Easy; My religion is 100% factual and Christianity is a web of lies. Speaking of, I'm writing a paper about diarrhea, Op, Can you tell me in your own words how often and how vigorous your diarrhea explosions are?

(February 27, 2018 at 6:18 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 3:33 am)Mathilda Wrote: What do you mean by higher dimensions?

I think it's pretty clear.

Do you believe the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th ect... dimensions exist?

---

(February 27, 2018 at 4:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: I don't understand enough super string theory to even begin to say exactly what the pesky 11 are let alone if they are real. Some physicists seem to think they are necessary to explain the behavior of particles but why I do not know.

Should your answer be no since you see no evidence of these other dimensions?

I'll have the false equivalence, followed by the non-sequitur with salad. And the whine list.

You should be an expert in false equivalence..

Anyway how is what I said a false equivalence?

Waiter, I didn't order the ad hominem. You can take it back to the kitchen.

'Higher' dimensions are believed without evidence, therefore it's as silly as belief in gods without evidence. Alternatively, belief in gods without evidence is as rational as belief in higher dimensions without evidence. It depends on which obfuscation you are trying to run with.

Incidentally, it really doesn't make sense to number dimensions. After all, which is length? The first? Second?

(February 27, 2018 at 8:08 am)Cyberman Wrote: ...
Incidentally, it really doesn't make sense to number dimensions. After all, which is length? The first? Second?

The 4th.

As in, I expect a long length of time before the OP gets back to us.

(February 27, 2018 at 7:30 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 7:11 am)Mathilda Wrote: Well no it's not pretty clear. The fact that you call them higher means that there has to be another dimension measuring height. Just labelling them 4th, 5th, 6th etc isn't enough. Are you saying that there is an order of dimensions so that the 5th dimension is higher than the 4th? Or are these just labels and we could have just as easily referred to the 5th dimension and the 4th and vice versa?

Are you referring to extra dimensions? Do things occupy all the dimensions at the same time or can things exist in some dimensions and not the others?

It seems like you're trying to avoid giving an answer...

Strange how Jenny knew exactly what I was talking about but somehow you're discombobulated.

Do you believe other dimensions (dimensions other than 1st 2nd and 3rd) exist? However you want to define a dimension is fine with me.

Jenny assumed what you were talking about.

For me, I know that theists like you rely on conflation and equivocation, so when asked if I believe in something, first thing I do is try to specify exactly what I am being asked that I believe in. After all, it's not like you have still actually told me what exactly you are referring to when asking about higher dimensions.

But if you are asking if I believe in other dimensions that physicists theorise exist, I have to say that I neither believe or disbelieve. I accept that they could exist but also am open to the possibility that the need for them might disappear if the physicists concerned come up with a different model. I also accept that I am not a physicist and am largely ignorant on the matter. But if the field collectively decides that these dimensions exist then I will accept that.

But if so, unlike theists I won't use it as an excuse to justify any crackpot theory not supported by evidence. Nor will I associate these dimensions with properties not supported by the science.

(February 27, 2018 at 8:08 am)Cyberman Wrote: Waiter, I didn't order the ad hominem. You can take it back to the kitchen.

'Higher' dimensions are believed without evidence, therefore it's as silly as belief in gods without evidence. Alternatively, belief in gods without evidence is as rational as belief in higher dimensions without evidence. It depends on which obfuscation you are trying to run with.

Who said there is no evidence of higher dimensions? Is that just your personal opinion? just trying to get clarification.

(February 27, 2018 at 8:08 am)Cyberman Wrote: Incidentally, it really doesn't make sense to number dimensions. After all, which is length? The first? Second?

Can't figure that out? length is the first dimension.

(February 27, 2018 at 6:18 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 3:33 am)Mathilda Wrote: What do you mean by higher dimensions?

I think it's pretty clear.

Do you believe the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th ect... dimensions exist?

---

(February 27, 2018 at 4:19 am)Jenny A Wrote: I don't understand enough super string theory to even begin to say exactly what the pesky 11 are let alone if they are real. Some physicists seem to think they are necessary to explain the behavior of particles but why I do not know.

