Flatland and the CMx2 paradigm shift: A Story....

[aka_tom_w]

Since it is hard to try to directly picture the world of CMx2 in our minds, perhaps using analogy can help us. In 1884, Edwin Abbot wrote a book called "Flatland". (Think CMx1) The book writes about A. Square and his world, Flatland. You may have already guessed, but Flatland is a 2 dimensional, flat plane and A. Square is a square shaped guy who lives there. He has two dimensions of free movement. He can go left/right and back/forth, however because he is restricted to his 2 dimensional Flatland plane, he cannot go up/down off the plane.

By analogy, we humans are restricted to our "plane" of existence... and it would be impossible for us to freely move in the fourth dimension.(some might say the forth dimension is time but we are not concerned about that here )

Let's go back to A. Square again. Note that A. Square can only see what lies in his plane of existence, (CMx1) which means if a 3 dimensional sphere (Like a vision of CMx2) were to pass through Flatland, A. Square would not see the sphere, but just 2 dimensional "slices". Taking this further, imagine if a sphere passed halfway through Flatland but stopped in the middle. the sphere would interesect Flatland as just one circle and A. Square could see it! Furthermore, imagine if as the sphere approaches Flatland, A. Square watches as the sphere slowly moves through his plane. What would A. Square see? Recall that A. Square can only see 2 dimensional slices of the sphere (or circles or BIG curved lines up and down) so what A. Square would percieve is a circle suddenly appearing, then growing... then reaching a maximum size as the sphere was halfway through and as it exited, the circle would grow smaller until it disappeared.

This means that 3d objects could be explained to a 2d being as a bunch of "slices stacked" on top of each other. Try to imagine taking a bunch of circles and stacking them. They would begin to form a skeleton framework of the actual 3d image. Similarly if a 5d thing (or CMx2) would intersect our plane of existence, we would see a 3d sphere appear out of no where. It would grow until the hypersphere was halfway through, then it would shrink back to nothing. Theoretically, we could stack these spheres to form a a new thing, but we can't stack them in the usual sense, but rather it would have to extend into the fifth dimension which takes us back to the original dilemma of trying to visualize it.

plagarized and incomplete sorry needs some work to make sense

I'll be back later

-tom w

[ February 13, 2005, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Mace]

Paragraphs.

Respect them.

Love them.

Use them.

Mace

[David I]

Tom,

So that means....ah....hm.....ah...

I don't get this one either.

DavidI

[Salkin]

but it sounds very profound , dont you think ?

//Salkin

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Salkin:

but it sounds very profound , dont you think ?

//Salkin

I thought so too

Thanks

-tom w

[Salkin]

[David I]

Taggert would say, "Golly, Mr. Tom, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore!"

DavidI

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by David I:

Taggert would say, "Golly, Mr. Tom, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore!"

DavidI

sorry ?

Taggert who?

(Beverly Hills Cop reference?)

dunno

-tom w

[David I]

Tom,

Sorry, "Blazing Saddles" reference. Headly Lamar makes an eloquent speech about his thought process "My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought, carreening in an atmosphere of creative ... etc". Taggert, his henchman, says "Golly Mr Lamar ...".

Thought it kinda fit.

DavidI

[ February 16, 2005, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: David I ]

[gibsonm]

Tom,

I think Carl Sagan described it accurately in “Cosmos” but you gave it a pretty good shake.

So you are saying that we as bi-dimensional (CMX1) beings will find it pretty had to imagine the poly-dimensional world of CMX2 until we are relocated into its frame of reference?

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Tom,

I think Carl Sagan described it accurately in “Cosmos” but you gave it a pretty good shake.

So you are saying that we as bi-dimensional (CMX1) beings will find it pretty had to imagine the poly-dimensional world of CMX2 until we are relocated into its frame of reference?

I am SURE some of us are trying a lot HARDER than others of us to imagine the poly-dimensional world of CMx2

Hell! Who amongst us can't grasp the concept as Steve described it:

"You can't tweak and 1960 Ford Mustang (CMBO) into a LOADED 2005 Ferrari! (CMx2)"

How much more simple does it have to be!??

-tom w

[ February 17, 2005, 06:53 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Guest Mike]

How would you explain "stacked on top of" to a 2-D creature?? :confused: :confused: :confused: