The Energon Pub

Insurgent wrote:

Tammuz wrote:it's really not that hard to follow

if 2 being s are omnipotent then one(being A) can control all aspects of the other(being B), if the aspects of Bing B aren't in complete control of being B, then being B isn't omnipotent as he lacks the complete control over something(his own aspects).

Perhaps they just don't control the aspects of the others. It's against their moral code or something.

it is within my power to do alot of things that are morally repugnant to me, I choose not to do them, this does not diminsh my ability to carry them, any more than a hunger strike, stops the strikers ability to digest food.

it's not a question of what he wants to do, it what he can do. and if he can't do something then he's not omnipotent

of course the reverse argument is also true if for moral reasons god is prevented from soming something then he is powerless to do it.

Tammuz wrote:

Insurgent wrote:

Tammuz wrote:it's really not that hard to follow

if 2 being s are omnipotent then one(being A) can control all aspects of the other(being B), if the aspects of Bing B aren't in complete control of being B, then being B isn't omnipotent as he lacks the complete control over something(his own aspects).

Perhaps they just don't control the aspects of the others. It's against their moral code or something.

it is within my power to do alot of things that are morally repugnant to me, I choose not to do them, this does not diminsh my ability to carry them, any more than a hunger strike, stops the strikers ability to digest food.

it's not a question of what he wants to do, it what he can do. and if he can't do something then he's not omnipotent

of course the reverse argument is also true if for moral reasons god is prevented from soming something then he is powerless to do it.

True.

Perhaps there is no such thing as omnipotent. Perhaps if they do exsist, they can control everything but the will of another of their kind. Which isn't omnipotent as we understand it, but the closest thing there is.

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Salazaar wrote:the "selfish bastards" was kind of a nod to another thread. All deeds committed by man, good or bad, have been in search for self-satisfaction.

But that's all there is and all there ever will be in terms of our performing actions. Best to realize you always do things because you want to do it, and not demonize for illogical reasons.

... Spock?

Salazaar wrote:

The Avatar of Man wrote:

Salazaar wrote:the "selfish bastards" was kind of a nod to another thread. All deeds committed by man, good or bad, have been in search for self-satisfaction.

But that's all there is and all there ever will be in terms of our performing actions. Best to realize you always do things because you want to do it, and not demonize for illogical reasons.

... Spock?

Beam me up Scotty.

Salazaar wrote:think of it as, "if an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being existed, what could've created it?"

God is beyond all our understanding.

Get this:

How many demensions are there? I've heard 27. We can only percieve 3 of them. Our brains aren't complicated enough to percieve any more than that. Just barely into the 4th.

In the 4th demension, an enclosed cube or sphere still has a way out, much like in the 3rd you can leave a square or circle by going up from the paper.

God would have to exist on the highest plane. A world were a simple cube would be so warped and multiplied that it would look like a tiered globe. A world were time and space have no meaning because all moments and all locations in the universe and its history are one and the same.

Salazaar wrote:Obviously, God couldn't have created himself,

Yes. He did.



Oh and nice pic up there. Real cute. If anyone doesn't know, it's from a movie, not some snuff **** or something. (Which I thought it was. Sue me.)

If I am not incorrect it's ten dimensions. The tenth one is, well, everything that could be and everything that could have been. Everything. There's suppose to be a video about it floating around. Can't find it right now, though. It's a fun video!


Anyway. A lot of mythologies start with "There was nothing, then there was [whatever]" and Christianity is no exception. The answer most mythologies give to this kind of question is "believe harder" and, yeah, that works just stellar for those who want to believe. Which, really, is the kind of people the various religions like.

I mean, don't get me wrong, but it makes sense to bother a little less with people who aren't interested in what you have to say.

I thought the 4th dimension was Time.

Kjell wrote:If I am not incorrect it's ten dimensions. The tenth one is, well, everything that could be and everything that could have been. Everything. There's suppose to be a video about it floating around. Can't find it right now, though. It's a fun video!


Anyway. A lot of mythologies start with "There was nothing, then there was [whatever]" and Christianity is no exception. The answer most mythologies give to this kind of question is "believe harder" and, yeah, that works just stellar for those who want to believe. Which, really, is the kind of people the various religions like.

