Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

You have free will my sons just not the power to accurately use it so as to control the fate of the universe.

At 3/16/09 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote:

But, anyhow, this has little to do with God or Religion.

In many ways it does.
If there is no free will, then what does it mean to be good or evil? To be righteous? To follow "the path"? What of Karma? What's the point of a set of rules to live by when you don't even choose what you do anyway?

How can one be damned to hell if they didn't have a choice all along?

The people who wrote religious texts believed in free will because they didn't know about things like atoms, gravity, quantum physics and so on...

Anyway in case you missed it, the "is there free will" question goes all the way down to the atomic level. We are made of atoms which were set in motion billions of years ago and have no broken laws of physics since the moment they were made. All the particles that compose you and everything around you obey blindly to the rules of the universe and react accordingly to something that started before anyone ever existed.

So how CAN we have free will?
But more interestingly: why does it seem like we do?

Just more mysteries of the universe. I'd laugh at anyone who claims they have the answer.

Atheists still claim to know something if I'm not mistaken. So do scientists.

So does everyone.

At 3/16/09 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Everyone uses it to accomplish everything, so I fail to see your point.

A philosophical stance on free will generally has very little to do with decision making. The more common usage is a matter of empowerment on a strictly case-by-case basis.

Or are you really saying that every time I open a door I ask myself whether I believe in free will or not?

Any variable you change has the ability to change every variable. If someone is the kind of person who tends towards pessisimism, the belief that there is only one way through life could either doom that person to depression or lift them out of it, depending on their characteristics.

This is a stretch. By this logic, whether or not I ate a lollipop in first grade has 'everything to do' with my eating a ham sandwich yesterday. And we're back to a theory as relatively useless as determinism and only applicable in retrospect.

I'm talking about decision making.

Besides. Why stop at some philosophical judgement a person made about free will? Why not trace it back to the dinosaurs. Better yet. Why not trace it back to the beginning of time. Only then I'd have a satisfactory answer for you right? You have to draw a line somewhere, and when judging a decision being made now, it doesn't do much to look at a decision that lead to a decision that lead to a decision if you've already identified the trend in them (the trend being a belief that there is or isn't free will).

It effectively changes one variable per decision, if even.

But, anyhow, this has little to do with God or Religion.

Free will is a prerequisite for morality.

My point was simply that god and religion aren't the problem with the world, people are and their ability to make things up to suite their causes.

The ethereal seems much better equipped to allow this kind of manipulation.

How we do things affects everyone and everything. What we believe is extremely important, but a belief in God is rarely a problem without other problems in the persons belief system.

Belief in anything isn't a problem without self-interest. That's why... 'people are the problem.'

At 3/16/09 01:13 PM, Victory wrote: Free will doesn't exist. Every cause has an effect. Each domino falls at the touch of the last domino, which will again push the next domino over.

And this is a great example of why determinism doesn't work so well, regardless of whether its true or not.

You say "taking into account every possible variable." And then you specify only two... ok well four.

You more or less said, "if you've concluded that you're going to kill the person, you're going to kill the person". And then inserted that the conclusion is determined with a vague reference to every domino that came before it. Now I know this is a casual forum, but you could write books on this one decision and still not have every variable or a way to prove whatever variables you've assumed are active in the chain reaction.

Decision making requires a weighing of variables by the individual, even if it's artifice. Saying it all works out in retrospect isn't enough when free will or action in general is about prospect. Saying it all works out in retrospect isn't enough when you don't have the information that actually supports it.

I still effectively choose, even if it's determined.

At 3/16/09 11:57 AM, poxpower wrote: In many ways it does.
If there is no free will, then what does it mean to be good or evil? To be righteous? To follow "the path"? What of Karma? What's the point of a set of rules to live by when you don't even choose what you do anyway?

How can one be damned to hell if they didn't have a choice all along?

Calvinists believe that everyone is predestined from the moment they are born, yet they remain religious. The point for them, it would appear, is that even though they are essentially doomed to one existence that God knows about, fate doesn't eradicate their responsibilities.

