect of philosophy?

I guess the truth is bitter!
How come controversies never end with either what Mohammed has said or done?

This time around, it is Allah that killed his prophet and Messanger


Was it because Mohammed associated some part of the Qur'an as Satanic Verses?

kkins25:
so you see, your argument is self defeating.

If you had just paused to follow the development of the idea you would have seen that it is you who lacks understanding.

1. If you are a personality in 3D, is it possible to interact with 2D observers in their 2D space? How would the 2D observers behold you?
2. If you are a personality in 2D space, is it possible for you to interact with 3D observers in their 3D space? How would you, the 2D observers behold the 3D observer?


If you cannot correctly answer this question, no one can help your case!

kkins25:
Let agree that God's dimension is incomprehensible. However, everything you're preaching here is against the teachings of the bible. God, time and time again, can be interacted with. Infact, Jesus claimed God can be known. "He who has seen me has seen the Father." In the Bible, God interacts with men, Men interact with God(See Jacob and the wrestle with God). God, is in a place called heaven, which of course has gates. God is spirit, Angels are spirit, Demons are spirit. The fact that God spirit, is different from angel spirit, and demon spirit, as well as Son spirit and Holyspirit spirit, tells us that God is confined to natural laws of the spirit world. Men can tell the difference between God, Son, Holy spirit, Angel, and Demon.

there is literally interactions between these entities and man all over the bible. So, how then can you say that man cannot comprehend higher dimensions? Moses saw the hand of God for fvcks sake!

I understand your feeling:
We can interact with God only when He comes down to our Level. Since He is higher than us, this is reasonable that in some cases we can interact with God on our physical level.

Example: A Person in 3D space can easily interact with observer's in 2D space who will see this person in 2D form

At the same time as Christians, we know that God made us also as spirit beings, in that respect, we can interact with God as "a Spirit"

Dream17:
I expect you to dress in a football jersey if you are going to play football. If you want to discuss a definition of atheism don't hide it in the pretext of another argument. Start a thread, give your definition, and see how it holds up. As long as you are using the term incorrectly, you are the one not having a conversation. You have created a straw man. No one needs to take that nonsense seriously.



Well if you checked closely, in the real world, you'd most likely get a slap in the face and a restraining order



So your lack of belief in mermaids is because you're intellectually weak? I'd find that more compelling if I thought you understood fully what a lack of belief is, but I am dubious that you do, in fact one might say I lack the belief that you do, as you are arguing that one cannot arrive at a lack of belief through reason and choice, which is frankly absurd. It is also a little early for you to be throwing ad hominem fallacies around don't you think?



So they would LACK such a belief then? Dear oh dear



I don't have a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension, and I lack belief in any deity or deities making me an atheist, ipso facto your claim is absurdly wrong. I also don't think lack or absence of belief means what you think it does.



How does a cryptic name I don’t recognise evidence your obviously erroneous claim here?:




I didn't create anything. I asked for evidence of your claim.



They're not mutually exclusive, stop repeating yourself and read more carefully, atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, even if one chooses not to hold such belief.



Ah. Of course. BEFORE you did your research you were CONVINCED of Superman and Spider-Man. You had to look behind the curtain in order to "form" your disbelief. I get it. Well done.



Does it arouse you listening to yourself talk?



Oooh. Shiny colours.

It is clear that you are out of your element and have nothing fresh to add to the topic. So, since you have succumbed to ad nauseam repetitions of unsupported subjective opinions, and YOU created this discussion, I am going to hold my belly while I point and laugh .



Irrelevant, since either way it would still be a lack of belief.



A very clumsy no true Scotsman fallacy there, do you think we won't notice the words "self proclaimed" in your fallacious representation? Just so you know, they would still lack belief in any deity or deities. No one has claimed a lack or absence of belief never involves choices or reasoning, only that it need not do so, and that even when it does atheism is still the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. This is the common usage of the word. It also describes my atheism, which is the lack or absence of any belief in any deity or deities. The distinction is important as it has epistemological implications.

