..Not in the least bit Pynchonic -- space

[Henry M]

Thinking of Flatland: A Romance  (not Jules Siegel's Lineland),
http://amzn.to/AeB0Kw, always reminds me of the artificiality of our
enumeration of dimensions, and now that I'm in the process of reading
Robert Anton Wilsons "Quantum Psychology," http://amzn.to/z08O1M, I
feel that I have a better foundation for that understanding.

On 2/6/12, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>   Hard to know if there is a point in  trying to explain myself, but
> essentially 2d space has no more correspondence to anything real in my
> experience than trying to imagine 5 or more dimensions. 2D is purely an
> imaginary mathematical construct and outmoded geometry. It is very useful in
> building, designing, art, etc, but trying to think of a Euclidean plane as
> an actual dimension in and of itself is an exercise in futility.To the
> degree to which planes do exist, they are curved. A plane is a symbol, a
> tool of the imagination.Thinking that our actual spatial experience is an
> expansion of this imaginary dimension seems a bad starting point for
> imagining more real "dimensions"in the knowable universe.  The fact that
> something can be expressed mathematically is no proof that there is a
> corresponding reality in the universe .  Mathematical speculation is
> accepted on experimental test. And even when they prove useful,  the
> mathematical formulas we use are a  language and not the thing itself. Does
> nature use pi to blow a bubble or make a moon or is a simpler efficiency at
> work with no exact rational value? Even the word dimension is a metaphor.
> One can equally think of  space-time as a unified dimension.
> My question to the professor was both sincere and valid. I knew from the
> syllabus that we would be talking about other spatial / conceptual
> dimensions  and found the flatland story flat-footed and truly
> disappointing.  You cannot communicate  a useful model for expanding your
> conceptual framework by starting with an invalid description of space. The
> Eulclidean universe is long gone and its explanatory power is limited by its
> lack of correspondence to what is known and unknown about space, time ,
> gravity, light, electromagnetic fields and quantum relations. I understand
> these things only very crudely but see no value in trying to replace
> complexity with pablum. I guess I was quite alone in these feelings and
> questions , or at least none of the P-listers thus far understand or relate
> to my questions.  So be it.
>
>
>
> I think it quite probable that dimensions not fully covered by  our current
> models are most likely to be found in the arena of
> communication/transmission of information and the encoding or storage of
> information/wisdom, rather than by trying to use maths to add spatial
> dimensions. Physicists still don't understand the phenomenon of quantum
> entanglement whereby electrons appear to affect each other instantaneously
> over long distances. The mechanism or explanation of this mirroring
> communication remains unresolved.  At the end of his life Einstein was
> asking what is an electron. He never reconciled the wave and particle
> aspects of light.
>
>
> "What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and
> variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen
> (appearances)." I. Schroedinger
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, February 3, 2012, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I once tried to explain to a physics professor trying to "help" us
>>>>>>> imagine extra dimensions that his use of a transition from 2 D space
>>>>>>> to 3D space was not helpful
>>>>>>> to me because the concept of 2D space was  more of a journey away
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> reality/experience/known perceptual frameworks than the concept of a
>>>>>>> 5
>>>>>>> dimensional matrix.   Does anyone else find this schematic of
>>>>>>> explanation
>>>>>>> tiresome and ridiculous.
>
> How about simply unhelpful?  The challenge of imagining other dimensions of
> space is truly daunting. But reducing the number of "dimensions"  and then
> imagining what one would "see" in 2D space is bogus. what would an eye be in
> 2D, what would light be? How does anything change here without time.  And is
> there anywhere outside of geometric theory where there can be only 2
> dimensions? In verifiable experience, geometry  has only ever taken place in
> the life of 3D humans living in time .
>>>>>>> First, it isn't as though the universe started as
>>>>>>> an expansion of Euclidean geometry,  second, it all presupposes
>>>>>>> motionless
>>>>>>> points in motionless space
>
> but everything in this universe is moving and as fas as we can tell
> expanding..
>>>>>>>  and generally imaginary things that don't act
>>>>>>> like real things, and 3rd it's all very chicken and eggy: what is the
>>>>>>> meaning of a point or singularity or one dimensionality without a
>>>>>>> larger
>>>>>>> dimensional conceptual framework?
>
> In the big bang theory there is no dimensional middle step  (that I have
> ever heard of)  between the singularity and spacetime. There are also other
> ideas about cosmology. I
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what I would like to do is a nice natural-language exposition bu?.
>>>>>>>> frankly I'm not up to it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There was a fellow named Monty who used to show up here once in
>>>>>>>> awhile
>>>>>>>> who surely could, and I bet Dave Monroe could if he wanted to.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can tell you what your question makes me think:
>>>>>>>> a) projective geometry (which figures in Pynchon, of course, with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> eigenvalues) - when you look at a diagram of 3-dimensional space the
>>>>>>>> diagram is flat, but if it's cunningly wrought it gives a sense of
>>>>>>>> depth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> b) when you look at a diagram of the bowling balls on the plastic
>>>>>>>> sheets representing gravitation, that artist has abandoned the quest
>>>>>>>> for that particular illusion in favor of showing an illusion of the
>>>>>>>> gravitational effect on a space which is represented as a plane
>>>>>>>> although it really has at least one more dimension than that!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> c) and of course the diagram is limited in size whereas space
>>>>>>>> itself,
>>>>>>>> as Douglas Adams said, is actually really really big
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> d) the other part of your question, about the orbits and all, is
>>>>>>>> something I too wish I had a feel for.  I think it would be a matter
>>>>>>>> of doing the chapter questions in a good astronomy text and
>>>>>>>> preferably
>>>>>>>> also talking extensively (and by talking, I mean listening)
>>>>>>>> w/somebody
>>>>>>>> who knows it really well...
>>>>>>>> like, right now, I have a pretty good feel for where I am in local
>>>>>>>> space, but almost none for my position and velocity in a larger
>>>>>>>> cosmic
>>>>>>>> framework...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bled Welder wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I suppose I could go onto a science-l whatever, but that sounds
>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> hassle and you people seem to might be able to answer this question
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> bugs me: okay getting beyond the thing that Einstein was wrong,
>>>>>>>>> it'll be
>>>>>>>>> happening any day now, what is space?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More specifickly, whenever I see examples of it, space is on a flat
>>>>>>>>> plane,
>>>>>>>>> then objects do their little push into the "fabric" of it --and
>>>>>>>>> case!
>>>>>>>>> everything is on the same frikkin plane.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is everything on the same frikkin plane, indenting?  I don't even
>>>>>>>>> know if
>>>>>>>>> the Moon circles on the same plane as Earth does the sun.  Are all
>>>>>>>>> planets
>>>>>>>>> in the same orbital format?  You know what I mean here?      b
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the
>> trust in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments
>> of darkness groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates
>> than the simplest urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>
>


-- 

AsB4,
٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
Henry Mu
http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20