›

Why as a Earth Organism, on Earth can we only see select dimensions?

doodo!doodo!
edited October 2010 in General Chat
We evolved from the Earth, we come from it, it's a natural process of the Earth, no? Now, can some one please help me? I want to know if it's evolution, or what it is that we only evolved in certain dimensions of the Earth and can not perceive others...Why have we evolved in these dimensions and interact with these dimensions? Or have we influenced and interacted with other dimensions we're not even aware of ?


I want to know if as a organism if we have physical limitations...or why and how we've evolved as we have as multi dimensional but select dimensional. What's the reason why?

Comments

  • TorTor
    edited October 2010
    Well, maybe the three space-dimensions (four if you count time as a dimension) that we can perceive are the only ones?

    Some theories about the makeup of the universe predict that several extra dimensions exist (11-dimensional M-theory is one example) but there are multiple competing theories and hypotheses and they mandate different amounts of dimensions. I doubt it's proven that extra dimensions exist at all. Who knows, maybe there's just the three?

    If M-theory or one of the other multidimensional theories are true, I think the standard explanation is that the extra dimensions are sort of "folded in on themselves" and are thus too tiny to be perceivable in everyday life.

    I am not a quantum physicist (IANAQP) though.
  • RemolayRemolay
    edited October 2010
    Doodo, we need one huge meta thread for all of these type things, instead of you just creating a new one every time you think of it. Either that or you need a blog.
  • FealiksFealiks
    edited October 2010
    As Tor said, there might only be three dimensions. Maybe, though, it's just that the other dimensions aren't representable by light, sound, texture, taste or smell? Our ancestors couldn't even be sure of these three dimensions until a sense of touch and, later, eyes were developed.
    Remolay wrote: »
    Doodo, we need one huge meta thread for all of these type things, instead of you just creating a new one every time you think of it. Either that or you need a blog.

    :p It would be nice to have a philosophy thread. Doodo, why don't you start it?
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited October 2010
    Fealiks wrote: »
    As Tor said, there might only be three dimensions. Maybe, though, it's just that the other dimensions aren't representable by light, sound, texture, taste or smell? Our ancestors couldn't even be sure of these three dimensions until a sense of touch and, later, eyes were developed.



    :p It would be nice to have a philosophy thread. Doodo, why don't you start it?

    I don't want to start a large thread. I'm just in that mode right now to question everything. Call me crazy but I blame the voices inside my head when I wake up in the morning. They say something and then they're gone...

    At any rate, I appreciate it that some one actually comments on these subjects. My family tells me to live in my own world, my own dimensions, and that I'm going crazy trying to figure everything out.

    Words, size, mass, isn't that all too dimensional for us? I don't understand how there can be other dimensions that have perimeters and dimensions from our dimensions that are so dimensional from our dimensions...

    We define these other "tiny" dimensions so clearly by these "words" and "ideas"??



    If these are other dimensions, regardless of our limited ability to perception, isn't it sort of false to say there too "tiny" to see?

    Do we even perceive dimensions as they are or just partially, offspring from our own?


    Are these dimensions separate or not?
  • AshtonAshton
    edited October 2010
    Mathematically speaking, there is a 4th dimension (5th if you want to include duration/time as one), however this "dimension" is twisted and convoluted and almost impossible to comprehend . The actual mathematical 4-dimensional model is called a Hypercube (take a point, square it, you get a square, square the square, you get a cube, square the cube, and you get a hypercube)

    The idea is explored quite amusingly in the Wrinkle in Time series (Madeline L'engle, iirc.)
  • FriarFriar
    edited October 2010
    Theoretically, seeing as beings of different dimensions wouldn't compete with us, there's no reason to evolve that way. To put it another way, do we eat 2-dimensional objects? No, because we can't. They would be almost impossible to see. You would have to be at exactly the right angle. The same is true with 4 dimensional creatures.

    Interesting question though.

    I guess it's also possible 4-dimensional beings did actually evolve, and are just rendered invisible to us. Maybe they are what people see as Ghosts? The objects in the corner of your eye that disappear when you try and look at them...
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited October 2010
    I never thought of it that way before. Though if our energy is saved some how I don't see any reason why when it's so small and whatever it may be that it could "radiate" to other dimensions.
  • JedExodusJedExodus
    edited October 2010
    Far be it from me to derail this thread, but there's too many "meta" threads about and I thought you'd like to mull this one over doodo.

    What if everyone percieved everything different from each other. For example on a simple level, if the way I saw the colour red was actually the way you saw the colour black, but we never knew because we were always taught that this particular colour had a name and its name is red.

