3 ms·
Well that's where I think the Flatland analogy is helpful, there's nothing inherently mystical about a fourth spacial dimension any more than Flatlanders ought
by roywiggins 3y ago
Well that's where I think the Flatland analogy is helpful, there's nothing inherently mystical about a fourth spacial dimension any more than Flatlanders ought to be worshiping us because we have one more dimension than they do.
- xanderlewis 3y ago> there's nothing inherently mystical about a fourth spacial dimension Weirdly enough, there are big distinctions between three and four dimensions when it comes to geometry and topology. For example: “Four is the only dimension n for which R^n can have an exotic smooth structure. R^4 has an uncountable number of exotic smooth structures; see exotic R^4.” [0] It turns out that having four dimensions really is magically different from having any other finite number. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-manifold#Special_phenomena_in_4_dimensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-manifold#Special_phenomena_i...
- roywiggins 3y agoThat definitely is spooky!
- lupire 3y agoDoes this mean anything physical for 4-D spacetime? I'd guess yes because "manifold" is a general turn that includes the asymmetric curvature of spacetime.
- mistermann 3y agoI guess, but there may be (is, in my opinion) something mystical about higher non-spatial, metaphysical dimensions, and I think the difficulty one experiences conceptualizing a 4th spatial dimension can be useful in attempting to conceptualize the possibility that difficulty also exists in conceptualizing these non-spatial dimensions. Or in other words: People don't think it be like it is, but it do. http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/059/they-dont-think-it-be-like-it-is-but-it-do.jpg http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/059/the... There is also something mystical here (the "nothing"): > there's nothing inherently mystical about...