ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

"Is a lack of dimensions a dimension in it self" - Data

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 12:53 pm

"Is a lack of dimensions a dimension in it self?"
- Data, "Where Silence Has Lease" TNG: Season 2

"That’s an interesting question!"

I was just thinking about the first dimension and they I just for no reason thought of when Data said, "Is a lack of dimensions a dimension in it self?", then Dr. Pulaski replied, "That’s an interesting question!" and I was thinking about that question. What do you think?

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 1:50 pm

The question answers itself. Lack of dimensions means lack of dimensions. So no, no dimensions means no dimensions. What he actually meant to ask was is nothing or a void a dimension? And the answer to that is if you knew what a void was you would know that answer, or put in another way, science is not philosophy. If you want to know find out, don’t just ask.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 5:21 pm

Come to think of it, that’s a really ridiculous thing for Data to say when he’s supposed to be the epitome of logic. What what he said boils down to is this: can no dimension be a dimension? Obviously a contradiction, Data.

kirkintha

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 247

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 6:21 pm

Have you ever heard the statement "think outside of the box"?

This statement is actually a misstatement - when you find your self outside the box, where are you? You are in a a large box, that you did not know even exists. Why? you have to be somewhere. The word "nowhere" is a misnomer, where ever you are, you are there.

Data’s statement suggests a mind experiment, If data was in a place that lacked definition, would data still be somehwere? The answer is a resounding yes, because to the observer (data) still exists, and therefore reality exists, ergo - data is in another box, inside the infinite boxes data can try and get out of.

A contradiction? no. Data’s statement suggests a common flaw in language - can language effectively convey the intention of the statement?

This is where data makes his point - he realizes that the language involved is not sufficient to be accurate, or provable.

I think this is where you see contradictions, and I do agree that language is a flimsy tool to express ones ideas. That leaves us with mathematics, to have provable concrete symbols that express a provable funnction or theorum. Mathematics is not debatable - (axa) + (bxb) = (cxc) it always is that way. [a sqaured plus b squared is equal to c squared](basic euclidian geometry)

When we start to express ideas with our own knowledge, we open ourselves to scrunity and debate. I’m sure that there will be opinins with my language choice.
cheers

k

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 6:39 pm

"Have you ever heard the statement "think outside of the box"?

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 6:49 pm

"Have you ever heard the statement "think outside of the box"?"

Sure. Does it make sense? No.

"word "nowhere" is a misnomer, where ever you are, you are there."

Nowhere just means there is no such place.


"Data’s statement suggests a mind experiment, If data was in a place that lacked definition, would data still be somehwere? The answer is a resounding yes, because to the observer (data) still exists, and therefore reality exists, ergo - data is in another box, inside the infinite boxes data can try and get out of."

"Data’s statement suggests a mind experiment, If data was in a place that lacked definition, would data still be somehwere?"

You’re answering your own question of if it’s possible for a place to exist that lacks definition by saying that is possible by saying if Data was in a place that lacked definition. You’re saying he can be in a place that lacks definition by saying what if he was in a place that lacked definition.

A contradiction? no. Data’s statement suggests a common flaw in language - can language effectively convey the intention of the statement?

"This is where data makes his point - he realizes that the language involved is not sufficient to be accurate, or provable."

From your previous quote it’s obvious you’re misappreciating language. Language describes reality transparently.

"I think this is where you see contradictions, and I do agree that language is a flimsy tool to express ones ideas. That leaves us with mathematics, to have provable concrete symbols that express a provable funnction or theorum. Mathematics is not debatable - (axa) + (bxb) = (cxc) it always is that way. [a sqaured plus b squared is equal to c squared](basic euclidian geometry)."

Mathematical notation is just that a pictorialy symbolic language, and it can be put in to English or any other spoken language. In fact as I hear the book in which Algebra was first introduced was written entirely in words. I certainly don’t agree with this idea that language which is so predominate in mathematics today that there’s something wrong with language. No, there’s something wrong with your reasoning!

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 8:21 pm

Structural geometry and fractals talks about other dimensions, but let’s look at the dimensions all of us are somewhat familiar with. (-Let’s just look at the 1D instead)

1D
As you know the first dimension only has length and that’s all. So a line or segment can exist in this dimension. If we have a line it would go on forever in both directions left and right. A segment would have a starting point and a ending point. So we can measure that distance (only length). How would we do that? Is the next logical question to answer, but we have to define its axis. It only has one axis because it only has length. (The 2D, 3D, . all have an additional axis basically because it has a new unit) Ok now that we can apply and axis we just call it "x" or the x axis. If I throw something on this axis it can only be on the axis it can not be above it or below it because then it would have new parameters of measurement. (A line is a line slope of greater then or less then 0 cannot be seen) I know that you can view a line as 1 dimensional mathematically and that in it self connects and this shows you how dimensions can connect to each other. I can have a 1D object in 2D and in 3D . . . . (but you would not be able to see a 1D object because it has no width). Lets apply the 2D coordinate plane and its x and y axis. y=mx+b I’m sure we are all aware of and what it means apply that to the x axis coordinate plane. As you know we are right now just looking at a line using only one axis so it can only be on that axis in this case. So the line can only be y=0
Just to break that down
y=mx+b
zero slope: y=0x+0 as you know there is no y axis but we can apply it. B is 0 because the intersection of the y axis could only be at 0.
y=0 0 times x is zero so we get 0+0 and zero plus zero is zero.

