Do We Live in a 10-Dimensional Hologram?

["couldbecousin"]

Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.

  I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone.  I am feeling my age and mortality! 

You just reminded me of wolfish.

   It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality.  A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
   walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me.  It actually made me feel better, to know
   that life will carry on.  I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
   I love the feeling of falling asleep.  My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife.  I guess we'll find out. 

[Jack]

Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.

  I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone.  I am feeling my age and mortality! 

You just reminded me of wolfish.

   It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality.  A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
   walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me.  It actually made me feel better, to know
   that life will carry on.  I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
   I love the feeling of falling asleep.  My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife.  I guess we'll find out. 

Don't really think about my own death. You reminded me of one time wolfish was concerned about being remembered after he is dead. Not sure if you worry about that, but I'll remember you when you're dead too.

["couldbecousin"]

Guess it could be. Try not to think about time too much; it's upsetting. The only time I know is now.

  I'm at the age of trying to imagine the world when I'm gone.  I am feeling my age and mortality! 

You just reminded me of wolfish.

   It's an odd feeling, this acceptance of mortality.  A few years ago, while waiting at a bus stop, I observed people
   walking around on the street and realized that many of them will outlive me.  It actually made me feel better, to know
   that life will carry on.  I tend to think death = the total end of existence, so maybe it will feel like going to sleep.
   I love the feeling of falling asleep.  My brother has bet me a dollar that there's an afterlife.  I guess we'll find out. 

Don't really think about my own death. You reminded me of one time wolfish was concerned about being remembered after he is dead. Not sure if you worry about that, but I'll remember you when you're dead too.

  And I'll remember you. 


  One reason for my thinking about this is that my brother has been going through old photos of our parents' families.
  Our parents married later in life and we never knew any grandparents and had very little extended family.
  Seeing all these pictures, I feel a sense of loss, that we never met these people.  Also, my brother has been de-hoarding
  the house, and seeing so many personal items that our parents will never use again, things we'll probably end up giving away
  or selling, I'm sad to think that their time has passed (Dad is still alive but very old and frail) and that so much of what
  they were, what they became, is gone, their belongings now just relics.  It's odd, and sad. 

[DirtDawg]

The Romans weren't into such nonsense. In Rome it was 1 o'clock when the sun rose, and 6 o'clock at noon, 12 o'clock when the sun set 

WTF is it with YOU and Rome these days?

The fall of  (TeH Greatness)  of Rome occurred well over a thousand and a half years ago.

::

Latine disco. Mannulus Romanus sum 

Use English or Spanish and we can discuss this.  The only Latin I know was picked up from investigation of science. I have NO conversational Latin to call upon.

If I "google" your response, I find inane bullshit as result. Please, tell me you are not just trying to be cool and posting inane bullshit.

[DirtDawg]

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

Maybe you can help.

I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you)  or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.

If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?

[odeon]

Research involving time tends to take the assumption that time allready is tangible

Actually, what happened is that time as a dimension turned out to be a useful concept in science. There is a difference between assuming and postulating.

'Two contrasting viewpoints on time divide many prominent philosophers. One view is that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe – a dimension independent of events, in which events occur in sequence. Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view, and hence it is sometimes referred to as Newtonian time.[20][21] The opposing view is that time does not refer to any kind of "container" that events and objects "move through", nor to any entity that "flows", but that it is instead part of a fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number) within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view, in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz[15] and Immanuel Kant,[22][23] holds that time is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor can it be travelled.'

It also is a matter of semantics... like I pointed out before. What names we give what we have around us, and whenever we give two names to one idea, or overlapping ideas.

It is very much a matter of semantics, but you're not using the right language and so your understanding of and your ability to explain what is around you suffers.

[odeon]

Vectors are dimensions, to me.

Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.

Vectors are dimensions.

[odeon]

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

Maybe you can help.

I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you)  or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.

If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?

I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.

It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.

[Jack]

Vectors are dimensions, to me.

Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.

Vectors are dimensions.

But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.

['andersom']

Vectors are dimensions, to me.

Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.

Vectors are dimensions.

But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.

With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.

[Jack]

Vectors are dimensions, to me.

Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.

Vectors are dimensions.

But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.

With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.

But without the numbers, time has no basis in reality. Well, not for me anyway. Tough topic.

