The Paradox

For realsies? In what way?

 

Riemannian Geometry is perfectly valid when you factor in gravitational curvature of spacetime. What you perceive to be a perfect triangle may not be what it seems.

Yet as a concept, yes, a triangle is a two dimensional shape with inner angles equal to 180 degrees.

 

I understand your point; but what I was saying was that the addition of higher dimensions means shit-all for some things, and merely refines others.

Generally, things that are confined to a certain number of dimensions aren't affected when we discover further dimensions, so not all of our understanding of these things breaks down, and the parts that seem to are either later amended by further discoveries or are proven wrong.

But the idea is that as we only observe a three dimensional reality, and move through the fourth dimension linearly, the lines seem straight; which to us, is the equivalent of being straight. So when the lines are straight... blah, blah, blah... properties of a triangle... [fancy geometric bullshit]... etc.

So ytzk's example would give a two dimensional triangle for a two dimensional being, as it wouldn't be able to observe the third dimension; and a fourth dimensional shape would appear three dimensional to us.

 

It's not that the four-dimensional shape would appear to be three dimensional; all we can see of four-dimensional shapes are their shadows, which are three-dimensional objects. As for the fifth dimension, any point in such a field would be the time-inverse of a four-dimensional point, so the fifth dimension is the realm of all possible futures.

 

... in the sense that the plain would seem flat.

... as we can't observe the fourth dimension. So it would appear three dimensional; but not as an object neglecting that dimension. So, yes, as a type '3D shadow' of the object; but not turning it into a simple three dimensional shape, as the shadow of a sphere that appears as a circle.

 

Forgive me, as I thought I actually had something to say.

 

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMMKceXeExY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jMMKceXeExY?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

The shadow of a shadow...quite trippy.

 

So what created the world that Zanza Observed?

 

Bob Dole.

 

I already told you, it was you. If you're observing it, it's the world according to you.

 

Could it be what I said earlier? That things exist, but not as we see them, until we observe them. So something is there, but it doesn't taste, feel, smell, sound, or appear as it does to you while it's not being observed; so it's more an interpretation than a creation.

As for solipsism, I agreed with Descartes up to that point; but from his third meditation onwards, it's just downhill.

 

Not having any knowledge of solipsism until you mentioned it, no.
All experience relies on an observer, be that observer you or someone else. We can't enter another's mind and experience their lives, so how are we to say what they see?

 

But are there real things that we observe and real things that we don't? If two people experience some object in contrasting ways, are they both right, both wrong, or is one right and the other's wrong? Do things have an objective reality, even if we don't experience it?

 

Truth is objective, perceiving truth is subjective.

If I was one to place quotes in my signatures, that one would be there. Beautiful.

 

What created me?

 

That's what I would've said before all this quantum mechanics talk; but now I'm not sure what I think...