Should your answer be no since you see no evidence of these other dimensions?

Yes. In addition to the three dimensions of space, there is at least 1 dimension of time. So that is 4 dimensions.

To include electromagnetism in a geometric formulation requires another, circular dimension. So that makes five dimensions (this 5th dimension is very small, though, and so is detectable mainly through the E&M force.

The weak nuclear force requires another 2 dimensions which again, are small and curved. This gives a total of 7 dimensions so far.

And finally, the strong nuclear force requires, 3 or 4 dimensions, similarly curved and small, to give 10 or 11, depending.


Since ALL of these forces are detectable and obey the formulations that use these dimensions, that is good reason to think these dimensions are real.

Now, in addition, there are *extensions* that add a fw dimensions for things like supersymmetry. These have not yet been detected.

And, finally, most formulations of Quantum Mechanics rely on a space of infinitely many dimensions for the computation of the probabilities (although for any specific problem only finitely many are used for approximation purposes).

And QM works incredibly well in describing the real world.

(February 27, 2018 at 8:25 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(February 27, 2018 at 7:30 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It seems like you're trying to avoid giving an answer...

Strange how Jenny knew exactly what I was talking about but somehow you're discombobulated.

Do you believe other dimensions (dimensions other than 1st 2nd and 3rd) exist? However you want to define a dimension is fine with me.

Jenny assumed what you were talking about.

For me, I know that theists like you rely on conflation and equivocation, so when asked if I believe in something, first thing I do is try to specify exactly what I am being asked that I believe in. After all, it's not like you have still actually told me what exactly you are referring to when asking about higher dimensions.

But if you are asking if I believe in other dimensions that physicists theorise exist, I have to say that I neither believe or disbelieve. I accept that they could exist but also am open to the possibility that the need for them might disappear if the physicists concerned come up with a different model. I also accept that I am not a physicist and am largely ignorant on the matter. But if the field collectively decides that these dimensions exist then I will accept that.

But if so, unlike theists I won't use it as an excuse to justify any crackpot theory not supported by evidence. Nor will I associate these dimensions with properties not supported by the science.

You do realize that other dimensions are theorized to exist basically because of "properties not supported by the science", right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_d%27Espagnat
The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment.- Bernard d'Espagnat

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...ton-prize/

Quote:Unlike classical physics, d’Espagnat explained, quantum mechanics cannot describe the world as it really is, it can merely make predictions for the outcomes of our observations. If we want to believe, as Einstein did, that there is a reality independent of our observations, then this reality can either be knowable, unknowable or veiled. D’Espagnat subscribes to the third view. Through science, he says, we can glimpse some basic structures of the reality beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery.

Quote:“There must exist, beyond mere appearances … a ‘veiled reality’ that science does not describe but only glimpses uncertainly. In turn, contrary to those who claim that matter is the only reality, the possibility that other means, including spirituality, may also provide a window on ultimate reality cannot be ruled out, even by cogent scientific arguments.”

Quote:“Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God – or ‘Substance’ – of Spinoza,” d’Espagnat writes. Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God, which he equated with nature itself, but he always held this “God” to be entirely knowable. D’Espagnat’s veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments.

You see Huggy it's only you referring to them as higher dimensions. The concept itself is meaningless. How can a dimension be considered higher if there isn't another dimension on which it exists to be considered higher than other dimensions.

For example, take an X-Z plane, height is typically considered on the Y axis.  Yet nothing material exists that is restricted to just two dimensions. No matter how thin it is, it has a height. And persists over time.

(February 27, 2018 at 9:08 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

Quote:“Independent Reality plays, in a way, the role of God – or ‘Substance’ – of Spinoza,” d’Espagnat writes. Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God, which he equated with nature itself, but he always held this “God” to be entirely knowable. D’Espagnat’s veiled God, on the other hand, is partially – but still fundamentally – unknowable. And for precisely this reason, it would be nonsensical to paint it with the figure of a personal God or attribute to it specific concerns or commandments.

And here it is. The god of the gaps argument.