What is commonly accepted as "the first dimension" is a logical impossibility - and before you jump on me with the retort of "we know it doesn't exist in the real world, it is a useful theoretical concept" - I want to say that I am not arguing that it doesn't exist in the real world. That we can all agree on I'm sure. What I'm arguing is that it doesn't even exist in the theoretical world!
In essence the theory of the first dimension attempts to differentiate something which is indivisible. In other words it's giving two names to the same thing in a different form.
Let me explain.
A one-dimensional object is described as having only length with no width or depth. But length can only be created by stacking objects of width on top of each other. And this can just as easily be looked at the opposite way, that width can only be created by setting objects of length next to each other. And though it is obvious to point out, the designation of any object's length or width is interchangeable. It is only convention that we associate length with vertical and width with horizontal.
To fix this logical impossibility all we would have to do is define a point as "infinitely small" instead of "undefined". And from there define a theoretical length's width as "made up of string of an infinite amount of infinitely small points in succession".
From this new defining of the dimensions we see that they are all inextricably connected to one another and are only permutations of the same essence. So there are no truly discrete dimensions, for every dimension must have at least an infinitely small kernel of all of the other dimensions in order to be a sound theoretical concept.
In essence the theory of the first dimension attempts to differentiate something which is indivisible. In other words it's giving two names to the same thing in a different form.
Let me explain.
A one-dimensional object is described as having only length with no width or depth. But length can only be created by stacking objects of width on top of each other. And this can just as easily be looked at the opposite way, that width can only be created by setting objects of length next to each other. And though it is obvious to point out, the designation of any object's length or width is interchangeable. It is only convention that we associate length with vertical and width with horizontal.
To fix this logical impossibility all we would have to do is define a point as "infinitely small" instead of "undefined". And from there define a theoretical length's width as "made up of string of an infinite amount of infinitely small points in succession".
From this new defining of the dimensions we see that they are all inextricably connected to one another and are only permutations of the same essence. So there are no truly discrete dimensions, for every dimension must have at least an infinitely small kernel of all of the other dimensions in order to be a sound theoretical concept.