Abstract Dimension

[wesmorris]

Okay, four spacial dimensions. Check. No problem. I contend that is another "real" dimension that we have absolute proof of as this conversation exists: The abstract.

How would one define "beauty" in spacial terms? I believe that thusly "abstract" is a self evident degree of freedom that seems to be additional to the four dimensions of space time.

Why am I wrong?

 

[SpyMoose]

I dont know, is there a dimetion of big? or a dimention of hot? I dont think just because our minds function on a subjective level nessesitated by the fact that we are only receiving input from our own subjective locations in the universe, that there has to be a whole different higher dimention just to explain the idea that we have abstract thought to try to help fill in gaps in the objective info that our subjective positions in the universe allow us to gather.

for that matter im not sure i really buy quantum physics or the whole higher lower parallell dimention thing either, but if i was more firmly convinced of it i would probably assert that there isnt realy any logical link that could make you link abstract thought and a fifth dimention.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by SpyMoose
I dont know, is there a dimetion of big? or a dimention of hot?

They are both concepts with exist abstractly as respresentations of a relationship in the objective world.

Originally posted by SpyMoose

I dont think just because our minds function on a subjective level nessesitated by the fact that we are only receiving input from our own subjective locations in the universe, that there has to be a whole different higher dimention just to explain the idea that we have abstract thought to try to help fill in gaps in the objective info that our subjective positions in the universe allow us to gather.

How else could it be done? If the abstract did not exist, then this conversation wouldn't be here and the point would be moot. I see evidence to the contrary. Maybe my logic is somehow circular. The inside of a clear balloon is difficult to see when you're inside it.

 

[AntonK]

I would argue it this way... for each of us, there are certain things which make something beautiful (for instance, I've read in a phsychology that they found that symmetry was a trait considering beautiful) and all of these things are describable with our four dimensions that we have. Each trait that you find beautiful can be broken down further and further until you are simply describing its 3 spatial dimensions and its 1 temporal dimension. We can use big as an even easier example (as SpyMoose) did: to me, big for something like a house may be more than 5,000 square feet. This is most definately a spatial definition.

Perhaps there is a flaw there...but its 3:37 here What do you think Wes?

-AntonK

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by AntonK
What do you think Wes?

-AntonK

Eh... I think it's late here too.. but that I have a really really hard time with this one. I haven't been able to get past it for years. Seems right to me. I'd been thinking about this kind of stuff you know... and it came to me (eh, 5 or 6 years ago) after reading some stuff about a chip that could change it's programming based on a string of zeros that you fed it. They'd give it a goal and keep evolving the algorithm to satisfy the goal. A comment in the article said that they set it to discern a tone. After putting it through the evolutionary cycle for a while, it started to work.. but the engineers could not figure out why.. and the algorithms could only work on a particular instance of the chip (the one it was developed on). At first I looked at it like "wow, there's subjectivity for you." but then I started thinking more about it and it started seeming like nature, through evolution.. exploits physics. The degrees of freedom are unknown to evolution... it meanders through them unconsciously.. chaotically (is that a word?) dancing through iterations of possibility, collapsing into reality. Could it be that nature stumbled upon the abstract with the incidental creation of mind?

So could it?

Shit man, it's late.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Dearprudence
Okay - what you're saying is that the "abstract" imposes itself on the logic of the ordinary? The abstract being an "alien" logic, another dimension?

Uhm.. NO.. I don't think so.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Dearprudence
Darn.

I'm saying that evolution is bounded only by the "laws" of the universe, which may or may not be broader than human understanding or imagination (of those laws). I theorize that maybe as we consider space-time to be fundamental in terms of universal dimensionality, is not the capacity to conceptualize an "inward" dimension? One without "physical" limitations. One where paradox isn't against the rules? It seems neccasary to me that in order to be able to think, thought has to be possible and though thoughts are reflective of space-time, they are fundamentally abstract in and of themselves and henceforth indicative of something that cannot be stated purely in terms of space-time.


hehe.

 

[whitewolf]

How ab thought as a purely physical action within the brain, between the nerves? Im not quite sure of how it happens in the brain though.
Beauty as something symmetrical? not necessarily, all depends on beholder. Cubists were interested in showing everything from different points of view simultaneously (all four dimensions, eh?), and what they came up with wasnt always symmetrical, but it was beautiful.
The abstraction is beautiful. I consider things that tap into my thoughts on the abstract and non-tangible to be most beautiful.

 

[whitewolf]

mmm, no, abstract means non-representational

 

[wesmorris]

I think of it like this: The act of perception is basically the first stage of abstraction, then it is filed in your head as a representation of something... thought is purely abstract. Maybe I'm not using the definition perfectly... but this is what I'm speaking to.

 

[ribot]

beauty, as i imagine it, is not a spatial dimension. u could of course logically divide reality into dimensions of beauty/ugliness. then space would be part of both those dimensions, and directions would not be the separators of dimensions.

can u for example take a 3d lamp, and remove its beauty, without changing any of the 3 space dimensions it has? or, can you take away the 3d object and still preserve the (space?) dimension of beauty? u could say yes, but then beauty would not be part of the scientific, rational view of 3d reality.

u could change the colour of a 3d lamp, and call colours the dimension of beauty, but that doesn't work, scientifically, rationally speaking. because isn't light explained as 3 dimensional vibration? u could call heat beauty, but heat is moving 3d particles. so heat and colours are "properties" of 4D spacetime.

then of course, as we percieve the world, both heat and colours are separate from 3d forms. but our subjective opinions (such as for example beauty), or even our whole perception, are not existing in spacetime, they are merely electrical impulses in our brain. it always makes me wonder, what is science based on if not rationalizing our perception, non-existing in the rationalization... DD

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

AHA!
BUSTED!
Who are you addding to your ignore list ribot?
*evil laugh*
I'm watching you buddy!

 

[ribot]

you can't add yourself to your own list... then i dunno what you're talkin about :*