User Controls
Where is Spectral?
-
2016-01-17 at 10:11 PM UTC
Fourth dimension is just fine for me to deal with because it is time my biological computer's clock is set to the rotation of the earth. It pretty much covers the 4th dimension as far as i need it to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE -
2016-01-17 at 10:14 PM UTCNope, i'm not doing this.
-
2016-01-17 at 10:24 PM UTCHahahaha, where is Obbe when you need him?
-
2016-01-18 at 7 AM UTC
Lets see if it responds with "tl;dr"
lol
tl/dr
-
2016-01-18 at 8:16 AM UTC
Nope, i'm not doing this.
Essentially we're not doing what you think we are. I'm asking why you're satisfied with 3.5-dimensional perception when you know there's 4. Why don't you want to see more? Why is your current perception "good enough"? What's your justification for thinking that way?
-
2016-01-18 at 10:07 AM UTC
Essentially we're not doing what you think we are. I'm asking why you're satisfied with 3.5-dimensional perception when you know there's 4. Why don't you want to see more? Why is your current perception "good enough"? What's your justification for thinking that way?
You don't know what i think bro. You also don't know what you're talking about. Three and a half dimension, lol, doesn't work like that, you can't have a half dimension. Also, if you want to get into actual science you should look into string or M theory, which requires there to be 11 dimensions. It's a mathematically solid theory, but as far as grand unifying theories go, super symmetry seems to be a more likely candidate with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and super symmetric excess observed at the Large Hadron Collider which seems to support what was postulated in the theories put forward under super symmetry, also, you can't have both. At least not in it's current form because string theory and super symmetry deal in two fundamentally different ways with how gravity works at the quantum level. -
2016-01-18 at 3:38 PM UTC
You don't know what i think bro. You also don't know what you're talking about. Three and a half dimension, lol, doesn't work like that, you can't have a half dimension. Also, if you want to get into actual science you should look into string or M theory, which requires there to be 11 dimensions. It's a mathematically solid theory, but as far as grand unifying theories go, super symmetry seems to be a more likely candidate with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, and super symmetric excess observed at the Large Hadron Collider which seems to support what was postulated in the theories put forward under super symmetry, also, you can't have both. At least not in it's current form because string theory and super symmetry deal in two fundamentally different ways with how gravity works at the quantum level.
"you can't have a half dimension"
Earlier you said: "It pretty much covers the 4th dimension as far as i need it to"
You can have half a perception of a dimension. Get it? And you said yourself, you don't think you need any more than that half-perception. I'm wondering why? Especially if that dimension is actually time like you also seem to believe. I mean... having a half-assed perception of time and being okay with that, when time is literally killing you: that seems fucked up to me.
"two fundamentally different ways with how gravity works at the quantum level."
This is poetically unsurprising. -
2016-01-18 at 4:33 PM UTC
"you can't have a half dimension"
Earlier you said: "It pretty much covers the 4th dimension as far as i need it to"
You can have half a perception of a dimension. Get it?
Yeah i get it perfectly fine. Perception of something does not mean the lack of something however, perception and existence are unrelated. When i look at the moon, i see a flat disk, that doesn't mean the moon isn't a three dimesnional object in space. Here's what you said:struggling with a 3-dimensional perception of a fundamentally 4-dimensional container.
The fourth dimension is time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-d..._space#History
And struggling with the pereption of it does not make it any less of a dimension, certainly not something as specific as a half dimension.And you said yourself, you don't think you need any more than that half-perception. I'm wondering why?
Where you're getting this 'half' quantity from i don't know, i never said such a thing.
Here's what i said:Fourth dimension is just fine for me to deal with…
This means i am not struggling with my current perception of it. Because:my biological computer's clock is set to the rotation of the earth
I never said i can fully percieve the whole of time throughout the Universe from all frames of reference(Time is relative, read einstein's general theory of relativity) but i know it is there, same reason i know that there is something over the horizon, even though i can't see it. However the way in which i percieve time is fine with me, because it's all i need to keep myself alive. What i am saying here is that it isn't crucial for anyone to percieve the whole scope of 4 dimensional space, and that the perception of it is independent of it's existence.Especially if that dimension is actually time like you also seem to believe.
This belief is not a belief it is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_spaceIn mathematical physics, Minkowski space or Minkowski spacetime is a combination of Euclidean space and time into a four-dimensional manifold where the spacetime interval between any two events is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which they are recorded.
See general relativity as well.I mean… having a half-assed perception of time and being okay with that, when time is literally killing you
So what's your point here, are you trying to tell me you can percieve the whole dimension of time perfectly? Every human being percieves time in the limited fashion his/her brain is hardwired to. Which should be enough for you to realize that if you don't go to the grocery store today you'll be hungry tomorrow, to make it as simple as possible.that seems fucked up to me.
Nature doesn't care about your or my feelings. Whether i have a perfect perception of time or not, it will kill me regardless."two fundamentally different ways with how gravity works at the quantum level."
This is poetically unsurprising.
If you say so.
-
2016-01-18 at 4:37 PM UTCAlso, you dropped out of highschool and i studied physics to get my associate degree in electrical engineering. Trust me i know these things.
-
2016-01-18 at 5:45 PM UTC
Nope, i'm not doing this.
