Can you completely destory one of the three dimensions of breadth,lenght and depth?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by river, Jun 29, 2017.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    Not so far as I can see, at present anyway. Bohm seems to think even our dimensions of space and time may be mere "explicate" projections of some deeper "implicate" structure. It seems to be an outgrowth of his earlier efforts in the field of Hidden Variable theories, none of which which seem currently to have found favour. From what I read, he does not seem to have ever succeeded in articulating convincingly what that deeper structure might be, or not in any way that hints at how it might be observationally testable.

    It seems that its holistic nature appeals to certain people who happen to like the idea of everything being connected in a mysterious way. Man. Personally, I take this sort of metaphysical speculation with a pinch of salt.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    And a real line has less mass

    Nonsensical

    An IMAGINARY line (I am very confused by your assertion concerning real line having less mass) has no mass and the best I can imagine is a 2D visual

    than a drawing of a line

    A drawing of a line IS a real line with 3Ds and mass

    But a drawing of a line has three dimensions

    Correct, with mass

    Please check post #63 Rubik's cube example or consider the drawn line to be X distance long Y distance deep and exactly 10 perfect atom layers high

    Explode the view height wise

    Lets destroy the height dimension

    Peal off the layers one by one

    As you peal away to bottom layer which is the one closest to the paper the line vanishes

    You CANNOT destroy any 1 dimension WITHOUT destroying the other 2

    I could have made the line one atom thick and destroyed in in one pass

    10 layers each 1atom thick just shows the gradual destruction of night as each layer is pealed away

    whereas a real line has one

    Again nonsensical

    I cannot even visualise one dimensional objects

    Best I can do is look at a region in space and think start here

    But until the pencil touches the spot and leaves a mark there is nothing with any dimension within the region

    Again I can visualise 2D which, if I rotate in my mind, vanishes edge on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I also have reservations about certain aspects of his philosophical approach.

    But my introduction to the Higgs field changed some of my previously held convictions of the hidden world, which does exist, without us being able to experience it. I that respect metaphysics needs not be mystical.

    But I do like that Bohm based his hypotheses on existing knowledge, IOW nothing he said was in conflict with QM or GR. but tried to solve the apparent disconnect between the two and merge them in a plausible wholeness.

    If I reference his wholeness to Tegmark's mathematical universe and Seth's controlled and uncontrolled hallucinations of what we observe and experience, it seems to fit nicely with the Peat narrative of the thrust of Bohm's worldview.
    I specifically like his example of enfolding and unfolding of information, such as the ink drop in the clycerine experiment, where he clearly demonstrates this reversible enfolding process. When the ink is no longer visible , it is a natural assumption that the ink is chaotically dispersed in the glycerine, but when the process is reversed the result is the excact reverse of the enfolding, and the inkdrop becomes once more ecplicated as an ink drop.
    From this I intuited that if this process can be demonstrated to be true in a controlled experiment, why should this not also happen in natural processes of enfolding and explicating.
    I see a deep and invisible (unobservable) truth in that.

    It might explain that the space in atoms are not empty but filled with say, the Higgs field. In a flowing movement it seems a good fit for the particle/wave duality, and our inability to measure both speed and location at the same time. When a particle becomes enfolded it physical disappears from observation, but becomes observable again when it is subsequently explicated in a different location.

    This sounds very much like the Mandelbrot fractal function, which allows for an image of the fractal to be infinite reduced, yet exhibits the same image at every reduced level.

    If we add the concept of a fractal type hologram, which can represent the whole in a small part of the hologram, to me this would solve the problem of instantaneity and entanglement. No matter how small or big, the holographic image of an observed pattern exists everywhere, at every scale. Time becomes irrelevant.

    If you haven't yet seen the An Seth clip on Ted Talks, I'll link it again. I found it a fascinating perspective of our ability to have controlled and random hallucinatory (holographic) experiences as part of our brain processes. https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality
    And if we add Roger Antonsen's presentation of the different forms and relationships inherent (enfolded) in our mathematics, it gives me a sense of discovery, which I understand is a purely subjective experience.


    I always try to find common denominators in the different scientific or philosophical theories, as I believe that with understanding common aspects of our world, we can form a more comprehensive understanding of how it all works together and why we are able to mathematically express these commonalities by equations.

    I'll stop here and look forward to your perspective on this (one of many) examples where Bohm's thought processes manages to combine separate scientific disciplines into a combined worldview.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2017
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I would dispute the ink is chaotically dispersed

    I'd like to see the same experiment with a blender

    Reverse the blades and see if the drops reappear

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Well if you could exactly reverse the original process of the blender, you could indeed return to the original state. At least theoretically .
    If that is not possible then we would have an example of hidden variables, such as the generation of heat in both directions which would not duplicate the initial process, from cold to warm. You cannot reverse a dynamic process to include from warm to cold.

    But even in Chaos theory there are patterns, sometimes to complicated for us to determine, such as the fractal structures of in clouds, weather and ocean waves .

    p.s. this just came to mind, which may explain a real visual 2D experience. Would you believe a shadow is 3D or 2D? A shadow is not an object, but the absence of light, showing the projected shape of the object in as a purely 2D silhouette.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    @ exchemist,
    Is the example of reversing the blender at high speed not an example of an implicated hidden variable? At high speed the thermodynamics are not reversible. It creates heat in both directions and creates an explicated real variable in the reversal of the process.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Arrh ha

    This is a good question and almost the same as one I used to ask school mates at age 16 when I was attending a London Grammar mid 50s

    How thick is a shadow?

    Simple

    As thick as the distance from the object throwing the shadow to the surface on which the shadow is displayed

    So 3D

    2D shadow no such animal

    Moving the object closer to the surface where the shadow is displayed shrinks the depth of the shadow down until the object is in contact with the surface when it no longer exist

    Consider this

    Billiard ball
    Middle of table
    Bright light
    Short distance
    Direct overhead

    You will see a circular shadow surrounding the ball
    It will be circular wedged shaped
    It will follow the curved shape of the ball
    From the circumference of the ball
    To the surface of the table
    Now comes the hard part

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Solidify the shadow
    Remove the ball
    Can you explain the object left on the table please?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    no, no, that's wrong, though it is clever.

    First the object does not throw the shadow. The absence of 3D photons creates the shadow. Therefore the actual projected image contains no 3D objects of any kind.

    If the shadow is cast on a piece of 8 x 10 paper and you move the paper closer to the object it eventually becomes purely black, it's in the shadow, thus any imaginary 3D shadow volume (from object to receptor) no longer exist. The shaded image does not get smaller, its gets bigger, in relation to the paper. You can no longer claim the whole shadow has volume, but the most of imaginary volume of the shadow would exist outside the size of the paper. How big is the volume of the shadow that passes past the paper to a wall 1 mile away, where it has become invisible all together. Do we get an vanishing volume of absence of light with a square black hole (a vacuum) in it?
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    How do you solidify a shadow? As photographer, I'd be really interested to know.
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Imagination

    You can do almost anything

    In another post I do say I cannot imagine a one dimensional object

    I can do 2D which vanishes when twisted to try and see with the minds eye the edge

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Making progress we are........from only 3D down to 2D.......quick learner..... once imagined the 1D, the force be with you, it will....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    A shadow is a dark area where light from a light source is blocked by an opaque object. It occupies all of the three-dimensional volume behind an object with light in front of it. The cross section of a shadow is a two-dimensionalsilhouette, or a reverse projectionof the object blocking the light

    Wiki

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow

    Quick reply

    Stay tuned for more later after I buy some plasticine and a marble

    Common speech

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Clever but wait have to attend to something

    Then coffee

    Wait please

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    Thank for the link. I can visualize the 3D volume of darkness from the object to the receptor plane.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow
    Excerpt,
    Which of course then creates a three dimensional volume from the projected 2D silhouette to the observer, who then converts it into electro-chemical signals to the brain which experiences a mental hologram of a 2D silhouette.

