Comment on 4th dimension doesn't exist because even 1D or 2D themselves are not real.

M137@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

• pocker_machine@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Ok. Hear me out.

  We draw a line on a sheet of paper. That line only has x and y dimensions mathematically.

  BUT

  That line is a thin layer of ink. It is on a paper which has a width (however small it be). To explain 2 dimensions we abstracted the whole thing as 2D when in fact it is 3D.

  There are no dimensions, there are just mathematical abstractions which helps us think. But there is no proof of a physical object in 1D or 2D.

  source

  • Fecundpossum@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    They hated him, because he spoke the truth

    source
  • M137@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I edited my comment before seeing your reply. That edit works as an answer to your reply. You should learn to know when you have nothing of value to say about something. I don’t make posts about football because I know that I have less than basic knowledge about it (and also don’t wish to have more) for example, the same goes for you here.

    source

    • pocker_machine@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Well it’s a public forum, one specifically for thought experiment that too. I’m not trying to claim anything. I’d be happy to be proved wrong too.

      Your response is basically “I don’t have an answer for you but sushh”. I don’t have anything else for you pal, may be try to approach things a little open minded and less condescending.

      source

      • not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        michael_jackson_eating_popcorn.jpg

        source
• mkwt@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I gave you the downvote because I once attended a public lecture by Stephen Hawking, near the very end of his lifetime. It had to be one of the few, very last, public lectures that Dr. Hawking had in him. And the topic of that lecture was the nature of time, and how all of the equations of motion are fully reversible, etc, etc etc.

  Out of all of the topics Dr. Hawking could have discussed, that one is the one he chose. And to me, that means that the nature of time was interesting enough to him to spread around to the public. That there are live issues that are not well settled. And so on.

  Since that time, I’ve not seen any major developments in theoretical physics or philosophy to shift the status quo to an appreciable degree.

  This leads me to the final judgement on your comment: You are wrong. There are live issues to discuss here, and OP deserves to further explain, defend, and debate their philosophy.

  source
• my_hat_stinks@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  dumb enough to think that something you just thought of without any research is valid and also dumb enough to think sharing that online is a good idea.

  Do you know what community you’re posting in?

  You can disagree with someone without being an ass, this was uncalled for.

  source