/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11491235]

What's the most complex idea you came up with by yourself?

Here's mine:
The universe we perceive as 4 -dimensional. It wouldn't be a sphere but a hyper-sphere, like a sphere but in 4D, in which the 4th dimension is time. This means that when we're "moving through time" we're actually changing our position in a 4D space.

For simplicity's sake we might visualize the universe like a 3D sphere, in which the third dimension is time. Now if we're changing coordinates in this sphere, that means that time is not progressive, but a whole extant instead. That in turn implies that whatever we call the past, the present and the future are just different coordinates into this universe, and have already happened, or rather, they simply exist in what we might conceive as simultaneity.

What's to be said of the cause-effect principle? It has to at least change face. We seem to follow a path were logic is founded on the subsequence of cause and effect, but whatever the force behind this might be, it remains a mistery. It must in fact be concluded from our premises that if time has, so to speak, "already been written" [that is: all the events already "are there" "in a when that is a where"], nothing is caused by anything. Thus not only time, but the very string of causes and effects is an illusion, because each so-called cause will inevitably lead to its own 4th-dimensionally linked and prescribed so-called effect.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.11491239]

>>11491235
Then what of probability? Is it an illusion as well? Here's where another dimension has to be added. To explain probability we have to imagine a fifth dimension orthogonal to the fourth, in which per every single event (or better what physicists call dt, a state of the universe) another timeline emerges in which things go different. This is what pop-science has come to call a multiverse: our own universe is in fact the multiverse itself, and not part of one. It's just that we can only perceive 4 dimensions and see in three of them. We might call this multiverse a Universe of Possibilities.

An interesting observation is that our 4D universe immersed in such a 5D universe does not require a beginning nor ending. Follow my line of thoughts: remember Flatland? The fictional characters of that 2D world were astounded at the sudden and inexplicable appearance of a shape-shifting indechiperable object that the author explains us is actually a 3D object passing through Flatland's two dimensions. Therefore, just like in the book, we might say that a beginning is just a five dimensional time-like object entering a four dimensional observer's point of view: time has no beginning, it is simply a possibility passing through the field of observability of a 4D observer.

The most important corollary of the previous reasoning is that what we call the universe, i.e. the four dimensions we are able to perceive, is not a thing without a consciousness to witness it. What is this consciousness? Is it simply a six-dimensional object that gets wrapped up or thrown into the 5th dimension? Why does it look like it starts and stops at fixed points in time (birth and death)? Does it?

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.11491249]

Duuuuuuh what if more dimensions

[Anonymous No.11491258]

>>11491235
>>11491239
Cringe

>>11491249
Based

[Anonymous No.11491267]

>>11491235
>>11491239
This is just spherical time cube

[Anonymous No.11491271]

>>11491249
gg ty

[Anonymous No.11491274]

>>11491271
>gg ty

[Anonymous No.11491311]

>>11491274

[Anonymous No.11491325]

>>11491267
I said it was complex and that I came up with it by myself, not that i was the first and only one to think it. Never heard of spherical time though.

[Anonymous No.11491326]

>>11491311
Its not bait, I'm just straight up calling you dumb

[Anonymous No.11491347]

>>11491235
Just read Whitehead.

[Anonymous No.11491349]

>>11491325
No it’s like “time cube” in its stupidity but yours has spheres.

[Anonymous No.11491412]

>>11491235

I thought of this in high school. I also read Flatland in high school.

>astounded at the sudden and inexplicable appearance of a shape-shifting indechiperable object

Your argument revolves around more dimensions = unknown, but this is faulty. Using time as a tool, we can understand 4d phenomenon using 2d data. One example of this is medical imaging.

Another general example: submarine combat is based on reconstructing spatial reality based on sonar data. This involves geometry (like Flatland) but it also involves predicting the 4d reality (where the ships are) using extrapolation. I'm sure there are related topics in astronomy.

To summarize: your discourse on higher dimensionality is a low-effort cop out.

>What's the most complex idea you came up with?

Nervous systems intrinsically exchange associations (i.e. electrochemical signalling) between related pathways in the brain. This is caused by the similarity between neural structures, which can be influenced by learning and hallucinogens.

(I omitted the "by yourself" for obvious reasons.)

[Anonymous No.11491433]

>>11491235
A Russian philosopher, mathematician and mystic named PD Ouspensky already came up with this in the early 1900s, he does something similar up to 7 dimensions.

[Anonymous No.11491781]

>>11491347
This is quite a good answer

[Anonymous No.11491951]

>>11491235
>time is the4th dimension
oh the eternal brainlet

[Anonymous No.11491992]

>>11491951
>Who is Einstein

[Anonymous No.11492035]

>>11491235
Fuck you blog poster, you aren't genuinely interested in anyone else's ideas.
>>11491347
This except read Peirce before you read process and reality, this way you can be based process-relational like me. You need to understand Peirce for me to explain my most complicated idea anyways. Which I will never explain to you, because as mentioned, you are a piece of shit narcissistic blog poster.

[Anonymous No.11492060]

>>11492035
>Peirce
You're even worse than OP is. Semiotics-fags should be auto-banned.

[Anonymous No.11492089]

>>11492060
t. tried to read Peirce, got frustrated and vented by posting brainlet wojaks

[Anonymous No.11492422]

>time has form

Y I K E S