    Oh sorry, did I just blow your mind?
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited October 2010
    JedExodus wrote: »
    What if everyone percieved everything different from each other. For example on a simple level, if the way I saw the colour red was actually the way you saw the colour black, but we never knew because we were always taught that this particular colour had a name and its name is red.

    I've actually entertained that thought on numerous occasions... it nags at me, since there's no possible way to prove or disprove that theory. Every time a color closely borders another (like certain shades of green looking very close to yellow) and I end up debating what color it is with somebody, I end up having a mini existential crisis. :p
  • Giant TopeGiant Tope
    edited October 2010
    Personally my thought on anything on a metaphysical level is that since there's no real way to prove anything about it, and since my life is unchanged by such, I don't really see a reason to try to ponder such matters outside of creative stories because there isn't any point.

    It's like the quandary of whether or not you're the only person who exists and everything else is just in your head. Sure, that might be the case, but why should you really care? It's not like you can really do anything other than to just keep moving forward.

    Does that make any sense?
  • AshtonAshton
    edited October 2010
    ShaggE wrote: »
    I've actually entertained that thought on numerous occasions... it nags at me, since there's no possible way to prove or disprove that theory. Every time a color closely borders another (like certain shades of green looking very close to yellow) and I end up debating what color it is with somebody, I end up having a mini existential crisis. :p

    I dont need a second person, I see colors differently in my R eye than my L eye. Now which color is correct?
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited October 2010
    Ashton wrote: »
    I dont need a second person, I see colors differently in my R eye than my L eye. Now which color is correct?

    Trick question. Only your inner eye can truly see. Or something.

    ...

    Either that or the left one. Yeah, left one.
  • Rather DashingRather Dashing
    edited October 2010
    ShaggE wrote: »
    I've actually entertained that thought on numerous occasions... it nags at me, since there's no possible way to prove or disprove that theory. Every time a color closely borders another (like certain shades of green looking very close to yellow) and I end up debating what color it is with somebody, I end up having a mini existential crisis. :p
    Entertaining, but pretty unlikely at best. We all see the same light, we're all interpreting the same wavelengths. We have the same general photoreceptors, and our brains have roughly the same structure for interpreting this information. Excluding faults like color blindness, we all interpret the same raw data in the same way, with extremely minor variation from person to person.
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited October 2010
    JedExodus wrote: »
    Far be it from me to derail this thread, but there's too many "meta" threads about and I thought you'd like to mull this one over doodo.

    What if everyone percieved everything different from each other. For example on a simple level, if the way I saw the colour red was actually the way you saw the colour black, but we never knew because we were always taught that this particular colour had a name and its name is red.

    Oh sorry, did I just blow your mind?


    I think you can get some ideas from this Wikipedia article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29

    Article about "Objectivity Reality"
    http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/o/objective_reality.htm

    "Transcending Subjective Reality"
    http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/transcending-subjective-reality/

    http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/05/subjective-reality-qa/

    A pretty interesting Question and Answer of subjective reality.

    Here's an interesting question some one asked about subjective reality
    "I think a lot of people are missing the point here. I already know that people will interpret things based on their experiences/beliefs, etc. That's not the point. I'm asking whether two different people can look at something and disagree on what they've seen because they've actually seen two slightly different versions of the same thing."

    I highly recommend this link to anyone, very good read. ^
    http://hubpages.com/question/14449/is-reality-subjective
  • doodo!doodo!
    edited October 2010
    Our brains are organic and physical, reality. There would I would refer to as a objectivity reality as their a physical form, their not loosely defined, yet our thoughts and minds are mostly subjective. How can either actually exist when they're from the same entity?

    Subjective/ objective reality?

    Bias and subjectivity comes from the mind, not the actual physical form , actuality of an object, no?

    If our brains send out these waves, these singles how can either exist when they are of the same entity!?

    :confused:

    Depth of perception, version of perception does not alter the original and current physical state of an object, unless there is the same object observed differently momentarily after another individual which now has a new defect or alterification of some sort visible to their eyes...which could be down to the nano second that the brain wouldn't even be aware of its observing.Its observing by the first participant one nano second sooner. Right?

    Got go go to school, later chaps
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101011054513AAbNo9v&r=w
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited October 2010
    Rather Dashing wrote: »
    Entertaining, but pretty unlikely at best. We all see the same light, we're all interpreting the same wavelengths. We have the same general photoreceptors, and our brains have roughly the same structure for interpreting this information. Excluding faults like color blindness, we all interpret the same raw data in the same way, with extremely minor variation from person to person.

    Of course. I don't actually believe that colors are subjective. I just like the idea, since it would explain so much about human personality.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.