I note without any real surprise that you make no attempt to answer my request and provide evidence for your god?

1. Being emotional doesn't help you out one bit. I asked you a basic question

Which is more appropriate to describe you?
Do you believe Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?
OR
Do you Lack a belief that Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?

What is your response?


2. You said:

I didn't create anything. I asked for evidence of your claim.

It doesn't dawn on you that there are two ways to make a proof.

The claimant can make a proof
The disclaimer can also make his own proof.

There is not one single Christian who says that God is a Physical Being and there exist no physical proof of God because He is not subject to the natural/physical laws. Since there exist no physical proof, then the ball is in your hands

I didn't create anything, therefore I ask you for evidence of your claim that NOTHING created everything?

3. Since you aren't willing to process this, let me help you out.

A. We cannot BELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can't believe the answer is 5.


B. We cannot DISBELIEVE in whatever have a Total KNOWLEDGE of.
E.g We know that the addition of TWO Oranges with THREE Oranges will give us a total of FIVE Oranges. Since we know this we can't disbelieve the answer is 5.


One of the definition by Webster Dictionary of the word Belief is
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
//belief in the validity of scientific statements


We Choose/Take/Hold a position of BELIEF when whenever have a REASONABLE but INCOMPLETE knowledge of a position or thing to hold a position of HIGH or LOW Probability

E.g. I do believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the thick cloud during the rainy season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain should fall.
That is HIGH probability of it Raining
OR
E.g. I do NOT believe it will rain heavily tonight! Is a statement I made because I looked at the sky, saw the no cloud during the dry season and thought that it is reasonable based on available evidence that rain shouldn't fall.
That is LOW probability of it Raining


Except you want to say that
Belief and Disbelief are NOT opposite in meaning.


By the definition of Belief:
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.



What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

Even Animals can form a Belief!

Dream17:
Lol, come on now. This is a bare faced lie you just told. Read here:

https://www.nairaland.com/7694450/philosophy-spatial-dimensions-spiritual-realm#123224891

I thought we were having an honest conversation. You've just cornered yourself with this cheap maneuver and I'm running out of benefits of doubts to give you. If you continue this way, I might just have to end this conversation.

It must be a mistake:
Time is not a Spatial Dimension!
The emphasis was on spatial dimensions

AfricaGalactic:
All what you wrote is garbage and not worth considering in the first place. How do I know this? Because there are two applicable facts that I'm aware of. Namely:

1. There is an entire branch of mathematics that deals with the behaviour of spaces with different numbers of dimensions. That branch of mathematics is called tensor analysis, and if you have not studied it, you have nothing to offer here.
2. Physicists have been applying tensor analysis (more correctly, the advanced variant known as the Ricci Calculus) to matters including the development of cosmological models.

So with respect to the foregoing points, unless you've spent a significant period of time participating in that research, no one here is obliged to take this thing serious.

You are as biased as a blind bat.

There are so many things written up here: "garbage not worth considering " as a summary of your life?

Unfortunately for you, I never claimed to be solving a mathematics or physics problem. I was taking you through a journey of critical thinking. It's of course no surprise that those who cannot think see everything as a waste: Poor you! Who will help you now?

I guess you've never in your life heard of a field of study called philosophy because if you have, you would have known that everything here is about an aspect of philosophy.

Philosophy is a broad field of inquiry that explores fundamental questions about the nature of existence, knowledge, values, reason, and reality. It involves the critical examination and systematic study of concepts, ideas, and beliefs in an attempt to understand the world and our place in it.

Grow some maturity in your mind, thoughts and thinking!

AntiChristian:
The website given is logical enough to guide whoever wants to be guided!

As for people with the Hollywood spirit, na cruise Dem dey!

Website that cannot answer my objections

1. Is it UNTRUE that Several Qur'an translations use the word AORTA for ٱلْوَتِينَ (I-watina)?

2. Is it UNTRUE that Translation by Sunnah.com of Sunan Abi Dawud 4512: Book 41, Hadith 19 translations use the word AORTA for abhari (al-abhar)?

3. Is it UNTRUE that You AntiChristian says "Al-Wateen used in the Qur'an verse is not the same as Al-Abhar" but then you went on to claim that "So in essense, Al-Wateen is part of Al-Abhar."?

4. Is it UNTRUE that Your Islamic website agree that Al-Wateen and Al-Abhar are used synonymously?
https://www.call-to-monotheism.com/prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__and_the_taking_of_poison

5. Is it UNTRUE that Google translate of أَبْهَرِي (qataeat 'abhari) as used in Sunan Abi Dawud 4512 says YOU CUT MY AORTA?

Both you and your Website have not been able to answer the questions!

TinubuShet:
You deserve my following, keep pressing the neck of self acclaimed religion of peace, whereas reverse is the case

Good morning!

You will notice that as their memorised rebuttal for the truth that Allah says Mohammed would be slaughtered by cutting off his iorta, they have been silent.

The only one who came to defend Islam pointed his fellows to the so-called rebuttal which were easily punctured.

Let's see if they'll find another before the end of today!

Shalom

Waiting for more lies!
LOL!

Dream17:
... and I think that's a subjective opinion of yours. Unevidenced nonetheless.

Surely, reality is not at all about "spirits", you have yet to demonstrate such a concept is even possible.

The rhetoric is meaningless, thuis it doesn't move me one bit.
What kind of evidence will be sufficient for you?

Dream17:
Well that's a very unfortunate remark that you've just made. I find your "finding" ridiculous, as will anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language, and access to any dictionary. In fact it's almost as naive a claim as it is dishonest. You either argue honestly and use the standard definitions that we are using or you continue to create a straw-man and argue from that position. I (and most atheists will agree here I'm sure) don't particularly care about your straw-man. We are the atheists, this is our definition. I don't need you to define my position. I'm also not impressed with the way you've completely ignored my request for evidence that connects any dimension with 'Spirituality."

Besides being a shoddy variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy, I have no real problem with this. We agree all babies, animals, rocks, and trees, lack a belief. However, It is not true that a rational mind can NOT lack a belief. The objective evidence suggests newborn babies don't start to form memories and therefore beliefs for several months after birth. But meanwhile, since you seem to think subjective anecdotal claims have merit, here is one for you: I know my earliest memories support this. So that's check and mate, by your own rationale.

You are just being emotional as you've said nothing
You want me to adopt a definition that lacks merit!? Sorry m!
If you check closely, we now dont know who a Man or a Woman is based on the illogical redefinition of words and terms.

There is something common and unique with all who have the capacity to lack a belief. They are intellectually weak!

Dream17:
We have no evidence that dogs believe in deities. There is no connection between a dog and belief in a deity until that connection can be evidenced. Do you understand the NULL HYPOTHESIS? If you are to assert a dog believes in a deity, you would have to provide evidence for the claim. If you make an assertion to the contrary, you would equally need to provide evidence that dogs no believe in deities. There is no evidence supporting the claim that dogs believe in gods, and all evidence seems to point to the contrary.

No need for long essays: a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.

Dream17:
Same as above. We have no evidence of babies believing in gods. If you make the assertion, you need to provide evidence. We have no evidence that a baby has the ability to believe anything. On the other hand, we do have the Church. Any baby that is not baptized burns in hell. Now, I am not sure why babies are born in sin and separated from God until they are baptized. I think it's a rather silly idea, but it's their idea and not mine. According to religions, babies are born atheists and without belief. They need to be saved or they burn in hell.

A baby CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.
If the bolded is your knowledge of what christians believe, it is a pity.

Dream17:
Evidence please? I don't believe you.

I said:
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.
Evidence:
Which is more appropriate to describe you?
Do you believe Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?
OR
Do you Lack a belief that Corithaze is a Nigerian Professor of Engineering?