['andersom']

Vectors are dimensions, to me.

Not are, in the literal sense, but a vector signifies a dimension to me.

Vectors are dimensions.

But time as a vector is represented by the three dimensions of space one already knows.

With vectors one can calculate in multiple dimensions at ease. It's the imagination that fails, not the numbers.

But without the numbers, time has no basis in reality. Well, not for me anyway. Tough topic.

Indeed.

[DirtDawg]

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

Maybe you can help.

I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you)  or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.

If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?

I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.

It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.

Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed. 

I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?

AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?

I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.

I expected a     face.

... But thank you.

I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.

Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.

I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event,"  each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.



 

[Jack]

spatial

This word was doing my head in this morning.

[odeon]

I also disagree with calling "time" a dimension.

In fact, I disagree with a lot of ideas about "time". People treat "time" like a tangible object, just because we gave it a name. "Travel in time" "Bending time" counting it as a dimension, which otherwis were just directional markers, when did time become a direction?
Then they just roll with it - and base tons of research ON the assumption that time is an object and a dimension and a place in some country, that we can travel to...

So, what would you label it instead? How would you characterise time?

What is a dimension, to you?

Time is whatever we name the difference between one physical event and another. Dimensions are directional cues.
It's all arbitrary.

Why don't you include "hope" as a dimension? Or "life"? Or gravity? Why is "time" special? Imho, "time" doesn't even deserve a name It is arbitrary, and it is a human trait to regard something as untangible as "time" as a real physical object "let's travel through time! Yes - right through it, as if it was a ginger-bread dough!"

There are some difficulties with including "hope" in an equation, not to mention the fact that it would make little sense trying to do so in the first place.

Time, however, is essential when attempting to describe the universe. It's not arbitrary and it has directionality.

All you need to study it is a simple watch and, um, some time and space. And if you have a very large object nearby, you can observe some truly amazing things. Not intangible at all.

Maybe you can help.

I am still confused as to whether Time more resembles a simple bipolar vector, its undeniable force traveling in opposite directions, all of existence along for the ride (only accounting for ONE dimension, mind you)  or is it actually more like an explosion of an infinite number of vectors radially expanding in every possibly direction, from every event susceptible to Time and intersecting randomly at every other event susceptible, along with all vectors being somewhat perturbed by all other events, some of which Time itself has not yet encountered.

If this were the actual state of time, an infinite number of vectors radiating from the first event, then perturbed by every other event, would it not account for some of the indefinably dis-ordinate properties of Dark Energy?

I believe most accepted models account for a single dimension, a single temporal property as opposed to several spatial properties.

It is an interesting idea to use several temporal properties in a model, but I don't think i's warranted, and I suspect the mathematics would be hairy, to say the least.

Hairy and harried mathematics, indeed. 

I think you might have meant several temporal properties as impossible to do more than surmise (since this one we can interpret seems to be the most we conceive of in our right minds). We already accept, for the most part, spatial properties to be "several" in our simplified view: at least three we can define and imagine, right?

AS you asked; What is a dimension? What properties do specific influences (or errors in the established math) pose which might lead one to accept that those errors in the math may represent an additional dimension?

I honestly did not expect a serious answer. I posed an impossible question that one might pose while every one is sitting around stoned, looking into a fire or something.

I expected a     face.

... But thank you.

I have been wondering about just how time works against matter (I do not mean rust, chaos, entropy or anti-entropy) and just how the space between is filled (it IS filled with something and something else that forces it against the rest of the somethings, we know this and can prove it.) for a long time.

Again, I do not have sufficient education to expect an actual answer from you. I am a layman.

I do have fun thinking though and an infinite set of vectors of time emanating from every "event,"  each vector on its own course, coursing through the matter which each time vector encounters, is altered by every event that follows, yet dragging every particle of matter along into a single future, just as long as another, stronger time vector does not capture that bit of matter for a while, until another even stronger time vector (strong could probably mean young in this context, since each vector is caused by an "Event") is one of the fun things I think about, however impossible it may be to quantify.



 

The problem with defining any multidimensional model beyond Euclidean space is that our ability to visualise it in our minds is limited, to say the least. It does not need to be a problem when writing the equations (although it is), but it is a huge problem when imagining such a model, since our brains require "common sense".

And common sense just isn't what you expect it to be, here.