So, no, I don't believe free choice is essential to religion. Because regardless of whether our fates are determined we still are ultimately making the decisions, we just wouldn't have made them any other way.

A man is standing on railroad tracks for some unknown reason. A train is coming towards him. Regardless of the fact that the man will get off of the tracks or stay on the tracks from the very moment he stepped onto the tracks, the chemical reaction known as choice must occur. His mind must physically alter itself in order to make the rest of the body move. The mind was going to do it all along, but if the man thought that he had lost all control to his fate he might just stand there and let the train hit him.

You seem to be confusing predestination and a lack of free will as the same thing. I believe you ultimately do make your choices and they matter, but that you'd only ever do it one way. I'm sorry if that seems paradoxical, but I believe it is the most correct you can be in a system that doesn't care if you are correct or not.

The people who wrote religious texts believed in free will because they didn't know about things like atoms, gravity, quantum physics and so on...

They believed in free will because they believed they always had a choice in what they did. Many scientists still believe in free will and believe its an intrinsic part of quantum states. That's why people who study physics speak in probabilities and not certainties.

Anyway in case you missed it, the "is there free will" question goes all the way down to the atomic level. We are made of atoms which were set in motion billions of years ago and have no broken laws of physics since the moment they were made. All the particles that compose you and everything around you obey blindly to the rules of the universe and react accordingly to something that started before anyone ever existed.

Until physics can answer the big WHY all we can do is observe that these rules appear to be true.

So how CAN we have free will?
But more interestingly: why does it seem like we do?

Just more mysteries of the universe. I'd laugh at anyone who claims they have the answer.

I'd laugh at anyone who missed the importance choice and could not distinguish between choices and free will. Free will is just another set of words for what we do. We make decisions and it rarely matters if they are predetermined. Until the day we can forecast our lives, you won't care.

At 3/16/09 01:01 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 3/16/09 06:44 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Everyone uses it to accomplish everything, so I fail to see your point.

A philosophical stance on free will generally has very little to do with decision making. The more common usage is a matter of empowerment on a strictly case-by-case basis.

I was speaking in that sentence to the fact that we are meaning makers, creators of ideas, and that the idea of free will matters as much as any other idea. I was not speaking directly to the importance of specifically free will, but for our ability to even think, rationalize, and acknowledge that we have choice and can see more than one path of action.

Or are you really saying that every time I open a door I ask myself whether I believe in free will or not?

Absolutely not, you've already subconsciously come up with an answer to the question. That's like saying, "hmmm, food might give me energy if I put in my mouth" every time you hold an empty fork. Or maybe more to the point, "Do I exist?" upon waking every morning.

This is a stretch. By this logic, whether or not I ate a lollipop in first grade has 'everything to do' with my eating a ham sandwich yesterday. And we're back to a theory as relatively useless as determinism and only applicable in retrospect.

That lollipop probably changed your entire future. Whether you acknowledge it doesn't matter. The theory isn't useless if you acknowledge and accept it and then realize that letting yourself be held down by such an idea is a useless venture. Where it is useful is dealing with other people and acknowledging that maybe the reason they don't like you is because something in their past taught them not to. You could worry about lollipop's or you could worry about physical abuse. Its your pick, each has an effect, some are more drastic than others.

Do you have a favorite food from your childhood? Would you ever seek to have it again in the future? Then having it mattered and to argue otherwise is to ignore who you are.

I'm talking about decision making.

As am I. You can make them, that doesn't mean you would have ever done anything else. It also doesn't mean the fact that you made that decision doesn't matter. You making that decision changes your surroundings.

Reality is the thing that keeps hitting you in the face regardless of your beliefs. You have fists. Use them occasionally. Put your reality in someone else's, metaphorically, if you abhor violence. You moving matters entirely to the shape of this world, but that doesn't mean you are unpredictable or that you would do anything different than you did. Nor is it a reason to despair or hope. YOU ARE YOU. You think therefor you are. You make decisions there for you cause. Cause to effect. This to that. Then to now to the future.

