http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6HxDG4h4bg

(January 2, 2013 at 11:09 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Nope but I concede I do need everyone to reach a consensus -

Are you good at herding cats?

(January 2, 2013 at 11:09 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: - that dimensions can't be proved to exist for now before I can attempt to play my hand.

We will all be waiting for a very long time.
(Atheism is not a belief system, you will find a cornucopia of views.)

Quote:Is there any actual proof of the existence of Dimensions beyond what we can experience or is the existence of these dimensions only postulated in theory or in support of theory.

I don't know.

(Always a better answer than 'goddidit.')

Isn't it interesting how much more fruitful the discussion and interesting the conversation when we just talk listen and respond without always feeling the urge to hit the reflex red herring of burden of proof when its not needed. We all had something to contribute, many of us apart from the guy doing 24 dimensional maths ( respect) learned a little something. Isn't it also wonderful how far science has got when confronted with the almost metaphysical new frontier by allowing imagination to run ahead of rationality for a while to provide avenues to explore ( of course the challenge then becomes finding the tools to allow rationality to catch up)

Yep.

I think you have as much consensus as can reasonably be expected that we can't currently prove extra dimensions exist. Looking forward to seeing where you're going with this.

(January 2, 2013 at 11:09 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Mark 13:13 Wrote:also just because it could exist isn't a proof it does.
What?!
Dinosaurs could exist... do they?
The same goes for unicorns and almost anything else you can come up with, but doesn't exist (as far as we know).

you are making my point but acting like you are refuting it?

you know what happened?.... I mistook a . for a ? and thought you were posing a question. Damn people who can't use proper punctuation make me commit these mistakes on those who actually do use proper punctuation! Fortunately, it's rare.

(January 2, 2013 at 11:09 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Mark 13:13 Wrote:I agree with what your saying but we assume the would see abnormailty , but for discussion sake does this mean that when we see an abnormality and cant explain it yet with current scientific thinking within the context of our 3D universe ( 4 if you call time a dimension ) we would be correct to assume its caused by another dimension.
What?!?!?
You wouldn't be correct in that assumption.
First use all the tools at your disposal which use the standard dimensionality... When all these fail, try to use a higher dimensional solution which, when approximated to the standard one will yield the abnormality.... that's what the guys are trying to do with string theory..... but it's so complex they can't do these approximations very well.

It was a rhetorical question which I was hoping led directly to the very answer you have given, so again we are in agreement, glad to have you aboard on this one

I aim to please!
But do get to the part where you hide god in, at least, one extra dimension quickly... we can't wait for your point to come through....

(January 2, 2013 at 11:56 am)cato123 Wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6HxDG4h4bg

I love any reason to listen to Papa Sagan. <3 But in all seriousness, I've found this to be an excellent, easy-to-digest explanation of dimensions (and cheesy video effects).

(January 2, 2013 at 4:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yep.

I think you have as much consensus as can reasonably be expected that we can't currently prove extra dimensions exist. Looking forward to seeing where you're going with this.

see post #34 although I could probably do more; I didn't want to be too ambitious.

(January 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Isn't it interesting how much more fruitful the discussion and interesting the conversation when we just talk listen and respond without always feeling the urge to hit the reflex red herring of burden of proof when its not needed. We all had something to contribute, many of us apart from the guy doing 24 dimensional maths ( respect) learned a little something. Isn't it also wonderful how far science has got when confronted with the almost metaphysical new frontier by allowing imagination to run ahead of rationality for a while to provide avenues to explore ( of course the challenge then becomes finding the tools to allow rationality to catch up)

Ah. Burden of proof is not a red herring. Tell us how many dimensions there really are, and if it's more than three or four, you'll see burden of proof back in a heartbeat. Also, imagination isn't running ahead of rationality, it has to have math that works and not contradict what we already know. It has to be distinguishable from an acid trip to be worthy of being taken seriously.

(January 2, 2013 at 5:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(January 2, 2013 at 3:48 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Isn't it interesting how much more fruitful the discussion and interesting the conversation when we just talk listen and respond without always feeling the urge to hit the reflex red herring of burden of proof when its not needed. We all had something to contribute, many of us apart from the guy doing 24 dimensional maths ( respect) learned a little something. Isn't it also wonderful how far science has got when confronted with the almost metaphysical new frontier by allowing imagination to run ahead of rationality for a while to provide avenues to explore ( of course the challenge then becomes finding the tools to allow rationality to catch up)

Ah. Burden of proof is not a red herring. Tell us how many dimensions there really are, and if it's more than three or four, you'll see burden of proof back in a heartbeat. Also, imagination isn't running ahead of rationality, it has to have math that works and not contradict what we already know. It has to be distinguishable from an acid trip to be worthy of being taken seriously.

interesting I must try and track down something I tripped over lately about some scientist in this area where the solution came in a dream and when he thought about the dream imagery he realised the solution was there.