Ok, but what is the point of all of that to a lack of dimensions. Its important because you need to see the connections between the dimensions.

Lack of dimensions a dimension in it self?
("Is a lack of dimensions a dimension in it self?" means the same things as "is a void a dimension?".)

Here is one way to put it. What is before? What is to the left?
What is before the # 2? Its 1. What about 1? Its zero
With all of the complexities of how to perceive things the answer is yes in a way from one point of view and in the other no.
So in the first dimension we can have lines/segments/rays if that is the case how would you define lack of?
Here is one thing I’m throwing out there and I would like to know what you think. What about a point? (There are counters to that I know [and other things which we might get into latter], but I would like to hear what you think - think out side the box and not they just don’t exist in the first place)

After we have that question answered then we can move on to the next stage of Data’s question.

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 23 2002, 11:29 pm

"As you know the first dimension only has length and that’s all. So a line or segment can exist in this dimension."

Where is this dimension? Is it abstract? Purely as imagination? You don’t exposit all or its essential properties. If you are to define something that is what you have to do. You have to describe what it is and that includes where it exists. And this exposition applies to the rest of the Ds.

"Here is one way to put it. What is before? What is to the left?
What is before the # 2? Its 1. What about 1? Its zero."

Defining it by saying what is before or after is really not specific enough. For instance there are other instances that meet those requirements. Like, what is before 1? 0.09 is one number, and in fact there are a infinite numbers before one. That is not specific enough. I can’t believe you passed a advanced geometry course without understanding anything about proof, no offense. These notions, line, point, ray, and so forth are only considered to be abstract ideas and not real things in today’s mathematics. They were real things to Pythagoras but in today’s math, at least in Acadamia, they’re "just" abstract ideas.

Data’s question, "Lack of dimensions a dimension in it self?" as it is expressed is meaningless. It’s the same as saying is something not what it is?

brianbrane

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 302

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 8:03 am

I do not remember this statement myself...but my theory of an infinite point of energy decelerating from an infinite velocity creating an infinite amount of dimensions covers this idea of dimensional limitations. Well at least I think it does...?

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 12:33 pm

Well I was not going to throw this in I wanted us to work towards this, but that’s ok. I think everyone will be more interested if I throw this into Data’s question.

Our universe we think is basically a sphere (not a 3D one like a planet or something but a hypercube with multiple dimensions). This sphere would not have a edge if we went straight up lets we would come back (if we had all the time in the world and never would die, energy, . . .. ).

The question is what is beyond space it self? Maybe there is no edge, but there has to be something over there you would think or even if its nothing you can still define what is[nothing] there.

So lets say that beyond there is nothing, but what is that "nothing"? Is it a lack of dimensions? And if that is so how would space and time react? (think about general relativity - this is a key)

Master Q
StarTrek_MasterQ@yahoo.com

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 12:45 pm

Q1 I’m not going to go in what a dimension is in the first place - I’m just showing how they connect. I am assuming that the readers know what a dimension is becasue if I went into that this would take forevery and no one is going to read it.

I know what a proof is. I gave you one for a parallagoram. I also know the reasoing of deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, . . . . I know where you comming from, but you not thinking out side of the box or you are just thinking linearly and thats all not Einsteinly.

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 2:26 pm

"Q1 I’m not going to go in what a dimension is in the first place - I’m just showing how they connect."

How can you show that your statements about dimensions or whatever you want to show anything about are true without describing what you’re talking about? They’re the same thing. From that statement of your’s it’s clear that you don’t understand what proof is and why it’s used. How can you think a demonstration or proof of a fact is just by saying something is true?

In any case, even in normal talking demonstration is used. I don’t understand how that could be. The B-rate notions that are used in so claimed science like linear thinking, non-linear thinking, are just B-rate concepts. They’re stupid and meaningless, just like those who make pretentions of being scientists when all they are is ignorantly following the methodoligies of real scientists without knowing what they’re doing and show their own true understandings by mumblings nonesenical utterances like linear thinking. How sick.

Master_Q

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1113

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 3:21 pm

You know if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it I’m not here to provide a proof of any kind for this. I’m assuming that people know what a dimension is. I don’t have to provide what it is because most people that are reading what I am saying actually know what I am talking about (or what a dimension is).

I want to chat with people that will actually think about the lack of dimension in another way - as what is beyond our universe if its nothing then its really something because everything can be given a description. So we are really talking about general relativity

Please don’t reply to my topic on lack of dimensions if you have no real input to it

Master Q

Q1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4335

Report this Aug. 24 2002, 7:53 pm

Don’t tell me what I can and can’t do. If you’re not here to prove what you’re saying then why do you say you prove your claims? You talk gibberish. If they know what you’re talking about then why are you talking about it? Gibberish. If I have real input? What the heck do you know? You can’t even prove that 1 comes before 2, and again don’t tell me what to do. You have no right to tell anyone what to do, if you didn’t know. Which I’m pretty sure you didn’t.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum