Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

This is actually false.


Mathematically there are infinite 2 dimensional planes inside a 3 dimensional cube. As such, from the perspective of a single 2 dimensional plane a 3 dimensional object would coexist everywhere on that plane. Thus a higher dimensional object exhibits attributes of omnipresence relative to the lower dimensional object.


It gets better. Suppose the two dimensional plane is wrapped around a 3 dimensional object. Relative to the 2D perspective the entire plane of existence is 'contained' within a subset of the 3 dimensional object.


That is to say. God is not a subset of the universe...rather the universe (4D time-space) may be a subset of God.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft,
A quick thought experiment for you:

What if some being was made up of particles small enough to fit into these wound up dimensions. Could you percieve them? Maybe, maybe not.

Could they percieve us? Absolutely. In essence, they would have more degrees of freedom (dimensionality) than we would.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dr S

Cute...but no banana.

Each of examples requires the higher dimensional whatever not to be somewhere.
The 3D object is not passing through the 2D one, which is "contained."

In Craigslist under Diety the job requirements are that you be omni-present, which means being everywhere, not just next to everywhere and certainly not contained.

It's very much like the apologeticist arguement that to know that there was no god you, yourself, would have to be everywhere. That isn't true because the god himself has to be everywhere. All you have to be is somewhere and notice that there are no gods hanging around. Because if a god isn't somewhere then it isn't everywhere. Everywhere is the sum of all the somewheres.

daemon

Actually, I'd stop you right here. The sheet of paper--and anything perceivable on it--is three-dimensional, not two. I don't know that we can say we could observe lower dimensional things as everything we can observe is the result of the interaction of three-dimensional particles.

Given this, I don't know that we can extrapolate that a higher-dimensional being could even perceive us.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dr. S
Um...???


You are saying that a 3D object DOES NOT contain a 2D plane.

You are also saying that for a 2D plane to pass through a 3D object...that 3D object must not be 'somewhere'.


???

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Dr S

I was saying that? I thought you were when you said "Suppose the two dimensional plane is wrapped around a 3 dimensional object. Relative to the 2D perspective the entire plane of existence is 'contained' within a subset of the 3 dimensional object."

Wrapped around is not passing through. If it's passing through then it's perceptible and the story is supposed to explain how something can be here by not perceiveable at the same time.

But still the worst part of this argument is if you explain why no one else can get info on this pan-dimensional god you still have to explain how you do.

Everyday non-sci fi Xians who claim that their god can't be seen by science and must be perceived spiritually (read by imagination) get themselves laughed at for their silliness

Philosoft

Either way, we would be discussing something other than string theory or M-theory. You can't have it both ways. What you want is simply an unobservable "hiding place" for your God without any of the extra-dimensional consequences. The only way God fits into extra mathematical string theory dimensions is if he's a planck-length string, or a brane of some kind.

<strong> Your 10-dimensional planck-length God can perceive us all he wants. If he is really a 10-dimensional being, he's going to be hard-pressed to be omnipresent in the multi-dimensional string universe. In any case, I suspect you think you can just postulate a physical being that spends most of his time in the 7th dimension but who occasionally pops in to the first three to wreak havoc, I mean perform miracles. Sorry, string theory is a fully mathematical construct, if incomplete. You'll have to come up with the calculations before your "thought experiments" open anyone's mind.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

RogerLeeCooke

Well, creatures in a lower-dimensional world would be able to perceive a higher-dimensional object if it intersected their dimension. The question is, how would they interpret it? The only thing they could perceive would be the intersection, and, quâ intersection, it would be a natural object in their world. So, the higher-dimensional object would still be unknowable, unless it was agreed in advance what "natural" objects count as the intersections of nature with a higher transcendent reality.

In resolving that question you pays your money and you takes your chances. It amounts to defining your first principles of epistemolobgy so as to allow a god. But the properties that god will have are very flexible. What kind of god do you want?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

I meant literally wrapped around. For example, place a circular piece of paper on a basketball. This is an example of a 2 dimensional plane wrapped around a 3 dimensional object.

The 3D object contains this 2D 'plane'. It in fact contains infinite 2D planes.


SOMMS

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

First...we need not talk about God. We could talk about ANY object made completely of Plank length particles.

For example. Start with a single Plank-length particle. Since it 'fits' within the curvature of the wound up dimensions it can move and have momentum in these dimensions. That is relative to our tiny particle this higher dimension is in fact not wound up at all. Notice that this particle can also move in our 3 dimensions. So it has a another degree of freedom than a particle that can only fit in our 3 'loosely wound' dimensions has.

Now consider a molecule made up of such a tiny particle. Since it instantiated by particles that fit into these higher dimensions...it also has degrees of freedom in these higher dimensions.

It is especially incorrect to say that this object would not be perceivable or could not interact with lower dimensional constructs. However, it would be accurate to say that if this object did not intersect with the plane of the lower dimensional object then the lower dimensional object would never be aware of it.




Unfortunately...I'm going to have to kung fu your ass with some math here Philosoft. I promise to be gentle.


Here is an equation for a 2D plane in 3 space:
z = 1

Suppose we define an object in 3 space to be this plane. Relative to coordinates within this plane...is this object 'present' at the coordinates x=4 y=3? Yep.
How about x=2 y=123? Yep.
How about x=50321 y=2.3443? Yep.
How about any x and y? Yep.

For ANY x and y you chose (in the z=1 plane) this object exists. Relative to the 2 dimensional perspective within the plane this object is 'omnipresent'...everywhere at once.

This is an example of how a higher dimensional construct can seem 'omnipresent' to a lower dimensional construct.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas