Of course, same goes for any dimensional creature. As long as the creature has a grasp of dimensional concepts, they can figure there is a dimension above, but they really have no way to visualize it, just as we have no way of truly visualizing the 4th dimension. 0 dimensional creatures would really be pushing it though because all that would exist in that universe would be a single point.
Imagine a creature in the 4th dimension giving a lecture on what other dimensional creatures would see. They would describe what they think a 3rd dimensional creature might see based off some sound reasoning, but ultimately they'd explain that they can't ever truly visualize what a 3rd dimensional creature would see because their reality just isn't the same. It would go on to explain that a 3rd dimensional can never be aware of the 4th dimension and explain some interesting interactions and would eventually make the point that they can't ever visualize the 4th dimension. Then it would expand upon that concept and say that this is the same reason why they can't visualize the 5th dimension, they can think about it, but they can't ever visualize it.
[QUOTE=Meader;25235956]I can. You can see the front, sides, AND back of something, in a way we can't perceive. Think about it. A 2D creature wouldn't be able to perceive the 3rd dimension, as it would only see the front of something. No sides, no third dimension. It COULD however say "What if we could see the side of things too?" It wouldn't know what it would look like, but it could come to that conclusion as an idea.[/QUOTE]
Except it wouldn't be the "side" to the 2d creature because the 2d creature cannot comprehend what a "side" is. It wouldn't be the back for us either, it would be another type of "side" that we can't comprehend.
this just popped in my head
"time passes, people move
like a rivers flow, it never ends"
but this seems oddly familiar
[QUOTE=kafurie;25282411]this just popped in my head
"time passes, people move
like a rivers flow, it never ends"
but this seems oddly familiar[/QUOTE]
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
[QUOTE=Poo Monst3r;24927360]what if god was one of us?[/QUOTE]
no..
God lost his faith in humans after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, giving us our twisted sense of morality. We turn good into bad and bad into good, right?
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;25296440]no..
God lost his faith in humans after Adam ate the forbidden fruit, giving us our twisted sense of morality. We turn good into bad and bad into good, right?[/QUOTE]
Well that's personal opinion.
Rousseau would say that until mankind created society, good and bad (evil) didn't exist. In the wild, there is no good or evil, there is only alive and dead, no rules. But once we created a set of rules to live by, you were either a good person or bad. It's all based on social construct.
Now Hobbes on the other hand, would argue that people are all bad and selfish, but in saying that to be selfish is to be "bad", is following society's structure of good and bad, so I personally find it irrelevant, yet interesting.
Marx believed that humans created their OWN nature, and every definition of "good" and "bad" is different. (Actually tested this in a class, and yup, everybody says different things for these two definitions.)
And Locke is just a pussy who won't decide.
[editline]12:23AM[/editline]
I personally believe Rousseau, with Marx thrown in when you actually decide to answer the question of are people good or bad. Rousseau overrides the others obviously, but Marx makes a good point about relativity of definitions.
My roommate believes what Locke says. Pussy.
[QUOTE=Meader;25289106]The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time[/QUOTE]
thank you i have been wondering about that for days
[QUOTE]I don't think I quite understand what you're confused about. According to evolutionists humans were given much larger brains through a genetic flaw that allowed for a more complex thought patterns. It gave us the ability to make intricate languages and skill of reasoning. Through this, we are able to rationalize and discover the principals of the universe, and exploit them.
As far as your second question, no, because what we have accomplished in this day in age isn't anything fathomable to those that who do not have knowledge. A being can come to understand the different aspects of science and understand how they are applied through being taught with being knowledgeable.[/QUOTE]
There is a flaw here. If you stop time for the whole universe. You cannot re-enable it. Let me make an example of why... Let's pretend that our universe and everything(EVERYTHING) within it, is a robot. His name is Mr. Uni. Mr Uni does not have an internal power supply, and is therefor dependent on being plugged into an external one. One day, Mr Uni decides to pull his plug for fun, but he didn't really think it through. Because as soon as he unplugs, he stops functioning. There is no way for him to plug it back in. Everything in our universe is affected by time. If time stops. Everything stops, and therefor nothing or no one can re-enable time.
If stopping time is possible, it will only be possible to stop time for certain objects and locations, and not the whole universe. Unless there is an unknown "force" in our universe which we do not know of, which is not affected by time and functions when time stops.
[I]OR[/I] Mr Uni has a friend. Another robot, right next to him. Mrs Uni. She is plugged into her own external power supply, and was not affected when Mr. Uni pulled his plug. She can put it back in for him.
You quoted the wrong thing. I think you completely missed the part where I said
[QUOTE]Imagine someone made some contraption to stop time, so he stopped time and he didn't think it through and he was stopped in time as well. Life would not go on, any living being would not noticed time stopped, it would just be a snapshot of one instance of time.[/QUOTE]
When you talk about these things you are just trying to get the concept across. The device talked about is theoretical, more a what if. Now if you really want, you can say that the device can select objects that it doesn't want to freeze. So maybe it has a timer that starts time again 20 hours after the stop time button has been pressed. But that wouldn't be cool enough because an observer would never know time had stopped no matter how much time had passed in the stopped time. So to go on with this, we'll just say that the device can also exclude people or whatever else.
[QUOTE=Meader;25300592]Well that's personal opinion.
Rousseau would say that until mankind created society, good and bad (evil) didn't exist. In the wild, there is no good or evil, there is only alive and dead, no rules. But once we created a set of rules to live by, you were either a good person or bad. It's all based on social construct.
Now Hobbes on the other hand, would argue that people are all bad and selfish, but in saying that to be selfish is to be "bad", is following society's structure of good and bad, so I personally find it irrelevant, yet interesting.
Marx believed that humans created their OWN nature, and every definition of "good" and "bad" is different. (Actually tested this in a class, and yup, everybody says different things for these two definitions.)
And Locke is just a pussy who won't decide.
[editline]12:23AM[/editline]
I personally believe Rousseau, with Marx thrown in when you actually decide to answer the question of are people good or bad. Rousseau overrides the others obviously, but Marx makes a good point about relativity of definitions.
My roommate believes what Locke says. Pussy.[/QUOTE]
This subject is too wide and overwhelming somehow. :v:
But maybe all this doesn't matter, and we are too blind to actually realise that as far as it comes down to us, humans, we are exactly how we see us, around the world (and you know how it is). I guess you don't even know the worst of it, neither do I. Some would maybe call this the reality, but are we then too afraid of it to fit these "ridiculous" theories like God and even the theories you listed and suggested? Mostly about the origin of humans
Pretty.. fascinating
[editline]01:53PM[/editline]
sorry if I dont make a lot of sense
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;25303936]This subject is too wide and overwhelming somehow. :v:
But maybe all this doesn't matter, and we are too blind to actually realise that as far as it comes down to us, humans, we are exactly how we see us, around the world (and you know how it is). I guess you don't even know the worst of it, neither do I. Some would maybe call this the reality, but are we then too afraid of it to fit these "ridiculous" theories like God and even the theories you listed and suggested? Mostly about the origin of humans
Pretty.. fascinating
[editline]01:53PM[/editline]
sorry if I dont make a lot of sense[/QUOTE]
You don't. :)
[QUOTE=Pepin;25301326]You quoted the wrong thing. I think you completely missed the part where I said[/QUOTE]
Oh right. Sorry brah. I didn't miss it, i just misunderstood the last part, but i see what you meant now.
My bad.
Anyways. Some of what your wrote earlier also got me thinking on something I didn't really think about before. Like... If there are multiple universe, or multiverse, and each one has its "own" time. Then maybe our time actually passes in 1 second from a different universe' point of view. So as I finish writing this message, our universe has stopped existing long ago, from a different point of view.
Obviously this is not anything groundbreaking lol, you probably thought of this before, but I'm just sharing my thoughts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.