Dream17:
Wrong. Atheists are not "rejecting a proposed thing". They are rejecting ARGUMENTS for the proposed "thing", which may or may not exist. The time to believe in the existence of anything is "AFTER" it has been demonstrated to be true. Theists have not met their burden of proof, ergo, there is no reason to believe their claims. Also, ignoring your bizarre attempts to tell me what I should think - which is an arrogant behavior that I've come to expect from a lot of Christians - your highlighted paragraph is a false dichotomy. One may lack a belief-thought choice, and one may also lack a belief without making any choice, this is self evidently true, since one cannot believe a claim that one has no conception of.

Just look at how you truncated what I said just to create your strawman?
I said:
What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

Dream17:
Ok. So then, you believe they're real?

So you do NOT in fact believe they are real then? So you do in fact LACK belief they are real then?

I'll give you a clue here: one can lack belief either because one has no comprehension of that belief, or because one has determined to withhold belief from any claim. You seriously need to look up "False Dichotomy" fallacies on Google.

I said:
HOWEVER, by reason I have come to an understanding that Superman and Spiderman are inventions by American Authors in comics and lately in movies for entertainment purposes all based on fiction.


Check this again:
What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

Tell me:
1.Do you lack a belief in deities because it was imposed on you or it was a personal choice you made?
2. Do you have reasons to reject the proposal by theists that God/gods exist to be worshipped?
3. Do you know any adult self proclaimed atheist who does not know that theists exist?

In what way does your answer negate the definition here

Dream17:
One of my criticisms was that you said time wasn't a dimension; because time is a dimension in modern physics. Could you address that instead?

I never said that time wasn't a dimension perhaps you can quote where i said that?
I wouldn't even make a statement like that!

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” in the text i posted, I know the TEXT.

I see that you are a disciple of Buda!

Ill like to close for the day.
Peace

Wilgrea7:
A great morning to you as well.
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 hope I have not over-stretched my analogy of spatial dimensions to spiritual things especially with respect to my use of non whole number dimensions.
It is just my theory for now: I haven't even truly processed it very well. I was just musing on the question if an infinitely long 1D space constraint in one straight line for objects within it can be curved. On short scale, each part of the 1D space constraint is a straight line, but when it curves, it is Actually a 2D space constraint.

This curve is what I typified as 1.1D, 1.3D (a 1D space that have some certain components of 2D space) etc.
Even though I guess I am already overstretching the analogy. I used it because it is possible to have a non-integer dimensions in certain mathematical contexts called fractal dimensions.

Wilgrea7:
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.

Science thrives where an observable is repeatable and predictable. Unfortunately, NDE does not fall into the category.

Science does not believe in consciousness outside the Brain and even then observables must always be through the sensory organs of the body (eye, ears, touch, tongue and nose).

If just ONE NDE can be shown to have some information of the environment impossible to be obtained through the sensory organs, then we should be humble enough to admit that there may actually exist an immaterial part of a human being that our instruments may not be able to detect. Unfortunately till today, Science does not think there exist some immaterial part of a human being called Soul/Spirit

Wilgrea7:
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"

From the scientific point of view, it would be impossible to answer your question of why something exists rather than nothing

Has something always existed?
Science tells us that NO!

For an item to be something or a thing, it must have mass, occupy space and have energy. Light, Electric or magnetic field for instance are NOT called things (so they can't be something, they are called fields). Although, I don't think that any kind of field can exist without matter.

If we can agree that the definition of something must include matter, then the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything cannot truly/strictly be a "SOMETHING".

The Uncaused First-Cause of Everything had ALWAYS existed: it is a necessary condition for everything else to being. Can the Uncaused First-Cause be defined as a THING: on what basis would that be done?



You've been a Charm: have a beautiful night rest!

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” it, like i said when you were typing this message you use repose and movement.
Your heartbeat is on repose and movement.

