No, even when responding to my posts you ask the same questions over and over. You ask the questions even though they have been clearly explained. That is why I asked you if English was your first language. You do not seem to understand the responses you are being given.
1 Like
I learned English at 16, itâs my third language but I can understand what you are saying.
There is something I cannot explain to you,I m confused that you didnât get my point.
I just presented my view about higher dimensions and no one understood it.
I would suggest that if no one understood it, the gap lies in your presentation.
Uh, me again. Just playing Devilâs Advocate for a moment, if I may. From reading Atkinâs posts, it would seem there are some subtle miscommunications taking place. Since he said English is his third language, it stands to reason he might be missing some of the ânuanceâ being presented. Moreover, I have noticed he has some difficulty in relaying some of the more subtle points he is trying to make. For instanceâŚ
Atkin keeps saying we (humans in general) cannot visually draw/construct dimensions above 3d, nor can we vision them in our mind. In that respect, I would have to agree with him, but with the caveat that there may actually be a few rare âgiftedâ individuals with that ability. Speaking for myself, I have heard the concept of 4d explained many times in many ways. Even so, Iâm not a single step closer to being able to picture an image of it in my head. (MUCH LESS draw it.) And if there IS somebody out there able to do that, I would LOVE to meet that individual.
Again, I could be totally wrong, I admit. But I donât think heâs purposely trying to be difficult. From what I have read so far, it seems to be more of a language barrier problem in regards to a highly complex topic of discussion. Just my two cents.
2 Likes
No. People understood it. Then they offered counter examples with facts and evidence. Then you ignored everyone and made the exact same assertion. Here is a hint for you about writing. âIt is the writerâs responsibility to write clearly. It is not the readerâs responsibility to try and interpret what the writer means.â You do not get to blame us for your inability to explain yourself. According to what you have said, you have received replies. The replies directly address the assertions you have made. Also, from what I have seen, all English speakers who have replied to you have the same interpretation of the message you have left. In addition, all the English-speaking respondents have responded in a very similar way. Does that not say anything at all to you? It should.
3 Likes
This can be the case.
I think that I was not able to communicate fully.
In my mind I was more precise than what I wrote here.
I hope it gets better with time.
I am saying again that I do not hate anyone view about dimensions here,they are Godâs at precision.
I was just saying the one message behind all grammatical mistake(if it was true) that ,âwe as humans canât perceive higher dimensions with mindâ.
Itâs like 1+1=2 , itâs not any contradiction.
And neither one understood it ,if they did,they didnât showed to me that they agree with this,they wanted to add more layers of other ideas to my main idea and finally I was trapped in a grammatical hallway where all I can see is trying to defend myself (that was silly,I accept) but at that time it looked like no one was getting me.
But @Tin-Man Tin-Man you have figured it out ,thanks to you.
If I had changed my assumption at any time then I would be a liar but as I didnât changed my assumption I was still called dishonest and liar which confused me.
So whatever I do has no facts.
Can you precieve the idea 1+ 1 = 2 (an abstract mathematical concept?) Can you conceve of 236,159 divided by 7? A mathmatical construct.
The fourth dimension is easy
You are just WRONG. You keep making the same inane assertion.
It can be percieved, it has been percieved, and even higher dimensions have been percieved. YOU ARE WRONG. Get over it.
2 Likes
No I m not wrong,you are WRONG with your entire panel of dimension experts.
Itâs your misunderstanding that it can be percieved.
Drawing some 4D animations wonât help you to transcend beyond time and space.
You are literally trying to think 4D with your 3D brain.
You canât even smell the 4D,it is forbidden to you.
Let alone 5D,6D
Get some help.
Watch my post after 100 years,you still would be a 3D creature who canât perceive 4D.
You are trusting an artist rather than a physicist who are saying that we canât perceive higher dimension.
Donât show me these animations again they are not from a scientist.
You just donât want to change your mind because itâs rigid like a 3D brick.