You acknowledge the past because it is integral to who you are. You make decisions in the present to survive and force your will on the world. And in the future maybe the world will be more to your liking. Such is life. You have an effect. Its predetermined. It still matters.

Besides. Why stop at some philosophical judgement a person made about free will? Why not trace it back to the dinosaurs. Better yet. Why not trace it back to the beginning of time. Only then I'd have a satisfactory answer for you right? You have to draw a line somewhere, and when judging a decision being made now, it doesn't do much to look at a decision that lead to a decision that lead to a decision if you've already identified the trend in them (the trend being a belief that there is or isn't free will).

Hogwash. You're missing the point because you don't want to be readable.

It effectively changes one variable per decision, if even.

I punch a baby. This has ramifications on it and its mother and their relationship together. I've changed their entire world and belief system with a single action. One variable changing many. I will admit that a variable could effect nothing. You in outer space without an oxygen mask and pressurized suit means you are dead regardless of how long you practiced holding your breath as a kid in the pool. But that doesn't mean under other circumstances that variable wouldn't affect and change a million others.

Choose the limited cases as you wish and ignore the truth. Your decision to make, your choice.

Free will is a prerequisite for morality.

I'm not sure about that. But then, I'm not sure morality is as defined as people who harp on it would like it to be, so maybe in your world it is. Morality seems to me to be a sort of guiding set of principles humanity has invented for itself that all derive from the golden rule. Treat you as I treat myself and we'll all be happier. Respect space, property, and autonomy. You don't need free will to do these things. You could be 'destined' to do them.

I fail to see in any of your arguments how predestination removes mankind's ability to reason, form ideas, believe, and act as the individual or group chooses.

At 3/15/09 11:29 PM, poxpower wrote: So free will? Unlikely.
Or more accurately: does it really matter?

Could it be possible free will has levels of severity in every single action and occurrence we all make in society?

For example, let's say I'm a computer technician. I need to go to work to earn money to make a living. I had chose to study computers because I like them. But I'm also educated in plumbing. So I can leave my job and apply for work elsewhere if it interests me. But I still need to make a living and there may not be many jobs going.

So it's a kind've mish mash between ever changing variables and options in your certain circumstance.

At 3/16/09 02:15 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Because regardless of whether our fates are determined we still are ultimately making the decisions, we just wouldn't have made them any other way.

Well if you can't say that a rock decided to get thrown, how can you pretend to say that what YOU decide is a real decision?

You seem to be confusing predestination and a lack of free will as the same thing.

If all your choices are determined before you make them, you have no free will.
That's by definition.

At 3/16/09 01:13 PM, Victory wrote:
When you step back and analyse the scene - taking into account every possible variable - you will see that it couldn't of played out any other way than the way in which it did. If you don't like RubberTrucky and your sense of mind is telling you that pulling the trigger is the correct thing to do (with your state of mind having been influenced by everything else that ever touched your life prior to the event) then you will indeed pull the trigger. If you think any other way, such as your morality or sense of justice or your feelings towards RubberTrucky changing, then the scene will play out differently.

Free will doesn't exist. Every cause has an effect. Each domino falls at the touch of the last domino, which will again push the next domino over.

It goes deeper than that. At an atomic level of thinking, whether he shoots me is entirely up to stochastic. Sense of justice, if pulling the trigger is the right thing to do,... They all don't matter. He might as well be flipping a coin and shoot me according to the outcome.

That's one of the reasons why I find it hard to actually get along with the theory that life has no reason. Sure, maybe not a big humanitarian one where we all build the realm of God, but on a biological level we want to stay alive.
But then again, the same situation holds as in the case where one claims we aren't actually alive, but we are hooked on a computer. Everything our gut tells us, the way we feel about things and judge things, may have been programmed as a result of action/reaction on a molecular level. Maybe I want to hide if he pulls a gun only because a gun has some kind of magnetic repulsion effect. It feels really counter-intuitive, but this can be only because our intuition is a program implemented in our molecular data.