I mean do you believe in the TEXT you posted or it's just a statement!

Maynthemayn:
Does it sound funny to you?

You need to be an empty cup for you to understand the knowledge, then you verify.
Exactly, That’s why belief is nonsense and dangerous ,you need to know then verify not just believe without verifying like you said.

How can you visualize my description when you don’t even know the definition of my description?
That’s like fixing the cart before the horse.

It's like saying your definition of spirit is NOT helpful one bit. Because of that, it is impossible to comprehend or visualise it.

ANYTHING can be poured into an empty cup: even junks. The integrity of the pourer must be impeccable for that to be allowed!

Maynthemayn:
Gospel of Thomas 50:1-3.

Is this what you believe or just a statement?

Maynthemayn:
It’s not my fault that you don’t, there’s a lot of things scientists don’t understand about science that doesn’t mean science is not understandable.
To understand me you need to be like an empty cup.


To solve these problems, we'll need to convert the units to a consistent system. Let's convert the speed from kilometers per hour to meters per second.

a. Converting the speed:
200 km/h = (200 * 1000) m / (60 * 60) s ≈ 55.56 m/s

Using the equation of motion s = ut + (1/2)at², where:
s = displacement (distance fallen) = height above the ground = 1.2 km = 1200 m
u = initial velocity = 0 (since you are initially at rest in the airplane)
a = acceleration due to gravity = g = 9.8 m/s²
t = time taken

We can rearrange the equation to solve for time (t):
s = ut + (1/2)at²
1200 = 0 + (1/2)(9.t²
2400 = 9.8t²
t² = 2400 / 9.8
t ≈ √(245.9)
t ≈ 15.67 seconds

Therefore, it would take approximately 15.67 seconds before you hit the ground.

b. To find the horizontal distance traveled, we can use the formula: distance = speed × time.

Distance = 55.56 m/s × 15.67 s ≈ 870.33 meters.

Therefore, you would have moved approximately 870.33 meters horizontally from the point where you jumped.

I did not intend that you solve the problem. I have actually provided an answer

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

It is dangerous being an empty cup for a knowledge you can't verify: why?
You will just be filled with junk?

Maybe another time, we can talk of your definition of spirit: as of now, it makes no sense to me. I'll like to be able to visualise your description.

Dream17:
I agree. On the subject at hand, I think this link might be helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Privileged_character_of_3+1_spacetime

This is far more advanced than this discussion o.

Spacetime combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.

You will note that throughout, I didn't even mention or treat time as a dimension. I concentrated on just spatial dimensions.

Maynthemayn:
Not just human beings, everything has repose and Movement.

Nothing happens to the spirit at dead, the same way nothing happens to the spirit when ones leg is amputated.
You don’t say “i am leg” same way you are not your body.

If I say I understand you, it is not true !

Maynthemayn:
I can visualize 1D and 2D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 1D or2D space, the same way i can visualize 4D and higher D in the lenses of 3D, it doesn’t mean i can project to comprehend/visualise a 4D space,
Lower dimension simply means lack of a way of measurement.
The difference between 1D and 2D is one dimension.

What’s the origin of the word “spirit”?
if i need to “believe” there are spirits, I guess I am lost to your definition of spirit.
My own definition doesn’t require belief.

Reminds me of a hypothetical A'Level physics exam.


Question 1:
You are in an airplane traveling at 200km/h at a height of 1.2 km above the earth's surface. Ignoring air viscousity, while g=9.8m/s^2
a. How long will it take before you hit the ground?
b. How many kilometres would you have moved horizontally from the point where you jumped?

Answer:
God forbid bad thing, when I'm not mad. I will not jump from the plane sir.

Is sounds funny isn't it?

