Philosophy Discussion Forums

String theorists say that space can have 11 dimensions.

But to me, as a scientist, it is possible that both space and time can have infinity dimensions.

I feel it is possible that there are more than one million time dimensions up to infinity time dimensions.

What do you feel about that?

Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that a red dragon named Charlie lives on Pluto. But why would we believe it is the case?

Experiment.

Stanley Huang wrote:But to me, as a scientist, it is possible that both space and time can have infinity dimensions.

I feel it is possible that there are more than one million time dimensions up to infinity time dimensions.

There must be some limits and rules. Otherwise, anything and everything are possible and thusly negates our sense of order. If anything and everything are possible then our thoughts aren't necessary.

I am not going to argue about this. But I will say this.

The earth looks flat. So when astronomer starts to say that the earth is round, in the start, people may feel strange, because it does not seem to conform to what we see.

Einstein said: "It seems to me that what we see may not open to the door of reality."

When Einstein talks about his ideas, in the start, there are people who think he is from the mental hospital. There are people who even laugh at Einstein. But then, other people do experiment and as time progresses, more and more people read about it.

Now, I talk about infinity dimensions. It may sound strange or wierd, but if another person do experiment and say that it may be possible, then, is this not like the astronomers who said that the earth is round, which may sound strange in the start, because the earth looks flat.

By the way, the earth may not be round. I feel an object can have different shapes depending on the location you observe.

Now, I do not expect you to agree with me, but as I said before. If I publish papers one day. Other people do experiment will have a say. I am not going to argue here.

To me, it is based on feeling or intuition.

Stanley Huang wrote:What do you feel about that?

Stanley Huang wrote:I am not going to argue about this.

Stanley Huang wrote:I am not going to argue here.

Then why did you ask us what we feel about your thoughts? You're talking about infinity which is a very debatable concept.

Wouldn't you agree that if "both space and time can have infinity dimensions" then absolutely every potential reality is conceivable and it would be impossible to sort through these infinite realities? One such reality would be an infinite void. How would you describe that? Which is the "real reality"?

I have to ask: "What is dimension?"

Because if you can know what is a dimension, then, maybe you can know whether or not is it possible to have infinity dimensions?

But what is a dimension?

To me, a dimension is still the same thing.

One universe may be a different thing to another universe, but one dimension within one universe is still the same thing as another dimension within the same universe.

So let's talk about what you heard of very often: The three dimensions.

What is three dimension? Width. Length and height.

All of these three: Width, length and height are still pointing to the same thing.

So to me, different dimensions are still within the same thing or same universe.

But how do you feel that there are three dimensions?

If you are at the bottom of the car, maybe you see two dimensions.

But as if move to the side, you see an extra dimension.

So you feel you are seeing an extra dimension once you look at the same object from another location.

So one can say: "Dimension may be the angle you look at the same object."

If there are infinity ways of looking at the same objects, then, there are infinite numbers of new dimension appears, where each time you change your location, you are looking at the same object in another angle and you find a new dimension.

And because there are endless angles of looking at the same thing, then, it is possible that there are infinite numbers of dimensions, where each dimension may be one way of looking at the same object.

Here, I am not sure wheterh or not I am right.

But I feel it is possible.

Stanley Huang wrote:So to me, different dimensions are still within the same thing or same universe.

But how do you feel that there are three dimensions?

If you are at the bottom of the car, maybe you see two dimensions.

But as if move to the side, you see an extra dimension.

So you feel you are seeing an extra dimension once you look at the same object from another location.

So one can say: "Dimension may be the angle you look at the same object."

If there are infinity ways of looking at the same objects, then, there are infinite numbers of new dimension appears, where each time you change your location, you are looking at the same object in another angle and you find a new dimension.

Ok, I see what you're saying now. With each new dimension, each new location or angle from which to view or observe an object, a new characteristic of the same object can be observed, and only such new characteristic of the same object is what exists within that new dimension. I don't see why that would not be possible in that case.

However, I still have issue with the degree of an infinite number of dimensions though, whereas if there are infinite dimensions then there are infinite characteristics to the object being observed. With infinite characteristics, and if there are infinite potentials, no description of the object would be possible, and no understanding of the object would be possible.

With infinite characteristics, and without infinite potentials, there would be an infinite overlap in characteristics from one object to the next, and as such, these objects would either all be absolutely identical, or all the same object, which in either case would defy description, so we're back to where we were before.

The only issue I have with your intuition about these dimensions is that there are an infinite number of them.

You are a clever person.

You said: “With infinite characteristics, and if there are infinite potentials, no description of the object would be possible, and no understanding of the object would be possible.

With infinite characteristics, and without infinite potentials, there would be an infinite overlap in characteristics from one object to the next, and as such, these objects would either all be absolutely identical, or all the same object, which in either case would defy description, so we're back to where we were before.”

But I am not sure what you mean when I read your words above, because what we are talking about may require very specific words and illustration, otherwise it is hard to draw a picture based on your writings above.