On the Tesla quote, does it contradicts or enhances my statement about math? I didn't quite get that. Math on itself is the abstract study of cause/consequence. one takes some initial conditions and than he studies what happens to the system. But things become shifty when a person tries to model a system and translate real conditions to mathematical conditions. This is difficult, often, and the results are often only approximately correct. This is why you should be careful when lifting science as the one word of truth. Science always has some error terms in it and so it is only true by approximation. Fortunately this approximation is often enough to explain the facts of reality to the masses. Indeed, however, one of the biggest lacks is that science is done under laboratory constraints and these aren't always equivalent to the real life situation. Like the joke says:
"I've found a cure for cancer. Only it works solely in perfect round humanoids in the vacuum."

On the remark of ancient civilisations, have you ever read ancient texts? Very often these texts contain mythological elements and poetry. But they're still valued anyway. This is apparently not an argument to discard them as useless.

One last remark, for the moment, I've seen this discussion derail once again in "Oh, you are sceptical towards silence? You must be a nutjob thinking Noah actually built an Ark and stuffed it full of animals!"
Please, oh please, make a distinction between religious nutjobs and agnostics...

At 3/16/09 03:01 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/16/09 02:15 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

Because regardless of whether our fates are determined we still are ultimately making the decisions, we just wouldn't have made them any other way.

Well if you can't say that a rock decided to get thrown, how can you pretend to say that what YOU decide is a real decision?

Because humans made up the word decision so we're the ones that have claim to it. More over, there's a scientifically provable process going on in the brain that causes reactions. A rock doesn't have that when it gets thrown. Its arguable animals make decisions if you want to try and get me there. They are basic decisions, they do not contain the same depth or level of analysis as some human decisions, but they exist.

Decision, as far as I'm concerned, is the selection of an outcome from a set of possibilities. I don't care about whether you were doomed to make the decision. The fact that you made it is what matters. And means matter because your intentions matter in your world and the world of those around you.

I believe everything is predestined, but I believe its better to operate as if we have free will anyway. It may be a necessary lie for some people, but I think others can cope and acknowledge both.

You seem to be confusing predestination and a lack of free will as the same thing.

If all your choices are determined before you make them, you have no free will.
That's by definition.

I don't like your definition of free will. I can't change it for you, but I can change it for me. Let me talk on your level though.

Suppose you do have free will, for a single moment pretend with me. And through out your life you make a bunch of free will choices. Now go back and do your life over with out any new knowledge. You're just rewinding and playing history. The same thing happens.

Just because there is one guaranteed outcome (supposedly, I can't know this I just think its this way) doesn't mean you weren't free to make the choices you did. You're just tied into the system with its defined rules. You wanted to make the decisions you made or you would have done otherwise.

As far as I'm concerned thats free will. You made the decisions you meant to make. They were guaranteed from the outset, but you wouldn't have had them any other way in the moment. (regrets aside)

I believe in both predestination and a form of free will, let's rename my free will though. From now on I will call deterministic freedom of choice. Now we can stop being confused and realize we've been arguing close to the same point.

I believe in Deterministic Freedom of Choice. I've defined it to mean what I meant. You can ignore my arguments on free will if you like and just replace the phrase with Deterministic Freedom of Choice wherever it cropped up.

At 3/16/09 02:15 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
They believed in free will because they believed they always had a choice in what they did. Many scientists still believe in free will and believe its an intrinsic part of quantum states. That's why people who study physics speak in probabilities and not certainties.

Wait... what?

Do you know what Quantum theory and quantum states are?

At 3/16/09 04:11 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Wait... what?

Do you know what Quantum theory and quantum states are?

Not specifically, but I often hear, and perhaps incorrectly, that quantum "happening" are often random in appearance. And I know that most calculations are done with probabilities.

At some point we all blab about something we don't know.

Did you know that if you talk long enough and loud enough people will just assume you know what you're talking about. There are real studies that point to that. Sorry, for trying to get away with it. :P

At 3/16/09 07:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: Did you know that if you talk long enough and loud enough people will just assume you know what you're talking about. There are real studies that point to that. Sorry, for trying to get away with it. :P

Only if the people subjected to it don't have the ability to verify the source and information presented.

"Did you know if you throw a penny of the Empire state building it will slice through someone?"

Ba Dum Tch?

At 3/16/09 07:36 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 3/16/09 04:11 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Wait... what?

Do you know what Quantum theory and quantum states are?

Not specifically, but I often hear, and perhaps incorrectly, that quantum "happening" are often random in appearance. And I know that most calculations are done with probabilities.

Yes, this is true.
But I fail to see the link between quantum probability and free will is. You can't really take the notion of 'probability' and equal this to 'nature decides freely what the outcome is'.

At 3/16/09 09:08 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: Yes, this is true.
But I fail to see the link between quantum probability and free will is. You can't really take the notion of 'probability' and equal this to 'nature decides freely what the outcome is'.

No, you can't. But until we can prove that everything cause-effect and that everything is set strait and that probababilistically something is likely to happen 100% of time, even on a quantum level, we can't say that there is one path through time. If there is more than 1 path through time, then decisions are being made by something and hence free will exists somewhere. From there its easy enough to say, there is a chance human's have free will.

I don't personally believe that's so, but as of now proving that humans do or do not have free will is like proving god exists.

So, we come back to the question of belief which is where all of this started and the ability to apply meaning to objects which is where I came in.

In regards to the initial topic at hand, science doesn't support the idea of a God, it simply doesn't rule out the existence of a god-like figure. God and Science are not mutually exclusive ideas.

At 3/17/09 03:09 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
No, you can't. But until we can prove that everything cause-effect and that everything is set strait and that probababilistically something is likely to happen 100% of time, even on a quantum level, we can't say that there is one path through time. If there is more than 1 path through time, then decisions are being made by something and hence free will exists somewhere. From there its easy enough to say, there is a chance human's have free will.

I still find this a bit of haggling with semantics. But then again, what is free will exactly?

In regards to the initial topic at hand, science doesn't support the idea of a God, it simply doesn't rule out the existence of a god-like figure. God and Science are not mutually exclusive ideas.

The entanglement goes a bit deeper even. Science does put restraints on religion. So is a literal interpretation of some religions impossible to uphold next to scientific facts. That is the battle fought all over this forums. But in a general way science does not contradict religion.
But some people feel that scientific results even advance the probability of there being a god, since the construct of nature is so sentient and cleverly built that it's like a machine.

At 3/17/09 03:25 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: But some people feel that scientific results even advance the probability of there being a god, since the construct of nature is so sentient and cleverly built that it's like a machine.

The watchmaker's philosophy. A man is walking through the forest and discovers a pocket watch on the ground. When he picks it up he begins to wonder about who made it, who left it there, etc. In no way does the man think, "this watch must always have been here, always existed," because the watch clearly was shaped with intent.

That argument is then applied to the universe and its physical laws with God as the maker.

I've also heard that argument applied to a banana. The idea is that because bananas are curved towards the mouth, god must have engineered them for man because why on earth would a banana naturally curve towards a man's mouth. The banana would have no reason to do such a thing.

I'm not sure I buy all of these arguments 100%. Because it is just as easy to say, though harder to imagine, that the watch was indeed a product of nature and the natural order. If life did not have a creator but was the solid deduction of the formula of time, then so to is the watch discovered in the forest. Watches are then inherently as natural as human beings, animals and the rest of the world, they just involved a much more complicated process and chemical reaction to come into being.

At 3/17/09 04:05 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:
I'm not sure I buy all of these arguments 100%.

Like stated before, this does not need to be a proof. It is more an intuition kind of thing.

