Some Physics/Geometry I Assume In My Designer Speculations

David Sklansky · #1 03-13-2007, 04:07 PM

Perhaps some of my ideas would make more sense if people realized that I'm going under the assumption that the following things are basically true and/or reasonably possible. I will not state them in a rigorous manner because I don't know how to do that. I don't want physicists or mathmeticians to nitpick but I want any serious flaw to be pointed out.

1. If you live on a two dimensional surface that is curved or embedded in three (or more) dimensions, it is possible to move in a "straight line" and arrive back where you started from. Surface of the Earth being an obvious example.

2. If you live in a three dimensional space that is curved in four (or more dimensions) it is possible to move in a "straight line" and arrive back where you started from. It is my understanding that our own universe might be an example. Go straight up for a several billion light years and you hit China.

3. The first two comments can be extended to any dimension.

4. While we don't know if there are univeses or places of higher dimensions then ours, the theoretical concept is not a vague one. Mathemeticians can describe higher dimensional objects and their relationship to each other in very precise ways. They can tell you the exact "volume" of a sixth dimensional cube for instance.

5. A being in a higher dimension, for obvious geometrical reasons, can play around, fiddle, create, etc. in lower dimensional places in ways that would make him look supernatural and maybe even omnipotent to beings in the lower dimension. The two vs three dimensional example is described in Flatland by Edwin Abbott. (Although it describes a two dimensional universe that may be logically impossible.)

6. Time is thought to be a dimension.

7. If you live in a place where time is one of the dimensions and it is embedded in a place of even more dimensions, then it is conceivable that moving in a "straight line" timewise gets you back to where you started. So there is no beginning or end.

8. If you lived in that universe above, you could create a lesser dimensional universe. Including one where time did have a beginning.

Borodog · #2 03-13-2007, 04:11 PM

David,

Please create for me a 2 dimensional universe.

David Sklansky · #3 03-13-2007, 04:19 PM

How bout Conway's game of Life on the computer? I get your point that the creation part wouldn't be that easy. But the interfering, once it was created, sure would be. I could give everyone an appedectomy without making an incision.

However I don't see how I could give them consciousness. And without that explanation you can't get rid of Not Ready.

Edit: I just thought of a better reply. The reason three dimensional beings can't easily create two dimensional universes is likely because they are logically impossible. In other words I should and will amend my OP to state that if such universes can exist then higher dimensional beings should have little trouble building them.

chezlaw · #4 03-13-2007, 04:22 PM

I find it so much easier to think about this in a computer simulation way i.e our universe could be a program running on a computer type thing somewhere.

Is there anything important to your argument that would be different?

chez

David Sklansky · #5 03-13-2007, 04:26 PM

No. In fact I just used the idea to deal with that pesky Borodog.

Metric · #6 03-13-2007, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
However I don't see how I could give them consciousness.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only because you don't understand consciousness adequately in any number of dimensions or in any universe. However, it is possible that the greatly enhanced, post-singularity David Sklansky of the year 2300 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] will understand consciousness just fine, in which case there should be no fundamental barrier to your giving consciousness to your creations.

Borodog · #7 03-13-2007, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
How bout Conway's game of Life on the computer? I get your point that the creation part wouldn't be that easy. But the interfering, once it was created, sure would be. I could give everyone an appedectomy without making an incision.

However I don't see how I could give them consciousness. And without that explanation you can't get rid of Not Ready.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consciousness is almost certainly impossible in less than 3 dimensions, but that's neither here nor there.

My point was that you cannot actually create a 2 dimensional universe; it will by necessity be 3 dimensional. But I see your point about simulating a 2 dimensional universe on a 3 dimensional machine. In this view our universe might be a "virtual machine" that runs on higher dimensional hardware.

I still don't see what it gets you, though. That's obviously less parsimonious than it simply being a 3 dimensional non-virtual machine.

David Sklansky · #8 03-13-2007, 04:42 PM

Forget two dimensions. Or a designer for the moment. Was my math and physics generally accurate?

chezlaw · #9 03-13-2007, 04:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No. In fact I just used the idea to deal with that pesky Borodog.

[/ QUOTE ]
goodo.

Maybe its mainly me but I find the cutting edge physics bit intimidating and making the point without it gets my vote.

chez

Borodog · #10 03-13-2007, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Forget two dimensions. Or a designer for the moment. Was my math and physics generally accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no way of knowing. I can't very well comment on the likelihood of unobservable higher dimensions, can I? The only theories that coherently postulate higher dimensions are apparently non-falsifiable.