You just got rekt. -
2016-01-18 at 5:51 PM UTC
Yeah i get it perfectly fine. Perception of something does not mean the lack of something however, perception and existence are unrelated. When i look at the moon, i see a flat disk, that doesn't mean the moon isn't a three dimesnional object in space. Here's what you said:
Right, and having a gimped ability to perceive it may not be such a good thing. All I'm saying is: your perception of time isn't perfect, and time is killing you. You say your perception is "good enough", but if time is going to kill you and you can't even see it coming or understand what's going on outside of a linear frame of reference-based system... I mean... fuck. Why are you okay with that?The fourth dimension is time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-d..._space#History
And struggling with the pereption of it does not make it any less of a dimension, certainly not something as specific as a half dimension.
I never claimed there was a half-dimension. I said you have "3.5-dimensional perception". Which was to say: you perceive 3.5 dimensions (i.e more than 3, but less than 4) despite knowing there are a full 4. This is a flaw that you should not be okay with.Where you're getting this 'half' quantity from i don't know, i never said such a thing.
This means i am not struggling with my current perception of it.
Right and Oscar Pistorius would tell you he's not struggling without his fucking legs, mate. Although this is more like a grade schooler saying "I don't struggle with reading, I can recite the betabet".I never said i can fully percieve the whole of time throughout the Universe from all frames of reference(Time is relative, read einstein's general theory of relativity) but i know it is there, same reason i know that there is something over the horizon, even though i can't see it. However the way in which i percieve time is fine with me, because it's all i need to keep myself alive. What i am saying here is that it isn't crucial for anyone to percieve the whole scope of 4 dimensional space, and that the perception of it is independent of it's existence.
I know you never said you COULD do it. You said you can't, and that's "okay". Like what the fuck? How meager are your ambitions? Why are you okay with your admittedly handicapped perception of this reality? All I've been saying is: if you can't accurately perceive time, that's a problem. Not something you should shrug at and be like "oh, alright m8 i'm doing good 'nuff without me natural ability to understand basic facets of reality like I can with other dimensions".This belief is not a belief it is fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space
See general relativity as well.
Minkowski space is good, but I feel like calling it the 4th dimension is a bit of a misnomer. Even within the context of that theory, it's more akin to a 0th dimension in the way it's handled in relation to spacial dimensions. That's all I meant. The 4th dimension would be another spacial geometric dimension, neh? Another plain/axis.So what's your point here, are you trying to tell me you can percieve the whole dimension of time perfectly? Every human being percieves time in the limited fashion his/her brain is hardwired to. Which should be enough for you to realize that if you don't go to the grocery store today you'll be hungry tomorrow, to make it as simple as possible.
I'm trying to tell you I can't, but I'm not stupid enough to think my current perception is "good enough". Just accepting it as an impossibility is fucking nuttybutters to me. I can't interpret it with the same ease as the others yet, but goddamnit… I fucking can do at some point.Nature doesn't care about your or my feelings. Whether i have a perfect perception of time or not, it will kill me regardless.
If you say so. If you could see though - if you could see everything - you could dodge that bullet. Maybe. All I was saying is be less okay with it. As soon as you're complacent, you lose. Only impossible is impossible, and all that.
I feel like you've mischaracterized me internally as being perhaps a bit of a vapid spiritualist. Far from it. -
2016-01-18 at 7:11 PM UTCPS: We got off track from the whole "biological computer" thing, but that's basically all your brain is and your general description of the specklesbot was essentially a general description of the basic functionality of a human's brain.
-
2016-01-18 at 7:40 PM UTC
I feel like you've mischaracterized me internally as being perhaps a bit of a vapid spiritualist. Far from it.
Nope your whole post just confirmed what i know you to be and this is why i don't want to have this discussion with you. I wouldn't neccesarily call you a vapid spiritualist, and i am pretty sure you're intelligent, however your lack of any education in physics, mathematics, the scientific method and other such critical modes of thinking leaves your conclusions flawed.
Also:
HTS: I want to be immortal!!!
Sophie: it's impossible.
HTS: HOW MEAGER ARE YOUR AMBITIONS!?
Do you see my problem here? -
2016-01-18 at 7:42 PM UTC
PS: We got off track from the whole "biological computer" thing, but that's basically all your brain is and your general description of the specklesbot was essentially a general description of the basic functionality of a human's brain.
The difference between a bot and the human brain are so vast they might as well be considered several orders of magnitude apart. -
2016-01-18 at 9:09 PM UTCWhat's a bot?
-
2016-01-18 at 9:23 PM UTC
What's a bot?
A bot is an automated program.
-
2016-01-18 at 9:28 PM UTCThen the brain is a bot. HTS is right.
-
2016-01-18 at 9:47 PM UTC
Then the brain is a bot. HTS is right.
Nope, ever see a program run without a computer? Without an operating system? Without firmware for your components? Even if we take all of these into account, the difference in complexity is, as i've said several orders of magnitude apart.
Comparing a bot to a human brain is like saying a marble is the same thing as the Earth just way smaller. You know, because they're both round. -
2016-01-18 at 10:03 PM UTCBut what about the 4th dimension?
-
2016-01-19 at 12:55 AM UTC
But what about the 4th dimension?
What about it?