Because what I am talking about here only requires characteristics and it does not require potential here. Dimensions are characteristics, because it is the nature of an object that is showing itself in various levels.

So in other words, different dimensions are different levels of existence of an object or of a universe.

So infinity numbers of dimensions are infinite levels of existence, because one object can be divided up to infinite numbers of different levels.

And you can see an object can be divided into infinite numbers of levels when you look at it from endless numbers of angles.

So no potential is required here to talk about infinity dimensions, because potential may be energy and here, dimensions are just the natures of an object existing at different levels.

Because an object can be divided up to infinity, so there are endless levels of one object and this endless levels are endless dimensions of the same object.

Is that hard?

Any dimension has to be visible or evident to have any validity. If I can not see it, touch it or smell it, should I consider it? If there are so many, what strange law , so inconvenient, makes them totally invisible? Sounds like god. So evident for many but invisible and void of evidence for others.

Stanley Huang wrote:You said: “With infinite characteristics, and if there are infinite potentials, no description of the object would be possible, and no understanding of the object would be possible.

With infinite characteristics, and without infinite potentials, there would be an infinite overlap in characteristics from one object to the next, and as such, these objects would either all be absolutely identical, or all the same object, which in either case would defy description, so we're back to where we were before.”

Because what I am talking about here only requires characteristics and it does not require potential here. Dimensions are characteristics, because it is the nature of an object that is showing itself in various levels.

So in other words, different dimensions are different levels of existence of an object or of a universe.

So infinity numbers of dimensions are infinite levels of existence, because one object can be divided up to infinite numbers of different levels.

And you can see an object can be divided into infinite numbers of levels when you look at it from endless numbers of angles.

So no potential is required here to talk about infinity dimensions, because potential may be energy and here, dimensions are just the natures of an object existing at different levels.

Because an object can be divided up to infinity, so there are endless levels of one object and this endless levels are endless dimensions of the same object.

I had used the word "potentials" to somewhat refer to the idea of "possible differences".

My point was that in having infinite dimensions, and with each dimension revealing a separate and unique characteristic of an object, and where we use characteristics to describe or define objects, if we have an infinite number of possible differences (potentials), then it becomes impossible to define or describe an object, and therefore impossible to comprehend.

Conversely, in having infinite dimensions, and if we have a finite number of possible differences (potentials), then there must be an infinite overlap of "differences" (which would then become similarities), which would dictate that these objects are either all identical in having an infinite differential overlap (or similarities), or they are not separate objects at all but are in fact one in the same object, but still having infinite characteristics, thus also being impossible to define or describe, and therefore impossible to comprehend.

It's the inclusion of the concept of infinity into a finite perceptive ability that makes something incomprehensible, and thus "impossible".

They are just words. Words or concepts do not represent reality as a whole. This is why Zen monks condemns words or concepts. So you can call an apple 'Orange,' while John can call an apple 'a chair,' because they are just words or symbols. But if we remove thought or concepts, what is the things itself, which Zen monk calls it 'the notion of suchness,' what it is? This is the question that is about the actual experience of reality rather than concepts or words that are just the shadows of your own reflection.

Stanley Huang wrote:They are just words. Words or concepts do not represent reality as a whole.

Agreed. Some cultures do not have certain words in their languages because they have not experienced the concepts necessary to form those expressions.

Stanley Huang wrote:This is why Zen monks condemns words or concepts. So you can call an apple 'Orange,' while John can call an apple 'a chair,' because they are just words or symbols. But if we remove thought or concepts, what is the things itself, which Zen monk calls it 'the notion of suchness,' what it is? This is the question that is about the actual experience of reality rather than concepts or words that are just the shadows of your own reflection.

So if such things are stripped of descriptive words, symbols and concepts, then what is left??? It cannot be expressed, just observed within the limits of your senses.

What I am saying is that words are not important. Feeling, intuition and experience are important. Now, to make it simple for you, I will use another illustration.

Is the earth round? This depends on the location where you observe. It is true that the earth is flat, looking at here on earth, the earth is flat.

But looking at it from outer space, the earth is round. Which one is correct?

Both are correct? The earth is flat if you look at it on earth and the earth is round if you look at it from outer space.

So what a thing appears depend on the angle you look at it. So if you move further away from an object, the object becomes smaller. If you move towards the object, the object appears bigger.

So the shape of an object changes depending on the angle you look at it. Just like if you look at a woman far away, you saw her hair, but if you are in a lab using instrument, you saw cells.

So the shape of a thing changes depending on the location or the angle you observe it. And because there are infinite angles or infinite ways of looking at a thing, then, there are infinite numbers of dimensions, where different dimensions show how an object has different sizes or shapes, which is the different levels of existence of one object.

To me, as a scientist, words are not important. Experience, intuition and feeling may be important.

I believe there is only one reality, and that dimensions are ways of looking at it, depending on where you really are, of course. I guess.