Matrix representation of dimensions are just mathematical representation ,so can be imaginary number.
i = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ \end{pmatrix},, i^2 = \begin{pmatrix} -1 & 0 \ 0 & -1\ \end{pmatrix}
So did you perceived imaginary numbers.
No we canât perceive imaginary number infact they help in normalisation a wavefunction after we multiply i*i we get a real quantity,then it can makes sense but âiâ [alone] doesnât make sense.
In same way.
Look,you should learn physics so that you will understand that higher dimensions have physical existence so you need a physical 4D creature to perceive them only.
WTF" All numbers are imaginary. They are symbolic. NUMBER: an arithmetical value, expressed by a word, symbol, or figure, representing a particular quantity and used in counting and making calculations and for showing order in a series or for identification.
âshe dialed the number carefullyâ
mark with a number or assign a number to, typically to indicate position in a series. âeach document was numbered consecutively.â
The Quantity is real â the number is a fantasy â You can express the quantity in any number of ways. Base 10, or perhaps like a computer with zeros and ones. The question isnât how do we express the number, but rather, how do we express the quantity.
So people who learn physics can perceive a 4D object correctly. Game over. You just agreed with me.
1 Like
You seem to be conflating observation with perception, they are not the same. One can perceive something without observing it.
verb
1.become aware or conscious of (something); come to realize or understand.
One need not observe something in order to perceive it.
âMathematically, we can describe the 4th dimension but we may never experience it in the physical realm. Even so, that hasnât stopped us from looking for evidence of higher dimensions. One model which helps us conceive of it easier and understand it better is a tesseract or hypercube. This is a cube within a cube.â
Hints of the 4th dimension have been detected by physicists
Thus it seems Physics can perceive a 4th dimension, though whether we could ever experience it is another matter.
1 Like
When I said that.
Look above I said physicists believe we canât imagine beyond 3D.
Source:Leonard Susskind QM lecture 1 YouTube.
We can still perceive them nonetheless. Do numbers exist outside of the human imagination?
Again your use of language may be where your error is originating, as you seem again to be confusing perceive with observe or experience.
1 Like
Actually imaginary number are special class of numbers.
Imaginary numbers are the numbers when squared it gives the negative result.
Why donât you know about imaginary numbers.
You can imagine xy direction and numbers are scalar and extend the plane but we also use imaginary number as one axis and it canât be thinken/imagen like higher dimensions.
Ah, I thought you were suggesting numbers existed in reality, rather using a mathematical term. I canât speak to the maths, I shall leave that to @Nyarlathotep and @Cognostic.
Now explain 5th and more dimension,you just canât do it over and over again.
I am just telling you that one of the greatest theoretical physicist[Leonard Susskind] is saying we canât comprehend them with our mind.
Mainstream science explains it vaguely.
Just like I heard recently an article which explains that there will be potato base on moon ,I searched it more and after reading original paper ,I found that the potato word doesnât exist in the paper and the article was quoting it false ,in real paper there was research on starch content in potato mixed with moon substance to give starcrete and that substance can even help scientist to build better moon structures without sending concrete out there.
So science article can mislead some times but not the scientist themselves.
I used i= iota ,unit of imaginary numbers,your mathematician Mr.cog should have known that.
Btw he concluded something else.
You can atleast count numbers on fingers but you canât count imaginary numbers.
These are the aforementioned type, you see to someone with a mediocre grasp of maths like myself this might easily be misunderstood, since one can count numbers using only oneâs imagination.
Just as one could perceive 4 or more dimensions of course, at least some Physicists seem to think so. Certainly one need not observe or physically experience something in order to perceive it.
I canât no, but some physicists can and have.
So they can perceive it then. That was the only point I was making, that perception is not the same as observing or physically experiencing something.
I think weâve established we can perceive it, just not explain it fully, maybe our perception is facile, but thatâs not quite the same claim I think.
Well yes,