1. ## two dimensional objects

I'm going to make this brief; I have two tests on Monday, I'm moving out on Saturday, and I have a friend from out of town to entertain all weekend, so I'm quite busy! I did have time to smoke a cigarette with the guy who just moved in across the way and have a short discussion.

I feel very strongly that he is incorrect in this assertion, but I do not think I've nailed down my position...I don't really have time to think about it myself anyway...but I'm sure some of you will have interesting points to share.

When having a spatial disagreement, I asked if a one-dimensional object could exist. He said, "yes, it could," and proceeded to go so far as to posit "flourishing" one-dimensional organisms who would naturally be incapable of perceiving the second dimension. I understand this theoretical example as a way to better explain the inaccessability of the fifth dimension to us, but I would not take it far enough to say that a one-dimensional organism could actually exist.

To make my position more clear, I suggested we move on to two-dimensional objects. For this point it makes no difference because I maintain that a spatial value of '0' implies nonexistence, period. And here I am referring to the spatial value of height, for instance.

He went on to speak of other possible universes with other rules, maybe unfathomable ones, so that these objects may exist there. While I love to play with the idea of infinite universes with different laws, I do not believe that allows for the existence of contradiction according to our systems of measurement and description, if they are applicable.

Let me elucidate this a bit - in all possible universes with all possible laws, a square circle cannot exist. I hold to this firmly and think that justifying disagreement on this fact is a very tall order. So, while I may be able to conceive of the possibility of universes existing with neither time nor space, (though I cannot conceive of the universes themselves), I cannot conceive of a universe with time and space that allows for the existence of a two-dimensional object. I think this is purely a matter of reason in a similar vein as the 'square-circle' argument.

So let me restate, an object with a spatial value of 0 cannot exist. It is constrained to the realm of ideas. IF space and time apply to the given universe, I believe this fact is universal.

What are your thoughts on this?

2. Dimensions are not much more than just perceptions. A means to understand the size and scope of our universe.

Saying there are two dimensional organisms or objects (which is logically fail because any object or organisms has a mass, however thin.). That's like taking a picture of earth, looking at that picture, and saying the world is flat because the picture is flat..

The inability to perceive absolute reality through our scope of understanding is something we all deal with as non-omnipotent beings. But through knowledge and understanding we at least know as much as to say that dimensions are in fact nothing more than mathematical understandings of out universe, but are not empirical in nature.

Everything we name 2 dimensional. For example, a drawing, is in fact not 2 dimensional. We just perceive it as a 2 dimensional drawing. But the drawing still consists out of a canvas and ink that are 3 dimensional objects.

3. You're trying to prove the existence of a two or one dimensional object within a three dimensional universe. Our universe operates within 3 dimensional laws; so already you're setting yourself up for failure in attempting to assert that something that defies natural law exists within nature.

However, just because a 1 or 2 dimensional object does not exist within a 3 dimensional plane does not mean that it does not exist at all. It is either within the realm of abstract thought, aside from our extension of reality, or it exists outside of our universe.

You're correct about the circular square thing. A shape either has to be a circle, a square, or something else. However, you must remember that both of these objects are two dimensional. A square or circle cannot exist within our universe. They are both abstractions though.

A 3 dimensional property such as height only exists within a 3 dimensional universe or greater. That does not disprove the possibility of something lacking height in 2 or 1 dimensions.

4. a single dimensional object, were it to exist would have to be infinitesimally small, and the moment it appeared in one dimension it would have to have a space in the other dimension.

I don't necessarily agree that the realm of ideas would be where this exists because ideas are electrical activity and therefore have a wavelength value and subsequently have at least two dimensions.

5. I love how you guys are trying to quantify 1 or 2 dimensional objects with 3 dimensional spacial perception. Illogical. :P

6. Originally Posted by Mystic Tater
I love how you guys are trying to quantify 1 or 2 dimensional objects with 3 dimensional spacial perception. Illogical. :P
LOL I daresay something from one dimension would have similar problems imagining/describing something in 3 dimensions???

7. Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity
LOL I daresay something from one dimension would have similar problems imagining/describing something in 3 dimensions???

1 = 1 dimension
1x1 = 2 dimensions
1x1x1 = 3 dimensions

I'm changing your mode of abstraction from spacial to numerical.

Now let's converted it back to spacial.

Imagine a 1 spacial value. It's just a length. Like the length from your house to the mailbox. It's just an abstraction, and you use this kind of abstraction every day. Certainly, you don't imagine the length between you and your mailbox as a 3 dimensional or even 2 dimensional value, right? Imagine one side of a wall and how much paint you will need to cover that area. You wouldn't measure the paint in liters when painting, you would measure it in two dimensions.

Don't translate it concretely, because anything less than 3 dimensions is abstract.

8. The point is that, hypothetically, should a 1 or 2 dimensional object exist. Just for the sake of humor. That object would have no mass in our universe. It would not be visible or have any means of interacting with us in any way.

Logically, such a thing can not exist.

9. I don't think we know enough about the universe to call it. These objects might exist, they might not. I don't know if we know enough about mass to use it as a measure either.

Think about what we know and what we conclude in terms of how we know it. Mass is assumed to have a certain nature because we have grouped certain effects seen in a range of experiments. But the fundamental nature and source of gravity is still one of the biggest questions in science. If there is no way that something can ever be an exception to what we've seen in other experiments and yield a two dimensional object with mass, then it can probably be called impossible. Often this isn't the case, and it is more a case of "nothing within our current perception leads us to believe it is possible".

10. To the OP and possibly everyone else, go read Flatland. If you can't afford a few bucks for a copy, here it is for free.

Then, dish out a few more bucks to buy The Elegant Universe, which explains the progress of superstring theory, which involves looking into the possibility that there are many (~10) dimensions, packed ridiculously small, that make up the fabric of reality. It actually references Flatland to help explain a topic. Of course, string theory is still in being worked on and has its critics, but it puts our understanding of reality into question.

There is another flash video that also discussed the possibility of multiple dimensions, referring to dimensions I think most are more or less familiar with or ready to accept as plausible as it is a logical argument as opposed to one dependent upon mathematics (like Elegant Universe's). Interestingly enough, the video also references Flatland.

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.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO