Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy Idea2: Viewing third and fourth dimensions

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    not this again. blue sky, once again, there is a huge difference between philosophizing and coming up with evidence scientifically. "yin" and "yang" do not translate into "matter" and "antimatter" in any context at all, except for when you try to relate the two concepts. the chinese had no conception whatsoever of antimatter, and in fact no one did, until this century.

    more importantly, today we have mathematical models to describe these things, and i doubt even you would believe that lao tzu could have said the same. the job of a philosopher is to make grand statements about the nature of the world; the job of a scientist is uncover practical information. if you don't read into either, they seem similar.

    the thing about lao tzu is that he spoke in vague and seemingly contradictory ways. when you have that kind of cryptic material to work with, you can make it fit just about any meaning. the problem is, when you do that, you're basically saying that there was nothing substantial or meaningful there to begin with. trying to make someone's statements mean something they don't is not a good way of paying respect to that person. in my opinion, lao tzu's writings were plenty insightful enough without needing to project false meaning on them.

    Comment


    • #17
      A quick elaboration on the first four dimensions. We as human beings take up specific areas of each of the first 3 dimensions. We experience these simultaneously.

      Time is a bit different. Though it could be argued that a human occupies a certain length in the 4th dimension from birth to death, it is more accurate to say we exist in the 4th dimension as a point, and not a line. Similarly, our experience of the time is as a point moving through the 4th dimension in one direction only.

      So what would constitute a 4 dimensional object? Well, it would occupy a certain measure of length, width, and depth in space. And it would also occupy a certain measure of time. Say the object is 1 meter wide, so it occupies the 2nd dimension from 1 cm to 100 cm simultaneously. Now say its 4th dimension measurement was from 1995 ad to 2005 ad. This particular 4 dimensional object would then SIMULTANEOUSLY occupy it's space in the first 3 dimensions, and its space in the 4th dimension.

      This is a bit boggling to the mind because we have trouble comprehending anything that simultaneously exists in more than one moment of time.

      To be able to "see" the 4th dimension would mean looking at time as an area and not a point moving on a line. To see the 365 days of a year all at once. You can see how this could get confusing.

      And that's without even considering the 5th - 11th dimensions............
      Show me a man who has forgotten words, so that I can have a word with him.

      Comment


      • #18
        to Zachsan

        Let's see - Lao Tzu wrote, "First there was the void - the Tao. From the Tao was Yin, and Yin supports Yang. From these 2 came 10,000 other things." Now, scientists now believe (people like Brian Greene, Gordon Kane, and Edward Witten) that the universe started as a viod. From the void came matter and anti-matter. From this came everything else in the universe. I'm not saying they are both the same thing. They also state very firmly, that to go any further in proving the beginning of the universe, scientists will need to take on philosophical thoughts - as mathematics will no longer work. I don't think Lao Tzu had thoughts of matter and smatter, either. I think he truly arrived at how the universe began. I don't think his writtings are vague at all. It couldn't be put much more simple.

        As far as time goes, Einstein said, "Time is the only reason everything doesn't happen all at once." Everyone has their own 'time'. Time is related to movement, so someone who is moving around will not age as fast as someone who is stationary. It has been proven, scientists used 3 syncronized atomic clocks. One was stationary, one on an airplane traveling in the direction of the earth's rotation, one on an airplane traveling against the direction of the earth. After the 2 airplanes circled the earth and landed again, all 3 clocks were at different times. In other words, if 1 twin got into a spaceship and traveled very quickly around space and landed (lets say 20 years), the twin who stayed on earth will have aged 20 years, while the one who traveled through space will not have aged 20 years. The earthbound twin will be physically older than the one who traveled at a high rate of speed.

        Comment


        • #19
          I thought we got through this laozi issue a while back.

          Laozi did not accurately describe the beginning of the universe because his observation was based on common Chinese thought of the time rather than scientific observation. Moreover, his following commentary is political in nature...laozi's taoism competed alongside confucianism and legalism as political doctrine in ancient China.

          Laozi was not a scientist or a mystic.
          -Jesse Pasleytm
          "How do I know? Because my sensei told me!"

          Comment


          • #20
            Pazman

            I don't know about what some people have been reading. I agree Lao Tzu wasn't a mystic or scientist, but he was truly a philosopher, and it is now understood by engineers and scientists that the beginning of the universe can only be explained through philosophy. Again, It seems very simple to me. Lao Tzu mentions the beginning of the universe many many times in his writtings. First there was the void, then being and non-being produce each other (wu-chi & tai chi). (#4) ..it is the ancestor of a myriad of things, (#6)..it is the root of Heaven and Earth, (14).. by holding the Tao..you can know the primordial beginnings, (25)..it is perfect in it's disorder-which is born before heaven and earth..it is the Mother of all things, (40)..all things in the cosmos arise from being, being arises from non-being, and of course (42)..the Tao produces one, one produces two, two produce the three (which happen to be heaven, earth, and man) and the three produce all things, ..many more references. What does any of this have to do with politics? The Tao is omnipresent, does this not include the beginnings of time? The Tao is omnipresent, does this not mean it embodies all other religions? The Tao is areligious and ascientific.

            Also, Confucius stood 180 degrees opposite of Taoist thinking. Look beyond the mystical side of the Tao. Look at the 'model' set by mathematician/philosopher Alfred Korzybski. Read some of the works of Master Share Lew, an ordained Taoist priest. Try some abstracts by Dr. Paul Lam, all who agree the Tao is infinate and extends throughout time and space being what astrophysics and metaphysics call the 'big bang', infinite energy permeating the universe and containing all. At this level, although we use words to describe it, symbols, words, and letters have nothing to do with events. The infinite event is unspeakable, ineffable.

            The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
            The Named is the Mother of all Things. -Tao Te Ching

            How else can this be interrpretated ??


            How do I arrive at these thinkings? I am an Entropic Engineer who has been a student of Taoism for 35 years.
            Last edited by Blue Sky; 01-02-2005, 03:57 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              it can be interpreted to mean Lao Tzu had a grasp of archetypal processes that lots of human minds have thought about, but was far from understanding of these processes beyond an intuitive grasp of them, or else he would not have spoken of them poetically or metaphorically but would have expressed them maybe mathematically.

              I think in general we need to be careful not to blur the lines between things like physics and mysticism.
              "Arhat, I am your father..."
              -the Dark Lord Cod

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Blue Sky
                I agree Lao Tzu wasn't a mystic or scientist, but he was truly a philosopher, and it is now understood by engineers and scientists that the beginning of the universe can only be explained through philosophy.
                philosophy is making a series of educated guesses. it can raise interesting questions and lead to meaningful observation. it can't definitvely explain anything. so when you say that scientists "understand" that things can only be explained through philosophy, i would venture to say that you have misunderstood something you have read, or that you are reading things by some very "unique" scientists.

                i agree that the ultimate origins of the universe can only be speculated upon, and that such speculation can be called philosophy. this doesn't mean that philosophy is some golden tool that will allow us to know our origins. it's just another way of saying, "beats me". so the fact that lao tzu was a philosopher shouldn't lead anyone to think that he knew something about the beginning of the universe that we don't. after all, i'm a philosopher, too.

                The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
                The Named is the Mother of all Things. -Tao Te Ching

                How else can this be interrpretated ??
                you obviously have some imagination. i'm sure you can think of something.

                How do I arrive at these thinkings? I am an Entropic Engineer who has been a student of Taoism for 35 years.
                what is an entropic engineer?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Why are those faces that ponder stuff so friggin huge?
                  Becoming what I've dreamed about.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    WKK could show you how to see dimensions 6 through 8 for $3,499.99.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      to Zachsan

                      I have lately been reading stuff by Steven Hawking, Brian Greene, Edward Witten, Gordon Kane, Richard Feynman and ilk. I would classify them as 'unique' scientists - they are considered the "Einsteins" of today. And they are considered "Einsteins" by most other scientists. Interesting point - Feynman was the scientists that is given credit for solving the first space shuttle disaster. He died a few years later, but after researching the first shuttle disaster, he claimed that his figures show that the chances of a space shuttle disaster were 1%. The last shuttle explosion happened 113 flights after the first one. You can't get much closer than that. He also invented what is called 'the Feynman diagram', useful in understand particle physics.
                      I am an Environmental Engineer and Thermodynamics Engineer - and I consider the second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy, my strongest point. I guess if I call myself an Energy Engineer it would make more sense. I am a Chartered Industrial Energy Consultant. I claim to study Taoism for 35 years only because I didn't know I was a Taoist until I was 20 years old.
                      I don't think using philosophy to interpretate the origin of the universe is the same as saying "beats me". We are headed in the direction of nameing the origin in the words of philosophy. You know, just like Lao Tzu did 2500 years ago. There is no speculation here. By definition; Philosophy is the persuit of wisdom; a search for the truth through logical reasoning rather than factual observation; the analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs. (Webster's 7th dictionary).

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Blue Sky
                        Philosophy is the persuit of wisdom; a search for the truth through logical reasoning rather than factual observation; the analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs. (Webster's 7th dictionary).
                        in other words, speculation.

                        not much more to say here.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          A damn good speculation, though. I think Blue Sky is trying to say that Lao Tzu was one of the greatest men who ever lived, while adding to LT's hype. And I think you're trying to prove that Lao Tzu was a very ordinary man, who is over hyped.

                          But my 2 cents are: If Lao Tzu was still alive today, I would want him to be my stock broker.
                          Becoming what I've dreamed about.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I don't think searching for the truth is speculation. Far from it. One can speculate if there is life on Mars - true. But sending probes and anaylizing is searching for the truth through logical reasoning. If we happen to find another planet that seems have all the properties of Earth, it would be more than speculation if one says there is life there. No one will 'speculate' that there is life on the sun - by logical reasoning.

                            LeiYunFat - you are correct. I do believe that Lao Tzu was the greatest man who ever existed - I hope one day that the rest of the Earth will realize it. His Way is the best way to combat the effects of Entropy, as Entropy will ultimately render the universe unusable for anything. Though we have no control over the reality of Entropy, Lao Tzu realized that humans have the ability to slow down it's effects. Mahatma Ghandi, Buddha, Martin Luther King, Jesus, et al, were ordinary men. Lao Tzu is man but no ordinary man.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Blue Sky
                              I don't think searching for the truth is speculation. Far from it. One can speculate if there is life on Mars - true. But sending probes and anaylizing is searching for the truth through logical reasoning.
                              you're just wrong, man. sending probes and analyzing is scientific observation of Mars, plain and simple. it's much more than simple reasoning, it's empirical observation.

                              If we happen to find another planet that seems have all the properties of Earth, it would be more than speculation if one says there is life there.
                              no. it wouldn't. where are you getting this stuff?

                              No one will 'speculate' that there is life on the sun - by logical reasoning.
                              um... that's true. it however does not have anything to do with what you're trying to assert.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Well, you're right - I had really let myself oversimplify the point of what I was trying to say in the first place. You are so busy dissecting things and we've gone out on such a tangent that you missed my point. I sure would like to be able to explain myself better so even you could understand, but I'm not a very good writer. Maybe if you had a few more drinks it would make sense. Try Crown Royal Reserve - very smooth. I once ran across some Tennesse Sipping Whisky that was advertised as "the finest sipping whiskey that ever trickled down a man's throat". Really rough stuff.

                                Comment

                                Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                                Auto-Saved
                                x
                                Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                                x
                                x
                                Working...
                                X