8 edits
Originally posted by @apathistNo, very obviously not. What we, including I and laypeople, normally mean by it is PHYSICAL although it obvious has mathematical aspects. I don't know of a single person that gives the word 'dimension' a pure maths meaning independent of the concept of a 'dimension' physically existing out there in the world so clearly what people mean by 'dimension' IS something physical.
The normal and generally accepted every-day meaning of the term 'dimension' is mathematical!
I don't understand why you feel the need to give a word a totally none standard and therefore invalid meaning.
But we don't need math to recognize the spatial dimensions.
Agreed; but that directly logically contradicts what you claim; you say " 'dimension' is mathematical " as in ONLY mathematical and NOT physical. If that was true, than we couldn't recognize ANY dimension without maths; and yet we CLEARLY do just that even if you have total ignorance of maths and don't know the first thing about maths. You make no sense.
Originally posted by @apathistThat's it. A circle is just a lardy triangle and vice versa.
I've coded. Keep tri-ing, and you get a circle.
Originally posted by @humyActually I would say that its more complicated than that.
I don't know of a single person that gives the word 'dimension' a pure maths meaning independent of the concept of a 'dimension' physically existing out there in the world so clearly what people mean by 'dimension' IS something physical.
Firstly, purely mathematical dimensions, do, of course, exist. The Cartesian plane for example has two dimensions. Interestingly there are different ways to define them. Polar coordinates for example are perfectly valid dimensions on the Cartesian plane.
In the physical world, dimensionality (ie 3 space and one time dimension) are a real facts of existence, but the dimensions individually are not physical things at all and contrary to apathists claim CANNOT be observed. We traditionally create three orthogonal linear dimensions in an arbitrary position, but any rotation of that is perfectly valid, as is, a totally different set such as polar coordinates in one plane coupled with a linear scale orthogonal to it. Dimensions are a mathematical abstraction of real world facts.
Originally posted by @apathistIt is certainly a block towards free movement through free space in the here and now.
Remember, from my view, what time is. Remember? Certainly it is no block towards free movement through 3-d space.
Originally posted by @twhitehead****XXX abstract that!
Actually I would say that its more complicated than that.
Firstly, purely mathematical dimensions, do, of course, exist. The Cartesian plane for example has two dimensions. Interestingly there are different ways to define them. Polar coordinates for example are perfectly valid dimensions on the Cartesian plane.
In the physical world, dimensionality ( ...[text shortened]... a linear scale orthogonal to it. Dimensions are a mathematical abstraction of real world facts.
Originally posted by @apathistIf only now exists, then how you know that you have been born?
Actually, only now exists. Past and future do not. Time is a math dimension, and not a physical reality dimension.
How do you plan for the future if future doesn't exit?
Originally posted by @apathistThe predictions of relativity have been put to the test thoroughly and describe the measurements well. Reality cannot be accurately described using only three spatial dimensions plus an independent temporal dimension.
Spacetime is a math term. Minkowski space is a math term. Reality has three dimensions.
Reality is not math, I know that is hard to understand.
"Spacetime" is a physical concept.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraAnd physical concepts are mental.
The predictions of relativity have been put to the test thoroughly and describe the measurements well. Reality cannot be accurately described using only three spatial dimensions plus an independent temporal dimension.
"Spacetime" is a physical concept.
Originally posted by @christopher-albonif they are sound physical concepts then they should correspond to something physical.
And physical concepts are mental.
Originally posted by @twhiteheadIs not, and you know this. You're barking up the wrong tree there, hound dog.
It is certainly a block towards free movement through free space in the here and now.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraRelativity works well, as we'd expect from a tested math concept. Time is merely a measurement of change. There are no time-atoms. Time has no physical existence.
The predictions of relativity have been put to the test thoroughly and describe the measurements well. Reality cannot be accurately described using only three spatial dimensions plus an independent temporal dimension.
"Spacetime" is a physical concept.
Spacetime is a mathematical conception. I'm not denigrating it, the spacetime concept is super useful. Remember that the layman's explanation or visualization of spacetime (the lies we tell children) requires an informal fallacy to work.