User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: two dimensional objects

  1. #11
    Reason vs Being Array ragashree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Kangol View Post
    To the OP and possibly everyone else, go read Flatland. If you can't afford a few bucks for a copy,

    Thus, please read Flatland. While it may not answer your question, if you find such questions entertaining, you will surely find the book equally so.
    Damn, you beat me to it with your suggestion. I'd go for a plain text version like this that doesn't take forever to load though: Flatland: A romance of many dimensions

    I think this was intended originally as Victorian social satire by way of allegory, but it just happens also to be about the most accessible and informative treatment in existence of the problem of different spatial dimensions and how one might be percieved from within another. Tater, you seem a bit constrained in your thinking by the possibilities of our own, by the way, just thought I'd point out.
    Look into my avatar. Look deep into my avatar...

  2. #12
    desert pelican Array Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by Into It View Post
    I maintain that a spatial value of '0' implies nonexistence, period.

    If it does in fact imply non-existence, then the statement,

    S1: "a zero-th dimension object could possibly exist"

    would be logically impossible, and S1 would be necessarily false in the same sense that the existence of square-circles is necessarily impossible.

    But even if you could prove that S1 implies a logical impossibility, (and please do try, that proof would rock my world), you'd still need to bridge the gap between the impossibility of a zero-th dimensional object and the impossibility of a one-dimensional object.

    Upon re-reading the OP, my thought is that you assume that space is necessarily three dimensional. Perhaps you should start with trying to prove why that is not an arbitrary assumption?
    Last edited by Owl; 08-28-2010 at 03:54 PM.

  3. #13


    I think it has been touched upon already, but the real world doesn't necessarily have dimensions (It may, but we may never know it).

    Our mathematical conceptions of the real world are what has dimensions. Our conceptions can be two dimensional (like the system on latitude and longitude, or the tracking of one time dimension on only one spatial dimension).

    Also, we have have two dimensional objects, like a surface, in higher dimensional conceptions.

    Also, a "point" is the canonical 0-dimensional object embedded in higher dimensional space.

    The null-spaces of various vector spaces are often just points.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

Similar Threads

  1. Typing Inanimate Objects
    By Epiphany in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-12-2012, 04:16 PM
  2. A third type of dimensional continuum?
    By Eric B in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 12-10-2010, 01:05 PM
  3. Sticking gum to objects
    By MacGuffin in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 12:36 PM
  4. Breathing objects?
    By Noel in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-21-2008, 12:38 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts