What is it expanding into?
Uh.No dimensions is nothing, the first dimension is a point, information is the real 2nd dimension.
The 3rd dimension has 3 dimensions true.Uh.
I would like for you to post to any paper that states the second dimension is only information.
Well a 0 dimension space usually means a single point. Imagine a point on an infinitely thin thread.
1 dimension has forward and backward motion/measurements. So using the above analogy it would be the entire infinitely thin thread.
2 dimensions includes sideways movement/measurements as well as forward and backwards
3 dimensions includes up and down. Which is what we live observing.
Regardless of if a line drawn onto a paper has 3 dimensions once you zoom in enough it is just a representation of the 1st dimension.
The first 3 are spatial dimensions most people include time which is a temporal dimension. Some theories require many more dimensions than what we can perceive. String theory for instance has about 10-11 dimensions. These are all spatial dimensions (I'm not sure if this is correct).
So the post by dmitry is correct. The definition of dimensions vary slighty between mathematics and physics but I'm sure for the purposes of this thread those differences are not required to be talked about.
Drawings of these shapes are ABSTRACT REPRESENTATIONS.The 3rd dimension has 3 dimensions true.
But you wouldn’t be able to see a square if it was infinitely thin.
A square is 3 dimensional.
Any representation would be a fallacy.Drawings of these shapes are ABSTRACT REPRESENTATIONS.
Just as a drawing of a sqaure is an ABSTRACT REPRESENTATION.
A 3 Dimensional square is known as a cube or rectangular prism. So therefore if you don't think that squares are 2 dimensional then you don't think they exist at all (on their own).
Just learn to accept that you will not always be correct about everything you try to argue about. Instead of continuing to try and spread misinformation just give up learn and move on.
Unless of course you have one of those papers which describes these dimensions that you speak of. In which case you should just post a link because I'm certainly interested.
Do you understand what the term fallacy indicates? There is nothing wrong with using visual representations to depict 2D or 1D objects.Any representation would be a fallacy.
I’m not denying the 3rd dimension has 3 dimensions.
“Straw Man Fallacy” - Isn’t that what you’re doing? Except in a massive group?Do you understand what the term fallacy indicates? There is nothing wrong with using visual representations to depict 2D or 1D objects.
The fallacy here is that you don't accept them as representations instead you seem to be stuck on the mindset that they are being passed of depicting exactly 2 dimensions or 1 dimension. Which isn't true. This is known as the Straw man fallacy and is quite common.
No, because I'm the one defending the original position. You're the one that has taken that original position twisted it to something that you CALL the original position and you're arguing that it is wrong.“Straw Man Fallacy” - Isn’t that what you’re doing? Except in a massive group?
No. I think your point of view is more based on incorrect semantics than some fundamental misunderstanding of dimensions though. Just shift your dimensions one upwards and you're fine.A line is really a square if you think about it; a true line is the beginning and end of a point.
Does this really not make sense?
No, a line is parametrised by one number. The fact that an object of n dimensions can exist in m dimensional space, for n<m, does not mean the n-dimensional object is somehow therefore m dimensions.A 3D graph right? It’s all a fallacy.