Jump to content
UnevenEdge
SwimModSponges

Don't mind me, just trying to start a religion.

Recommended Posts

I still have to complete the  references section and add sources to everything, but it's done.

On the Worship of Time
I.    On the Utility of Religion
II.    On the Dissatisfaction of Current Structures
III.    On the Search for Greater Truth
IV.    On the True Structure
V.    On the Pageantry

I.
Of all the things on the rapidly shrinking list which we believe separates humankind from the rest of biological life on Earth, arguably the most removed from our natural origin is the propensity for religion. No other being of which we are aware holds within itself the capacity for the level of abstract thought required to ask the larger questions regarding its place or purpose in reality. So too does this drive to quantify and revere existence appear virtually universal, within essentially all known societal groups throughout history. Indeed, the expanded thought required to ask these questions appear to go in hand-in-hand with the cognitive ability to form complex communities.
But how and why does one come to religion? Anthropologists have been studying this phenomenon since the very beginnings of the field in the late 1800s. During this time, many popular theories arose; Edward Burnett Tyler, the world’s first professor of anthropology at Oxford, put forth the assertion that religions arose from early human attempts to understand natural phenomenon as essentially the work of living entities (Segal, 2006). The logic of “animism” thereby attributes the same level of cognizance to the monsoon as the tiger. He further agued that religions evolve via a sort of natural selection, by which those attributes of early religions which prove useful are passed along to later religions, while those that no longer serve a purpose are lost among the branches of the phylogenic tree. Others, such as Bronisław Malinowski; a revolutionary field anthropologist from the early 1900s who studied the peoples of Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands, pointed to the individual cathartic effects of religion, and suggested that our early lack of knowledge regarding the world around us was a cause of significant stress. The belief that there was some form of explainable “magic” behind reality resolved this dilemma. A sociological perspective posited by Émile Durkheim during this time, however, suggested that religion came about as a direct result of the creation of societies; in that those ideals held by a society, and the goals which propel it, are inherently exalted and given embodiment.
Through whatever origin, however, the impact the various extant and extinct religions have had on the face of our planet is by very definition monumental. The great pyramids of Egypt and Mesoamerica, the complex networks of burial mounds left by the peoples of the First Nations, Stonehenge, the massive carved heads of the Olmec, the Sistine Chapel… It is clear that religion has served as the inspiration behind some of the greatest works of our species. Apart from Its impacts on art and society as a whole, the physiological effects of religiosity on the individual are striking as well (Levin, 1998). This of course leads logically from Malinowski’s catharsis hypothesis; with the placebo effect of religious beliefs being a catalyst for the positive thoughts and emotions which directly correlate with positive health. And indeed, living a “virtuous” life according to a set structure has undoubted benefits. Religion is an amazing invention; I, as an atheist, would love to be able to tap into its potential.

II.
The singular unifying fact that precludes me personally from investing faith in any current belief structure is that they, through no fault of their own, are inherently based around falsehoods. Again, this is to be expected; almost all extant religions were created thousands of years ago when humanity was much less aware of the construction of the reality around them. For confirmation of this, one need only look at their creation myths, none of which accurately represent the factual geological history of the earth, much less its place in the universe. It stands to reason that the religions created under these circumstances would be entirely subjective and based on the writer’s own understanding of the small piece of the world around them. The acclaimed author Isaac Asimov released a two-part guide to the bible, in which he used verified facts about the world at the time to explain the historical context surrounding how it was written and why. 
Apart from this singular preclusion, a myriad of other issues sours me on the concept of all current religious structures; including but not limited to widespread abuse of authority, systemic violations of human rights, militant fanaticism, and charlatanism to extort vulnerable populations. 

III. 
The question I am struck with is this: What is worthy of worship? This question of worth is inherently subjective of course; there are indeed an infinite number of things greater than man that one could argue deserve our adulation. If one were to assert that whales, for instance, were deserving of worship simply by virtue of being the largest living animals, I would have no qualms against their claims. Similarly, belief structures centered around the worship of the sun, or bodies within our solar system would be every bit as valid. Subjectively however, the worship in which I wish to partake would go beyond the admiration of specific observable entities in the environment, but instead focus on the search for verifiable underlying truth beneath the surface aspects of the reality we experience. 
There have been movements based on the concept that the individual; as the being unlike any other due to the fact that one fully experiences it, is that which is most worthy of worship. Again, however, I must reject this belief structure as well, as my search is for some truth greater than myself.

IV.
The universe, as it truly exists, was not made for us. The whole of the “reality” which the human mind is capable of perceiving, represents the dim light of a flickering candle against the darkness of an unknowably immense cosmic gulf. Vision, arguably the most developed and relied upon sensation within the human consciousness, is defined as the ability to transform the activation of specialized cells by differing wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, into a “picture” in our minds of the world around us. These specialized cells, however, are only able to detect a sliver of the spectrum of radiation that exists. As limited as our electromagnetic sensitivity may be, it is infinitesimal when compared to our understanding of the true nature of other facets of reality. 
As we have made strides in our ability to artificially supplement our knowledge of radiation; from ultraviolet and infrared and beyond- so too has our knowledge of the “quantum” nature of existence begun to take shape in the recent decades. These discoveries serve to further the realization that we exist in a reality consisting of dimensions far greater than those of which we are able to perceive with our limited senses and consciousness. It is here that my search for the ultimate greatness leads.
In the beginning, all reality consisted of a single point. A point is defined as being without dimension: no length, no width, no height. This point repeated along a continuum, however, forms a line; a single dimension. Forward and back. So too, when repeated along a continuum, this singular dimension coalesces into another; a two-dimensional plane. The three dimensions with which we are most familiar, are of course the result of a plane repeated along a continuum as well. Imagine a notepad; the first dimension would be defined as a line drawn along it. The second dimension would be the sheet of paper upon which it was drawn, and the third dimension representing the whole of the stack. But what of our three-dimensional reality? What is the dimension defined by the continuum upon which our existence is repeated? The fourth dimension is time. Imagine the notepad again; only this time the three-dimensional world is represented as a single page. Time, therefore is represented as seconds passing by as pages of the notepad are flipped.
Our perception of this fourth dimension is as limited as that of our eyes to infrared. To our subjective experience, time is unidirectional: we move forwards along it; unable to cease or reverse its inevitable march. Additionally, we are only able to observe backwards; one can recall the past, but not the future. The indigenous Māori people of New Zealand have an interesting proverb to describe this: Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua. I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past. To submit a phrase of my own making: Point to an instant that is now, and you will find that it is gone. Outside of our candle-in-the darkness subjective view of reality, however, the moments which make up what we define as reality constitute a four-dimensional sort of super-solid; past, present, and future existing as a singular construct. A two-dimensional individual would only experience a cross-section of a three-dimensional object being passed through its plane; a pin being pushed through the notepad would only be a dot when viewed as a cross-section within the sheet. So too is our brief glimpse at the “passage” of time. Image, if you will, that you were a two dimensional being that has only ever been able to see the plane around it. Now imagine being granted the ability to look up and down at a three-dimensional universe. Imagine yourself this time, a three-dimensional entity walking backwards into the future. Imagine being granted the ability to turn around and observe the whole of four-dimensional reality sprawled out around you. 
This view of a concrete structure of time is supported by evidence observed in our three-dimensional reality as well, at its most basic level. Everything in existence; from yourself, to the medium upon which you are reading this, to the rocks on the sea floor, to the furthest star, all of reality is made of chemicals. Chemicals are absolute in their destinies. A molecule of hydrogen, under the same conditions, will always react with a molecule of oxygen in the same exact manner. Radioactive elements will always decay. Entropy will continue to spread subatomic particles further apart until the very end of physical reality. Due to the laws of physics, all of it will happen in a singular, precise manner. Even those “outliers” are acting in accordance to their specific place in existence due to circumstances beyond our observation. A universe made of chemical reactions inherently “unfolds” as it were, in a manner that is both exact and specific. The chemicals in your brain processing this information are acting in accordance with this rule of reality; your thoughts and actions are an incredibly minute part of a single, continuous chemical reaction. 
From this axiom, one can conclude with certainty that the concept of “free will” is simply an illusion caused in full by our inability to observe reality as it truly exists. Time, therefore, is not only the most universal experience of humanity; it is that which controls our fate. Being that it is also literally a dimension above our observation, I can think of no greater fundamental truth more worthy of worship.

