Loopback from "One" to "Four" ? (imagery comp.)

Angleochoas

Angleochoas

Quantum Scribe
Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.)

I'm sure we'd all agree there are different types of expression, comphrehension, and combining the two on some levels; communication.
I'm having some basic stumbing blocks with QM when it comes to comphrehension, at least when imagining the geometrical shapes pertaining to the correct dimension outside of the 2nd & 3rd.
Bear with me here, I'll try to explain.
Everything moving forward, explained forward, as in normal fashion makes perfect sense.
However, even when imagining the shape of a 4th dimensional object - here classically it appears calculations are performed with outcomes in one direction even if the theories dictate otherwise.

Example;

1st dimension: a point
2nd dimension: length, width
3rd dimension: length, width, height
4th dimension: time

I don't have a problem with the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th. It's the 1st that is creating the problem for my expression.
Reasoning?
Well starting from "One" and moving forward to say, designate "Four" it makes sense.
As well in forward and reverse speculation; "One" to the "Three" designate makes sense forward and reverse.
However, when dealing with imagining "One" through "Four" designate, when going with reverse shape creation ((which the fourth is supposed to be all about, correct? forward being the same as backward, without differentiation (a symmetrical derivative) - the time variable changing perception));
basic understanding of the 1st falls through the floor for me.

Why?

Well:
(point) -> (length, width) -> (length, width, height) -> (time)

Reversed it seems that the 2nd designate of measurement should be - that there is no difference between the labelling of length or width; for without one, they become a single line.
Length without width, stays as length; a line.
Width without length, stays as width; a line.

So the loopback from designate "One" through designate "Four" mimicks the actual process of a "time line".
Hence lending to shape from "Two" through "Three", then the loopback from "Four" to "One" - All shape at once, lending back to the "line".

Almost like how "Length" or "Width" could be attributed metaphorically towards duality.
A wave could be said to be width moving forward, while a particle travels along a linear line.

I'm sorry if I'm not communicating that thought correctly it's mostly just the mind's eye.
If anyone could correct me here for imagery sake I'd be quite appreciative for it's helpful with imagining such things.

A point or a line?
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

A math maven would say that a "point" is zero dimensional, a line is one dimensional, a plane two dimensional, a solid three-dimensional, and the fourth dimension is open for speculation.

A commonly used analogy for the fourth dimension is that of a three-dimensional sphere expanding in size to represent the fourth dimension. So the fourth dimension, which can be taken as a time sequence is a sequence of scale expansions.

My own take is contained in a document you can download from Scribd. com/Great Void Which Is Unconditioned Fullness
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

So if zero is said not to exist, or be "in a state of not existing" - it's more or less a reference for the measurement?
There was a great question raised in that document you linked.
"What is a photon" - in terms of perception, speed, optics, etc.
Interesting digest, thanks. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

Angelo,

So if zero is said not to exist, or be "in a state of not existing" - it's more or less a reference for the measurement?
Click to expand...

A point, having zero dimension, does exist. It's a logical error to look at the situation as zero means "not to exist".

If you are defining an event on some 3D coordinate system you give the event an x,y,z coordinate (disregarding time in this example). If you give the point where the event occurs some dimensionality then the point is now smeared - the location of the event is indefinite because the definition of a point is incorrect. But the event does exist.
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

I understand what you are saying and see the logic of coordinate systems.
The oxymoron of my statement 'Loopback from "One" to "Four"'
Is that it should read 'Loopback from Four to One'
- I was trying to imagine a 4th dimensional sphere, and everything measurement wise made sense until the introduction of "dimension 0" having a residence between 1-4, or 4-1 however we look at it. Forward it did not stop transition - in reverse it was a different story.
Hard to explain.
When I look at a 3 dimensional object - I can see all of the dimensions that make that object tangible.
Same with an object of 1, and object of 2.
With speed, or motion, and the measurement being at the same time forward/reverse it just makes it a little harder to scope. Especially if there is no clear transition through all measurement.

An object of one dimension cannot have a third dimension obviously.
It is what it is.
Can an object of one or two dimensions have a 4th dimension without the third?
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

Can an object of one or two dimensions have a 4th dimension without the third?
Click to expand...

By definition, no. If the system is defined as having n dimensions then that's the system, as defined. No other dimensions exist.

First, you have to define the dimensions. Number labels for this or that dimension are arbitrary. A 4D hypercube has 4 spatial dimensions but a 5th dimension is implied for the system if the hypercube system evolves over "time", i.e. it changes shape, volume, moves relative to some other object in the defined system, etc.

But its easy to imagine a 1-D system as being a line. It has length but no breadth or depth. Zero dimension is a dimensionless point. But when you add another dimension, making a 2D system, you have to define each dimension. A 2D system could be a plane that is forever static, thus no time dimension. No problem. We can visualize it. Take it to a 3D spatial volume that is changeless and theres still no problem. You can visualize a three dimensional system that never changes. But we have no ability to actually visualize even a static, timeless, 4D hypercube. Sorry, but our brains are not able to visualize such a system. Our math can define and analyze such a system and the results of the math would be consistent...even if we add a 5th time dimension. But we still can't actually and acurately visualize such a system.
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

An object of one dimension cannot have a third dimension obviously.
It is what it is.
Can an object of one or two dimensions have a 4th dimension without the third?
Click to expand...

If the fourth dimension is "time" it might be considered a line or plane that was extended in time.

But there are other factors. English philosopher Samuel Alexander tried to reduce all phenomena down to motion.

After all, except for mental abstractions it hard to say what we are talking about concretelywhen we speak of a line of infinite length (there's good reason to believe there are no infinite lengths or 'straight' lies for that matter.

But if they are abstract they are not necessarily concrete. Hence, exactly what are we talking about?

But with motion it may be a little easier.
 
Re: Loopback from \"One\" to \"Four\" ? (imagery comp.

The compass analogy was probably a bit vague.
I was referring to the function the poles have on magnetics, and the ability to use that as navigation/reference.
Outside of our atmosphere/poles, could the same be done in the varying fields?
(Hence 4th D. compass because of the shape of a combined sphere).
 
Back
Top