Dream17:
Hi TenQ,

I've finally gone through your original post and I have to say - your postulations are seriously problematic. But before I continue, I have to ask: what makes you think spatial dimensions have anything at all to do with something called "Spiritual"? It seems to me like you are beginning with a faulty definition, right off the bat. Now, I haven't yet gone through the entire posts and replies from other users throughout the 10+ pages of the thread so far but I noticed a lot of "Flatland" mentions and references, so I think it's safe to assume that most here are familiar with it. Moving on, I'll be quoting relevant excerpts from your wall of text.

Now you said this:


So have you ever seen a person in 1D space, TenQ? Whatever it was, it would be ludicrous to call it a person. Your points so far appear to be a mere rehashing of "Flatland" as opposed to original thoughts or ideas.



Lol. Why not? You managed to comprehend it, apparently. Why can’t someone else?



I think it would be helpful of you to demonstrate the connection between the hypothetical 4 dimensions and anything at all called "spirit".



This is a very common misconception by the way, and I would like to caution you now before we go any further. Atheists are not synonymous with actual scientists. Generally, the basic requirement needed to become an atheist is a lack of belief in religious gods. There are atheists who believe in the supernatural just like you apparently do. It is the SCIENTISTS who regard String Theory as useless, not ATHEISTS as a collective. Also, it is other SCIENTISTS who attempt to demonstrate its' utility. I'll give you a hint here: String Theory is an hypothesis. It isn't actually a theory.



I wouldn't call Time ".... a measure of intervals between events". It is more accurately ".... how we measure the intervals between events". Besides I don't think your definition of Time is entirely accurate in the context of modern physics (Special Relativity!). As we get new information, our methods of measurement change. You can't conclude anything from a hypothetical construct that begins with undefined terms and something called "spirituality" that is an equivocation error of dimensions. The existence of higher dimensions is a topic of ongoing research and debate in the physics and mathematics communities. While there is some evidence to suggest the existence of higher dimensions, such as in theories like String Theory and Kaluza-Klein Theory, it is important to note that there is currently no definitive proof.



In the absence of verifiable, repeatable demonstrations that these dimensions do/do not exist? No.



I wonder why any reputable scientist would take any important considerations from me, a non-scientist, pertaining to their line of work.



Are there really scientists that exist in only two dimensions? How do you come by this information? Why do you think this?



I'm afraid I'm not aware of this. And in response to that, I'll just cue what I asked of you earlier: I think it would be helpful of you to demonstrate the connection between the hypothetical 4 dimensions and anything at all called "spirit". If you can demonstrate that anything called a "spirit" exists in a higher dimension, I believe we can have a more fruitful and interesting conversation.

1. I think you have started with a big wrong foot.
Start with dimensions at 3D and lower. This we can comprehend very well.

It's not all about spirits. Your objective is not to attack dimensions greater that 3 without even looking at dimensions of 3 and below.

2. When I say a person in 1D or 2D or 3D, I do not mean literal person. In technical terms, it just means "an Observer". The observer is a hypothetical person who may be anything from dot, to line, to circle, to sphere.

3. If you were an observer in a 1D world, how will you view your environment? Would you be able to even visualise shapes like circle or rectangle?
How about if you are an observer in a 2D space: you will certainly be able to see and describe other 2 D shapes. Will you be able to comprehend what a sphere is even when it is superimposed on your 2D space?

Forget about 4D or higher or the spiritual for now.


On the definition of Atheists as "people who lack a belief in religious gods"
I find the definition ridiculous (even though it seems to be a standard definition "big and important" atheists have adopted) why?

Only Babies, an animal or a person with an exceptionally low IQ can lack a belief on a matter.

Before you crucify me, let me ask you these questions answer is YES or NO and WHY
1. Can a dog be said to lack a belief in a Deity?
2. Is it true that babies lack a belief in any deity?
Why?
It takes a total lack of opinion, knowledge and comprehension of a fact, idea or issue for a person to successfully lack a belief in anything.

What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.

I TenQ do not lack a belief in Superman or Spiderman , HOWEVER,
by reason I have come to an understanding that Superman and Spiderman are inventions by American Authors in comics and lately in movies for entertainment purposes all based on fiction.