V.
How does one worship a concept such as time? My ideas regarding this subject are entirely subjective, of course. Personally, I choose to honor time by expressing patience, and respecting the time of others. I will endeavor to not weep for moments in the past which have brought me to the present, I shall not fight the coming of the future. I will live my life perfectly, in accordance to my position within reality as it unfolds, and I will be reverent towards the fact that I am able to experience this existence within an infinitely complex universe, with higher dimension than we likely know. 
But what of a specific embodiment to worship? The majority of world religions focus themselves around the reverence of specific gods, indeed the very defining characteristic between an atheist and a theist is the belief in a deity. From Allah to Zarathushtra, it seems to be somewhat of a prerequisite for religions to have a mascot. Certainly reverence of those individuals who’ve brought us towards scientific enlightenment with regards to the subject is in order; however these scientists are still human, and therefore do not fit the criteria of representing something greater than us. Therefore in the following text I will outline my own personal thoughts regarding the creation of a purposefully false idol. It should again be noted that my own concept of a time deity is entirely subjective; based off my own personal interests and thoughts regarding the subject.
As is my prerogative, the personal deity I am choosing to worship will be mostly based around a being of the same general function within my favorite video game series: Akatosh, Dragon God of Time in the world of the Elder Scrolls. For me to delve into the deep lore of the masterful story crafters behind this award-winning narrative series would only do a disservice to the reader and those other individuals who’ve spent countless hours establishing and interpreting these fantastic works of fiction, so for the layman I shall describe him thusly: Akatosh is often depicted as an ouroboros, a symbol used throughout our own history to represent the cycle of time. When Akatosh coalesced into being, it resulted in Time (which up until this point had all existed simultaneously) collapsing into the “forwards” direction we all experience, ending the chaotic Dawn Era and beginning the structured Merethic Era. This ideation overlays nicely on the framework of the four-dimensional universe previously discussed; the Dawn Era representing the existence of past-present-future as a singular concept, and the birth of Akatosh representing the creation of our own subjective, forward-ticking experience of the passage of time. 
Graven idols to Akatosh, can include representations of the dragon god itself in its many forms and interpretations as laid out by the lore. Time keeping devices, such as the as the hourglass, sun dials, pendulums, clocks, etc. could also represent reverence towards the existence of time. Prayer or meditation on the subject of the Eternal Dragon would also serve this purpose, along with the burning of special sanctified incense and listening to music centered around the subject, such as select works by Pink Floyd and Tool.
Again, any suggestions made heretofore have been entirely based on my own beliefs and understanding of reality. The fundamental working of existence is are immensely complex topics, and as religion is a deeply personal concept, I encourage all people to  examine life closely; to seek out their own deeper meaning and truth, and if one should encounter an idea that one feels worthy, one should absolutely go about defining and worshipping it. As for me and my house, we shall serve Akatosh.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
 

Edited by SwimModSponges

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WRITING LIKE WHAT YOU THINK A SMART PERSON SOUNDS LIKE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Poof said:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WRITING LIKE WHAT YOU THINK A SMART PERSON SOUNDS LIKE

That's just how I write mang.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 4:57 PM, Poof said:

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP WRITING LIKE WHAT YOU THINK A SMART PERSON SOUNDS LIKE

What did you expect?

It read like most research papers.....how else would he write this?

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Mix said:

What did you expect?

It read like most research papers.....how else would he write this?

 

That's depressing. Cut the fat and pretension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fat, and I love the pretense.

I don't write "how I think smart people sound," I use words I think sound pretty, and I like writing really long sentences with as many clauses as I can jammed up in 'em.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where does deja vu fit into your theory of time?

I appreciate that you mention the unidirectional nature of time, but I'm not entirely sure you adequately discussed the implications of this. I don't really know exactly what I would expect here. But, something about the inability to travel in either direction in this "dimension" has never sat well with me. I suppose it doesn't entirely preclude it from being a measurable dimension. Idk. It just feels wrong to have a dimension that you travel through at a (mostly) fixed velocity. But, maybe that's the trick, just needing to learn how to harness gravity in such a way to influence our temporal acceleration in the negative. I'm rambling a bit incoherently here.

On 11/21/2019 at 3:19 PM, SwimModSponges said:

Image, if you will, that you were a two dimensional being that has only ever been able to see the plane around it.

Typo starting this sentence off.

 

Now I'm wondering if a two-dimensional being would even have any means of conceptualizing time as a fourth dimension. As three-dimensional beings, we're capable of inferring the fourth. Would it stand that a two-dimensional being would only be capable of inferring a third dimension? Or would they skip the third entirely? One of my favorite ways of putting something related to this is something to the effect of: As three-dimensional beings, we don't actually perceive (or maybe more accurately just "see") things in three dimensions. Sight, as an example, is only able to collect data via the retina, an effectively two-dimensional structure, and our brains are what allows us to interpret those data and extrapolate to the next dimension. It's basically what many optical illusions are based on, the idea of forced perspective. The brain can be tricked into incorrectly interpreting data that don't track with what it expects.

Similarly, a two-dimensional being would only be capable of seeing anything in one dimension. The pin pushed through the paper wouldn't be a dot, but a line, one dimension. The pin is still mostly cylindrical, albeit very small. The two-dimensional being would see the cross section of that as a line. They could travel around the pinhole, in their two dimensional space, allowing them to collect data and interpret the two-dimensional nature of the cross section of the cylindrical pin as a circle.

Would they then be capable of inferring a third dimension that the circle could extend into? Would that be our third spatial dimension, or would that be the two-dimensional equivalent to the temporal dimension? Time could see that circular cross section effectively extended into a cylinder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for catching that typo! always good to have another pair of eyes.

Deja vu is a misfiring of neurons in the brain by which things you have not seen before trip the memory trigger and make you feel like you have. First-hand experience with this due to epilepsy- when the wires go cross that's a big side effect- everything before a seizure feels like the strongest deja-vu you've ever experienced.

As far as measuring time as a spatial dimension, yeah it's a bit of a trip. The best way I've been able to imagine it is taking a literal view of the Maori phrase- imagine all your life you've been walking backwards without realizing it. This is like that, only instead of going straight backwards imagine yourself going in an angle that doesn't exist to your perception. The retina is not 2D, the rods and cones are 3D cell structures and even if they weren't there are enough of them to recieve light from enough angles to create three-dimensions. Illusions and forced perspectives actually rely on 3D vision, tricking your eye into thinking there is increased or decreased depth. a two-dimensional being would theoretically see a two dimensional object, just as we see a table. They would be able to extrapolate the third dimension by virtue of the existence of say... the two dimensional shadow of three-dimensional things. We can see three-dimensional shadows of the fourth dimension, as Sagan pointed out. There's a 4D sandbox that aproximates a representation of 4D objects interacting with the 3D world digitally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft. Lookit the Matrix Man, being all scientifically literal about deja vu in his dissertation about worshiping Time. You could at least have some fun with it. A tapping into a collective unconscious, a feeling stretching back through time, riding a fourth dimensional wave. Idk. Just thought it'd be fun to consider. But, my own personal moments aren't that obvious. I just randomly feel like I had a dream about a particular event long before the event takes place.

Choose to disagree about perception, tho. The illusions are not relying on 3D vision, but on our brains' limited capacity to interpret the visual signals. We can look at a physical photograph and, while recognizing the object is itself a flat sheet, be able to interpret that the image is in 3D. There is depth of field to it. But, that photograph is no different than what the eyes can see from that exact perspective. We see only the two dimensions, the height and width, and interpret the third, the depth.

Let's put it another way. If we were in fact capable of seeing in 3 dimensions at once, you should be able to know the shape and structure of any object at a glance. You should be able to see all 3 dimensions of, say, a box, or an egg. But if it should turn out that one side of the box, hidden from your perspective, is missing, this is information you're incapable of collecting from a single point of view, and your brain is simply left to interpret, to assume, that the box is whole, as it appears from where you view it.

You see the flat plane stretched before you, and interpret its depth. The 2D being sees only the flat line facing them, and interprets a perimeter. The 4D being is what would see all of 3D space, in a manner I struggle to comprehend, and be capable of interpreting the 4 dimensional structure.

Using your video, as they explain 3D objects viewed from the 2nd dimension, what they fail to account for is where that 2D being is viewing from. Imagine eyes on the side of his head, viewing that cross section from the side he is standing on, and you see that he is incapable of seeing the entire 2D cross sections passing through is plane from his perspective. All he can see is the line segments as the shapes pass through the plane. Were that character able to move freely in his dimension, he could navigate around these shapes, collecting information about their size in relation to his position, and be able to interpret the whole of the 2D cross section. He may also be able to perceive that the line segments grow or fade at the edges, as the "front" of the sphere is closest to him, while the edges are farther away, and in this way, be able to infer from his standing position that the cross section must represent a spherical object, but, without seeing if the circle continues around, there is no way of knowing if the object is indeed a full circle from his stationary position.

Bringing this all back around to discussing time, I would suppose that a 2D being would still be able to interact with Time as a fourth dimension, while also being able to interpret the 3rd spatial dimension as objects pass through their plane of existence. Which is kinda trippy, to have interactions with two higher dimensions than your own. As 3D beings, I struggle to imagine how we might even recognize the influence of a 5th dimension. It also speaks to the universal permeation of Time, that no matter what dimension you exist on, you are still at the mercy of the passage of time.

I started rambling part way through a lot of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rpgamer said:

Pfft. Lookit the Matrix Man, being all scientifically literal about deja vu in his dissertation about worshiping Time. You could at least have some fun with it. A tapping into a collective unconscious, a feeling stretching back through time, riding a fourth dimensional wave. Idk. Just thought it'd be fun to consider. But, my own personal moments aren't that obvious. I just randomly feel like I had a dream about a particular event long before the event takes place.

Like I said in the essay; if I was looking for religion for religion's sake I'd just pick a religion. I'm looking for verified truth. I did ride the 4D wave once like 15 years ago; it was pretty much exactly as described: realizing suddenly that you've been walking backwards in a direction that you never knew existed, only to suddenly be made aware of its enormity.

Choose to disagree about perception, tho. The illusions are not relying on 3D vision, but on our brains' limited capacity to interpret the visual signals. We can look at a physical photograph and, while recognizing the object is itself a flat sheet, be able to interpret that the image is in 3D. A photograph is a 3D object though; there are layers of ink and paper in it. There is depth of field to it. But, that photograph is no different than what the eyes can see from that exact perspective. We see only the two dimensions, the height and width, and interpret the third, the depth. Our eyes are offset which gives us two views of every object; they are combined in the brain to give us a 3d image

Let's put it another way. If we were in fact capable of seeing in 3 dimensions at once, you should be able to know the shape and structure of any object at a glance. That's actually 4D. A three dimensional entity can see all parts of a two-dimensional entity at once, and a 4D entity could see all parts of a 3D entity at once. We still see the a table in three dimensions; the table has length, you can see it stretching away from you in the distance. The table has height, you can see how far from the ground it is. The table has width, you can see how it stretches from one side to the other. You should be able to see all 3 dimensions of, say, a box, or an egg. But if it should turn out that one side of the box, hidden from your perspective, is missing, this is information you're incapable of collecting from a single point of view, and your brain is simply left to interpret, to assume, that the box is whole, as it appears from where you view it. I'm afraid not, but this line does bring about another fun possibility with the fourth dimesnion; it can make mirror images of things. Say you're on a plane again. There's a square there. You can rotate it along the plane all you like, but you could never flip it. A 3D entity, however, could reach into your plane, lift the square up and rotate it in a direction you are unaware of, and place it back in your plane completely reversed.

You see the flat plane stretched before you, and interpret its depth. The 2D being sees only the flat line facing them, and interprets a perimeter. The 4D being is what would see all of 3D space, in a manner I struggle to comprehend, and be capable of interpreting the 4 dimensional structure. ^ answered this up here, but also they've made computer simulations roughly approximating what that would be as possible as it is to represent. Fun stuff to watch.

Using your video, as they explain 3D objects viewed from the 2nd dimension, what they fail to account for is where that 2D being is viewing from. Imagine eyes on the side of his head, viewing that cross section (you have to remember, he doesn't see it as a cross section any more than you see 3D reality as a cross section of time) from the side he is standing on, and you see that he is incapable of seeing the entire 2D cross sections passing through is plane from his perspective. All he can see is the line segments as the shapes pass through the plane. Were that character able to move freely in his dimension, he could navigate around these shapes, collecting information about their size in relation to his position, and be able to interpret the whole of the 2D cross section. He may also be able to perceive that the line segments grow or fade at the edges, as the "front" of the sphere is closest to him, while the edges are farther away, and in this way, be able to infer from his standing position that the cross section must represent a spherical object, but, without seeing if the circle continues around, there is no way of knowing if the object is indeed a full circle from his stationary position. Ok, how about this; the two dimensional beingis presented with a triangle, one of the corners pointed at it. Because the two dimensional entity is aware of both length and width, they discern a clear difference between the point of the triangle and the sides of the triangle. Bam.

Bringing this all back around to discussing time, I would suppose that a 2D being would still be able to interact with Time as a fourth dimension, Ehhhhhh... I'm batting this one back and forth. It stands to reason that these dimensions exist regardless of our awareness of them; I couldn't tell you what the ninth dimension entails but boy howdy if it isn't out there. while also being able to interpret the 3rd spatial dimension as objects pass through their plane of existence. Which is kinda trippy, to have interactions with two higher dimensions than your own. As 3D beings, I struggle to imagine how we might even recognize the influence of a 5th dimension. That's actually pretty easy; the fourth dimension is time; what do you get when you repeat time along a continuum? A metasupersolid consisting of multiple timelines. That's how I wrote the fanfictions in which I joined the X-men for wacky adventures. Dimensions 6-(11)? are the ones I can't wrap my noodle around.  It also speaks to the universal permeation of Time, that no matter what dimension you exist on, you are still at the mercy of the passage of time.

I started rambling part way through a lot of that. That's the point man; give me more rebuttals, challenge this stuff, I need to refine it by defending it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding 5th and higher dimensions, I do often think back to this vid, pretty sure I pulled it from the old boards, would surprise me if you hadn't seen it. It makes a decent case, but, it is just one theory of many.

 

3 hours ago, SwimModSponges said:

Ok, how about this; the two dimensional beingis presented with a triangle, one of the corners pointed at it. Because the two dimensional entity is aware of both length and width, they discern a clear difference between the point of the triangle and the sides of the triangle. Bam.

I keep writing and re-writing something here, largely due to my struggle with communicating my interpretation of 2D perception. So, bringing it back up to 3D.

main-qimg-31d544a7cc3dd14434a1d9e41480cf

Do you interpret this as a 3D structure? Or do you interpret this as a flat 2D image? You are aware of the depth that the image appears to possess, but there is no way of telling, from this one singular point of view, whether there is truly any depth, any 3rd dimension, to this structure, or whether the image has been arranged in such a way to convey a depth that does not exist. The 2D being interprets, or maybe you might use extrapolates, the image of the triangle, but it remains possible that it is only illusory.

Our eyes may technically be collecting light in 3 dimensions. Our two eyes do provide binocular vision, to help with the interpretations. But, if everything viewed outside your window were to be replaced with a flat wall, perfectly painted to exactly replicate the view from outside your window, I propose you would find it a struggle to recognize the difference between the 3D original and the 2D replication, as it is only in your brain that the 3rd dimension is truly interpreted and "seen."

Funnily, this Adventure time clip kinda goes along with discussion. The shadows cast by the bubbles, I think, can also correlate with the images that can be seen from a fixed perspective. Looking down on the 2D bubble, you see only the 1D cross section, in the way that the sun shining down casts the 1D shadow (ignoring the absurdity of that notion).

Ok, so it gets a little silly, but. In the context of discussing Time as a super-solid, is it possible to cast a shadow in the same manner that lower-order objects do? Would it truly follow that same logic? Looking back to the 4D toys, they all seem to cast 2D shadows, but is that just a limitation of our 3D cross-sectional view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so, not entirely sure how reliable that 10th Dimension guy is, but, he definitely gets what I'm talking about regarding perception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, rpgamer said:

Do you interpret this as a 3D structure? Or do you interpret this as a flat 2D image? You are aware of the depth that the image appears to possess, but there is no way of telling, from this one singular point of view, whether there is truly any depth, any 3rd dimension, to this structure, or whether the image has been arranged in such a way to convey a depth that does not exist. The 2D being interprets, or maybe you might use extrapolates, the image of the triangle, but it remains possible that it is only illusory.