At 3/17/09 03:25 PM, RubberTrucky wrote: The entanglement goes a bit deeper even. Science does put restraints on religion. So is a literal interpretation of some religions impossible to uphold next to scientific facts. That is the battle fought all over this forums. But in a general way science does not contradict religion.

Hang on for a second. Religious beliefs with scripture (and even without) are interpreted differently in many aspects. So basically a Religion is what believers make it to be. There are obviously still many people who take scripture very literally. So in one way it does contradict Religion and in another it doesn't.

But then again, pretty much everything prior to the Big Bang is explainable through natural means. I wonder if Religion will still be around when/if we discover evidence about the origins for the big bang and abiogenesis.

But some people feel that scientific results even advance the probability of there being a god, since the construct of nature is so sentient and cleverly built that it's like a machine.

Nature isn't as clever as we might think. For example our toes. They're fairly useless considering we only need our large toe for balance and support. No matter how clean your feet are we still manage to collect a massive amount of bacteria and dirt between them. If nature was built so cleverly eventually our toes should've fused. Eyes are another. There is a hole in the retina to allow the nerves through. This is common in most vertebrates.

The world doesn't adapt for us, we adapt to the world. That's why we're suited to it. If we could not adapt to it then it's likely we'd eventually become extinct.

At 3/17/09 04:43 PM, Brick-top wrote: But then again, pretty much everything after the Big Bang is explainable through natural means.

Fixed for dramatic effect.

At 3/17/09 04:43 PM, Brick-top wrote:
But then again, pretty much everything prior to the Big Bang is explainable through natural means. I wonder if Religion will still be around when/if we discover evidence about the origins for the big bang and abiogenesis.

I stated this before. Be careful with this statement. Scientific, we have explained the gross outlines of reality as we know it. But there are still a lot of details that need to be filled in, until we can truthfully say that science has solved everything. We're still far from scientific completion even about natural occurrences after the big bang.

Nature isn't as clever as we might think. For example our toes. They're fairly useless considering we only need our large toe for balance and support. No matter how clean your feet are we still manage to collect a massive amount of bacteria and dirt between them. If nature was built so cleverly eventually our toes should've fused. Eyes are another. There is a hole in the retina to allow the nerves through. This is common in most vertebrates.

I don't know if, suppose someone cut off our other toes, we'd be equally in balance as we are now. But that doesn't take away that nature and natural laws are still wonderous things.

At 3/17/09 05:36 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/17/09 04:43 PM, Brick-top wrote:
But then again, pretty much everything prior to the Big Bang is explainable through natural means. I wonder if Religion will still be around when/if we discover evidence about the origins for the big bang and abiogenesis.

I stated this before. Be careful with this statement. Scientific, we have explained the gross outlines of reality as we know it. But there are still a lot of details that need to be filled in, until we can truthfully say that science has solved everything. We're still far from scientific completion even about natural occurrences after the big bang.

careful now. You're flirting quite close to the 'God of the gaps' argument.

But a lack of knowledge doesn't mean we can assert causes. Otherwise I have the full ability to claim the universe was made from a giant marshmallow with super powers.

Nature isn't as clever as we might think. For example our toes. They're fairly useless considering we only need our large toe for balance and support. No matter how clean your feet are we still manage to collect a massive amount of bacteria and dirt between them. If nature was built so cleverly eventually our toes should've fused. Eyes are another. There is a hole in the retina to allow the nerves through. This is common in most vertebrates.

I don't know if, suppose someone cut off our other toes, we'd be equally in balance as we are now. But that doesn't take away that nature and natural laws are still wonderous things.

Obviously if one cuts off 4 toes they would have problems because one used to it. However if they were born with only their large toe they would capable of walking fine.

If we were built by some sort of conciousness that some claim to have eternal knowledge and power, don't you think we would've been built better? If I were a creator I would've fused the toes and removed the nails to avoid infection.

At 3/17/09 07:37 PM, Brick-top wrote: careful now. You're flirting quite close to the 'God of the gaps' argument.