LordReed:
Both.

Nope, you answer my question. I have answered yours.

Sorry!

I have been answering your questions endlessly, please respond!
I want to hear your OWN views: I'm all ears!

Maynthemayn:
I don’t “believe” spirit exist, i “know” that it does, I’m alive because of it.
Repose is rest.
Moved is Movement.
When you were typing your message, you used repose and movement to write it.
When you hear a music it is because of the balance between repose and movement.
When you see a painting it is because of the balance between repose and movement.
When you walk it is because of the balance between repose and movement.

Of course, it’s different.
You are not your body, you don’t say “i am leg”, you don’t say “i am thigh”.
Your body can get sick but you still “i am”, you can lose your leg but you still “i am”, “i am” exist without the body.

Are you saying that a human being is a Duality: composed of a Body and a Spirit?

What happens at death to the spirit?

KnownUnknown:
Empty barrel and noise. You fit the bill.

You alone had made the loudest noise here.

Sorry!

Maynthemayn:
I don’t understand what it means to BE 1D, 2D, I only understand 1D and 2D through the lenses of 3D. I never stop being 3D.

Yes my perception can only fathom 3D, doesn’t mean we can’t have tools that can make me see 4D.
Just like I can’t see microorganisms, but we can see it through microscopes. I can understand 4D with a tool and I’ll still remain 3D.

I already answered you, even a plant has spirit, you can see it in its repose and movement.
Also we should first agree what “spirit” means, it seems you have another definition different from mine.

I didn't ask you to understand how to BE in 1D or 2D. In other words I ask if you can visualise objects and their movement/interactions in 1D and 2D. To comprehend higher dimensions, the least one can do is to understand first the lower Dimensions

If it is impossible for you to craft a means by which an object in 2D space can project to comprehend/visualise a 3D space, certainly it would be impossible for you in 3D to comprehend or visualise the 4D space and higher

If plants too can have spirits, I guess I am lost to your definition of spirit

Maynthemayn:
There’s no association of “atheists”. We don’t have a doctrine.
There’s only one common theme in atheism and it means rejecting any god or gods.
An atheist can explore his options outside of this theme.
A sango worshipper is a theist like a yahweh worshipper but it doesn’t mean they agree in everything, they only have one thing in common and is belief in a god or gods
Also, what do you mean by “spirit”.

Repose and movement, Everything in this world uses it.
Why should repose and movement have dimensions?
It’s boundless.
Our body have limitations that is why we need dimensions.

Your kind of Atheist believe spirits exist!?

I still find it difficult to comprehend: I am a visual person.

Who/What is being reposed?
Who/What is being moved ?
You have made the spirit distinct from the body!

Is the spirit describable?

Sorry, I just want to understand ni o!

Allah promised that if Mohammed falsified the Qur'an he was going to CUT his Aorta AND no one can deliver him.

So, How would we know if Mohammed inserted lies or fabrication
in his Quran
1. Allah stated the method of execution: his iorta will be severed
2. Allah that no one can deliver him: everyone would be helpless to help him


Whatever cut off his aorta doesn't matter (knife, sword, poison, glass etc). If Allah want, the iorta could even be cut by water or Jubril.

The cutting off of his aorta indicates that he's a false prophet as stated by his own Allah.


Question:
1. Since we know that everything is destiny in Islam, Did Allah destined Zaynab to Poison Mohammed?
2. What chapters and verses of the Quran was fabricated by Mohammed that Allah had to execute judgement of severing his aorta and making sure he cannot be helped?
3. If Jesus was delivered from death, why do you think that the greatest Messenger was not delivered from this excruciatingly painful slow death? Was Allah torturing Mohammed for his sin?

LordReed:
Very simply put those dimensions are independent of one another.

Now can you answer the question.

You mean that their spatial axis are different from one another or the dimensions are independent from one another?


I'm still interested in your own philosophical explanation: I am waiting