Our eyes may technically be collecting light in 3 dimensions. Our two eyes do provide binocular vision, to help with the interpretations. But, if everything viewed outside your window were to be replaced with a flat wall, perfectly painted to exactly replicate the view from outside your window, I propose you would find it a struggle to recognize the difference between the 3D original and the 2D replication, as it is only in your brain that the 3rd dimension is truly interpreted and "seen." I 100% disagree with that assertion. It would be obvious that the window was only a painting the moment  I changed perspectives:

 Related image

A perfect painting would be exactly like that only reversed I suppose.

Funnily, this Adventure time clip kinda goes along with discussion. The shadows cast by the bubbles, I think, can also correlate with the images that can be seen from a fixed perspective. Looking down on the 2D bubble, you see only the 1D cross section, in the way that the sun shining down casts the 1D shadow (ignoring the absurdity of that notion).

Ok, so it gets a little silly, but. In the context of discussing Time as a super-solid, is it possible to cast a shadow in the same manner that lower-order objects do? Would it truly follow that same logic? Looking back to the 4D toys, they all seem to cast 2D shadows, but is that just a limitation of our 3D cross-sectional view? Carl Sagan talked about the 3D shadows of 4D objects, actually he pretty much already did the whole shebang:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SwimModSponges said:

I 100% disagree with that assertion. It would be obvious that the window was only a painting the moment  I changed perspectives:

Ok, but that's outside the scope of what I present. Changing perspectives is what allows you to gather more information, refining your interpretation. My argument is from a fixed perspective. Moment to moment. In one singular moment, your eyes capture only that one singular snapshot of perception, and given only this one view, the brain is left to interpret the depth based on past experience. Over time, you are able to change perspective enough to recognize features that support or refute that initial interpretation.

Do we see in 3 dimensions because we travel through the 4th dimension? Without Time, without the capacity to link together those series of momentary images, would it be impossible to interpret the 3rd dimension?

(idk, just trying to make sure I bring all of this madness back around to discussing Time)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rpgamer said:

Ok, but that's outside the scope of what I present. Changing perspectives is what allows you to gather more information, refining your interpretation. My argument is from a fixed perspective. Moment to moment. In one singular moment, your eyes capture only that one singular snapshot of perception, and given only this one view, the brain is left to interpret the depth based on past experience. Over time, you are able to change perspective enough to recognize features that support or refute that initial interpretation. All right now we're getting into how the brain processes images, which is a great topic bur not 100% relevant. A man who was blind since he was an infant had surgery to restore his sight later in life. His brain had not learned how to understand the images so nothing he could see visually made any sense to him and he could only form a mental picture by touch. In any case, the perspective has no reason to be fixed. As a three-dimensional entity I am free to travel in three dimensional space, as much as a 2 dimensional entity would be able to travel two-dimensionally, thereby viewing the 2 dimensional object from multiple angles and confirming its shape. 

Do we see in 3 dimensions because we travel through the 4th dimension? Without Time, without the capacity to link together those series of momentary images, would it be impossible to interpret the 3rd dimension? No to the first question. Yes to the second, imagine the world if time were to freeze. 

(idk, just trying to make sure I bring all of this madness back around to discussing Time)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Largely discussion went towards perception as I moved away from Time. Perception is a big trigger for me, I've dwelled on it a lot.

Actually, I think the discussion has sorta reiterated your Maori statement a bit, in that, we interpret this 3D space by changing our perspective in the fourth dimension, but, as we can only do so in a single direction, at a fixed rate, we're forced to interpret it retroactively. Always looking back. What we see is no longer what is. Funny, I genuinely didn't intend for the discussion to circle back around like that. But, it sorta works.

43 minutes ago, SwimModSponges said:

The fundamental working of existence is are immensely complex topics

'nother typo, "is are". Also, pretty sure the semicolon following this is incorrect. My grammar is fuzzy, but I seem to recall the semicolon should separate two independent clauses; in your case, the clause that follows doesn't hold up as a sentence on its own.

Edited by rpgamer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...