But a lack of knowledge doesn't mean we can assert causes. Otherwise I have the full ability to claim the universe was made from a giant marshmallow with super powers.

It is very important to note that I'm not making any statements on the existence of a God here. I don't mean to say that since science doesn't answer everything, this means that there is in fact a God.
I only want to stress that you shouldn't also believe that at this point science is absolute and has solved everything.

At 3/17/09 08:02 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 3/17/09 07:37 PM, Brick-top wrote: careful now. You're flirting quite close to the 'God of the gaps' argument.

But a lack of knowledge doesn't mean we can assert causes. Otherwise I have the full ability to claim the universe was made from a giant marshmallow with super powers.

It is very important to note that I'm not making any statements on the existence of a God here. I don't mean to say that since science doesn't answer everything, this means that there is in fact a God.

If I didn't mention it, would you have said it anyway?

I only want to stress that you shouldn't also believe that at this point science is absolute and has solved everything.

Scientists already know this otherwise they'd stop.

However I would note the track record for obtaining a natural cause has overwhelmed a supernatural one. Based merely on previous events it's more likely the universe has a natural cause.

At 3/16/09 12:59 AM, dyz5 wrote: There is no such thing as 2-D or 1-D.

Find me an object that has NO height or width whatsoever.

there is no tangible object that is 1-D or 2-D. That's a given since we live in a 4d world of 3d objects. But you can conceptualize 2d objects and what a 2d looks like.

plus, in order to have depth you must have the first two dimensions. SO to say they don't exist in just not thinking.

At 3/18/09 02:48 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 3/16/09 12:59 AM, dyz5 wrote: There is no such thing as 2-D or 1-D.

Find me an object that has NO height or width whatsoever.

there is no tangible object that is 1-D or 2-D. That's a given since we live in a 4d world of 3d objects. But you can conceptualize 2d objects and what a 2d looks like.

plus, in order to have depth you must have the first two dimensions. SO to say they don't exist in just not thinking.

You're saying that 1-D and 2-D don't exist here, but that they do exist in another dimension? Does this dimension take place in the same universe, because universes are different than dimensions last time I checked.

At 3/18/09 06:12 PM, Ericho wrote:
You're saying that 1-D and 2-D don't exist here, but that they do exist in another dimension? Does this dimension take place in the same universe, because universes are different than dimensions last time I checked.

I'm sure its pretty easy to understand, like a demension is something in the same plane of existence, we know of a few demension don't we, yeah, so we need whatever demensions under it er over it to make the shit work right, that may be the complicated part, differing demensions that we can't even see 8 /

Anyway I've heard a bit about....an atom in two places, er an atom taking up the space of two....existing in two places at the same time....yeah, n shit like atoms or molecules shifting in n out of existence....in that way science is well on it's way to explain those things I'm sure...or maybe not lol.

Someday we're all going to realize that Shaggy is actually a quadriplegic supergenius who takes out his revenge on society by posting on this forum.

At 3/18/09 02:48 PM, EKublai wrote:

At 3/16/09 12:59 AM, dyz5 wrote: Find me an object that has NO height or width whatsoever.

there is no tangible object that is 1-D or 2-D. That's a given since we live in a 4d world of 3d objects. But you can conceptualize 2d objects and what a 2d looks like.

;;;;;
I ran into this in High School.
A one dimensional object occuring in a 3 dimensional space would be a single point in that space, but it is only 1 dimensional as a hypothetical concept it cannot be 1 dimensional if it occupies 'space'
So as soon as you "draw" the point no matter how tiny that becomes 2d or 3d

Theoretically a 'true point' has no demensions & a 'true line' has only length.

At 3/18/09 09:54 PM, GrammerNaziElite wrote: Someday we're all going to realize that Shaggy is actually a quadriplegic supergenius who takes out his revenge on society by posting on this forum.

I don't think anyone with an actual college education could seriously attempt to get a point across as poorly as Shaggy does if they even tried.