Philosophy Discussion Forums

So far scientists present about 11 dimensions, one of them being 1D, then 2D, another being 3D, etc. What about possibility of, say, 2nd dimension to be mixed, partially, with 3D dimension, or any other dimensions? How would semi-dimensions function ? Since there is no absolute zero, does it mean that, for example, 1D and 2D are mixed dimensions? There must be an error factor that would not allow different dimensions exist in total isolation from each other, but rather in a mutually dependable way, like different squares in Rubik Cube.

Interesting thought Gulnara.

What makes you think that these dimensions aren't overlapping in the first place? If we are only to see things as separate entities then how might we envision dimensions as being part of each other?

What reference point are you using as a standard for the determination of dimensional interplay?

Either way, isn't this in some manner saying that there may be a whole number between 8 and 9 that might exist and that we missed? What would such a number be? Isn't it simply a representational symbol for what we've all agreed on collectively is the established scale?

Since by the senses scientists are unable to see higher dimensions, those dimensions' partial overlap can not be witnessed. I am puzzled why scientists have those 11 dimensions divided in such clear cut way, that one is necessarily unobserved and unfelt by lower dimensions. Can creatures, if they exist, of higher dimensions feel and recognize smaller dimensions or is it only prerogative of their scientists (again, if they exist in higher dimensions).

Such clear cut division among dimensions seems very artificial. Is there more known about co-action of those dimensions, co-penetration? Can they also exist without some of the dimensions of smaller caliber being included? Is there variety of combinations among them or they are only inside each other like Russian Matreshka?

My thought is this: if dimensions can exist in an isolated from each other way, they can exist in a semi mixed way as well for the mere fact that people tend to separate and categorize things created for no such purpose.

Gulnara wrote:I am puzzled why scientists have those 11 dimensions divided in such clear cut way, that one is necessarily unobserved and unfelt by lower dimensions.

That is because science is limited to our functional senses and our interpretation of what is sensed with them. Also, scientists don't want to destroy their careers by looking silly in proposing anything too far from their peer's comfort zone.

Gulnara wrote:Such clear cut division among dimensions seems very artificial.

I agree. I would think that they are all weaved, layered or folded in on each other in an interdependent mix.

Gulnara wrote:My thought is this: if dimensions can exist in an isolated from each other way, they can exist in a semi mixed way as well for the mere fact that people tend to separate and categorize things created for no such purpose.

In order to "see" anything we need contrast. We need to separate it from other phenomena to differentiate it from what we see as individual entities. Perhaps all that we see is in fact one single individual entity that we must sectionalize in order to make sense of.

Perhaps the problem of "intermediate dimensions" arises when you begin by postulating the smallest dimension (a line) and going on to more complex manifestations of existence. If you start at the most complex dimension, say the 6th dimension, (I'm not so sure about the 11 "clear cut" dimensions you refer to), then you can move down the list by conceptually eliminating one aspect of being until you are left with the basic 1st dimension, a line. Of course this is all done in conceptual mode only, reality comes with however many dimensions are required for its manifestation. Each time one aspect of "being" is eliminated we move down to a lower dimension, there simply cannot be an intermediate state because if there was it would of necessity produce another dimension.