Philosophy Now Forum

How was it decided that three dimensions are suitable for space and one for time? Why not a different number for space and time? And to take it a step further, would it make sense to talk about fractional dimensions?

What say you to this?

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How was it decided that three dimensions are suitable for space and one for time? Why not a different number for space and time? And to take it a step further, would it make sense to talk about fractional dimensions?

What say you to this?

PhilX

Coin toss. What say you to this?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How was it decided that three dimensions are suitable for space and one for time? Why not a different number for space and time? And to take it a step further, would it make sense to talk about fractional dimensions?

What say you to this?

PhilX

Because I can walk backward and forward, right or left, jump up and down. This is where we get the three dimensions of space. Think of dimensions as being degrees of freedom.

There are 3 dimensions we can see that seem to be intrinsically related to a fourth dimension. Claiming we need more than those dimensions we have physical and measurable evidence for becomes a rather messy business, for one how can you prove x more dimensions exist if they have no discernible affect on the 4 we can see, and why even bother with them?

String theory has as much as 26 but if you ask me this is merely an attempt to screw the ball of paper up tighter and tighter until any value is one and the same to explain problem with infinities which seems to be an ass about way of doing things, and so it seems completely unprovable probably ever. Interesting maths that can be applied to real world models like quark behaviours and so on, but ultimately just a maths fiddle to get out of the problems cause by gravitation and quantum mechanics. One might argue even that renormalisation in quantum mechanics to present only realistic degrees of freedom is a fiddle, but it at least conforms to the actual behaviour of electrons and photons ie we can map the spectra of light onto the particle picture and also the wave picture by using probabilities.

If I took a 2d piece of paper and lived in a 2d universe then the paper would appear to be a line, if I took a 3d piece of paper in a 3d universe, it would appear to be a rectangle, if I then screwed up the piece of paper and punted it into the waste paper basket how would I explain the change from position a to b?

It seems to me we only need 4 dimensions to explain reality, even if the reality of 4 dimensions is not complete, but the inventiveness of the mind likes to create fairy stories.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How was it decided that three dimensions are suitable for space and one for time?

Because from any starting point you need three coordinates to locate another point. You can use a few different methods, there are different versions of polar coordinates for example. By far the most common system is the one devised by Rene Descartes which divides space into three perpendicular axes. Some people, mathematical realists of one stripe or another, believe dimensions actually 'exist'. Not only those, but as blaggard has noted, up to 23 others, although it should be noted that nowhere in space has been identified than cannot be located with 3 dimensions.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Why not a different number for space and time?

Well, it's 3 to 1 already. The point about time is that it is only necessary if you want to locate an event; I can tell you where the pub is (it only takes two dimensions to do so, because most are at street level), but if I hope to meet someone, I will need to tell them when.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:And to take it a step further, would it make sense to talk about fractional dimensions?

Nope.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:How was it decided that three dimensions are suitable for space and one for time? Why not a different number for space and time? And to take it a step further, would it make sense to talk about fractional dimensions?

What say you to this?

PhilX

Depends on how are we going to link the physical, empirical world of 3 dimensional space to those other dimensions in things like that of mathematics. I don't think that string theory or M theory would do the trick, though, because those theories are purely mathematical, highly confusing, and have no bearing on reality.

I've looked a bit into the 'Reciprocal System of Theory' by Dewey B. Larson. This system contends that Space and Time are reciprocals of one another, and that there is an extension of 3-dimensional time and clock space, alongside the usual 3-dimensional space and clock time. Not sure if it's true or not, but definitely still worth exploring into.