    Which proves that the imagination can create both 3D, 2D objects. 1D and 0D objects can only be imagined as theoretical constructs, but not by direct observation.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Breaking it down

    LS light source
    BO blocking object
    P paper
    P² second P

    When the sheet is total black the shadow is between B O and P and a 3D shadow volume does exist

    but the most of imaginary volume of the shadow would exist outside the size of the paper

    Negatory

    Outside the edges of P is NOT shadow streaming by

    It's light not which has NOT been blocked by B O

    What your thought appears to be is inserting P² behind P

    placing P² within any shadow of P

    which in such a formation P would be acting as a second B O (B O²)

    Can we go back to KISFSM?

    Just L S - B O - P

    Moving P further away from BO until there is no shadow on P just means there is no shadow

    End of story

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Don't bet on it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Princess cute she with me is

    Get there I will not

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,451
    No. This is simple thermodynamics, according to which any spontaneous process proceeds with an increase in entropy and is thereby irreversible. Entropy deals with this issue completely. No hidden variables required.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I understand that and that is why mixing an ink drop at high speed, such as a blender into the glycerine would result in an impossible reversal of reconstitution of the ink drop.

    This why in Bohm's experiment the ink drop was very slowly enfolded into the glycerine, for the process to be reversible. Which has been proven many times using the very slowly rotating cylinder, which just stretched the ink into a line until it was completely enfolded, but when the process was reversed, it was possible to reconstitute the ink drop back into a single drop.

    My question was, if we could devise a very slowly rotating mixer which is designed to scatter, and then reversed the mixer at the same slow speed, if the enfolded ink could be reconstituted into a drop. IOW, instead of scattering, the process would be reversed and the ink would be recollected into a drop.
    This seems highly unlikely to me but if thermodynamics were not in play, could that be possible?
     
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I should have stipulated that the original object is much larger than 8 x10"
    Inserting a 8 x 10 plane between the object and the silhouette, would reduce the volume of the original shadow, no? While you still get the silhouette, part of that silhouette is now related to the 8 x 10' paper plane. A volume within a volume.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  21. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Powerful operative word

    Problem is it puts the burden on me to come up with the solution to any problem which invariably follows "if"

    And invariably I am kicked out of any area of knowledge I have some inkling about

    Huey Dewey and Louie don't like "if"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They don't mind "do you think...."

    That at least gives them a starting point

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,069
    I can respect that, I have that same problem.
    But I have accepted your first example of a 3D volume created by the distance between the object and the silhouette.
    What do you think of my alternate example of inserting a small plane between the original object and the silhouette.
    IMO , it would create a secondary smaller volume within the larger volume, but would not change the silhouette itself.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2017
  23. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Breaking it down again

    As I understand your set up is

    LS then a
    BO much larger than 8"X10" then
    P size 8"X10"
    P² where the silhouette shows

    Hope that is a correct rep of your post

    OK

    Inserting a 8 x 10 plane between the object and the silhouette, would reduce the volume of the original shadow, no? While you still get the silhouette, part of that silhouette is now related to the 8 x 10' paper plane. A volume within a volume

    Yes

    The shadow volume below P (the 8"X10") would be within volume of the shadow from BO to P² (where silhouette shows)

    An here is moi trying to KISFSM but wondering if / can you produce a shadow under a shadow since there is no light shining on P (8"X10") to make a shadow?

    Another time, another time

    (I am taking it as a given we are not considering penumbra and or scattered light?)

    As a side view visualisation

    Light source on top

    Larger than 8"X10" Blocking Object

    8"X10" sheet

    Silhouette level

    To explain it in 10 different ways...

    Na can't find the Galileo quote

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page