I mean, don't get me wrong, but it makes sense to bother a little less with people who aren't interested in what you have to say.

It's essentially a theoretical bending of dimentions along 'bends' in space created by gravity, as well as the idea of probability-- that every event in history could have gone a different way based on probability. They're more metaphorical dimensions than anything for basis of calculation.

I personally don't accept the current model for real terms for the seeming that, in a flow of time, if everything happens as a result of the last, than there is no probability-- what is meant to happen happens, and thus is one singularity. As said, it works for calculating outcomes with incomplete variables, which is what essentially probability is, but is a bit out when actually providing a model for the flow of reality. (See 'determinism')

Insurgent wrote:I thought the 4th dimension was Time.

The 4th demension is a demension just like lenght, width, and depth.

People like to say the 4th is time, but do they really know what that means?

Look up "tesseract". Try and find the animation of it rotating along one of its faces the way a cube can rotate along it's edge. That's what the 4th demension is, or as much of it as we can comprehend. It's like a drawing of a cube on a sheet of paper at best.

And there are even more complicated ones than that.

If the 4th demension is Time, then it would be possible to go back or even forward in it, by bending it the way a black hole bends space.

You mean like this? Because that is funky.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:I thought the 4th dimension was Time.

The 4th demension is a demension just like lenght, width, and depth.

People like to say the 4th is time, but do they really know what that means?

Look up "tesseract". Try and find the animation of it rotating along one of its faces the way a cube can rotate along it's edge. That's what the 4th demension is, or as much of it as we can comprehend. It's like a drawing of a cube on a sheet of paper at best.

And there are even more complicated ones than that.

If the 4th demension is Time, then it would be possible to go back or even forward in it, by bending it the way a black hole bends space.

Time is a dimension, and it is OUR 4th dimension,being that we cannot percive any of the other dimensions time is quite often referred to as the 4th dimenision particualrily by Einstein, and later Hawkins. what you're talking about is the 4th spatial demension. how you label the dimensions is very subjective, and somewhat arbitary; is length the first dimension or the second? why isn't height the first instead. dimensions are a quality not a ranking.

FYI black holes DO bend time, hell all gravity does to some extent, it's called time dilation.

Tammuz wrote:Hawkins.

Hawking.

Tammuz wrote:how you label the dimensions is very subjective, and somewhat arbitary; is length the first dimension or the second? why isn't height the first instead. dimensions are a quality not a ranking.

Yes, you are right. The first dimension is length because there is only one direction of measurement. The x axis. The second dimension, the next direction of measurement, is width. The y axis. The third is depth, the z axis. And the fourth I think is labeled h.

They are arbitary names, correct. But the amount of directions is what matters. I believe that is exactly what you said, so I elaborated on what I said.

Tammuz wrote:Time is a dimension, and it is OUR 4th dimension,being that we cannot percive any of the other dimensions time is quite often referred to as the 4th dimenision particualrily by Einstein, and later Hawkins. what you're talking about is the 4th spatial demension.

Wait. You're saying there is time (OUR 4th dimension) and there is the 4th spatial dimension? That makes no sense to me. If time is the 4th, it's the only 4th. I must have misunderstood.

Insurgent wrote:You mean like this? Because that is funky.

Yes. Exactly like that.

And it is a drawning. Putting a tessarct in 3D space is like putting a cube in 2D space, like drawing it on paper.


This is what it is:

Imagine a line on a paper. That is one dimension because it can't rotate at all. If it did, there would be a radius, which would fill a square, which is another dimension. A square can rotate along a corner, filling a larger square, so it's still only two dimensions. A cube can rotate not only on a corner, but also on its edge, filling a larger cube, still only three dimensions.

But a tesseract can rotate along a face. The thing in the picture alters itself ever so slightly to accomplish this. But a real one would not have to. When a cube rotates along an edge, it remains solid, the relationships of everything remain the same. But if it was to rotate along a face, it would get all bent and ruined.

Each new dimension has a new aspect. A line has an edge. A square has corners. A cube has faces. A terract would have something more than faces, something we can't comprehend. It could turn along a face, but it would get ruined if it turned along that new thing it has. A pentaract (I think), has yet another even crazier thing, and could rotate along the thing the tesseract has. And so forth.


Be sure to clean all your brains off the walls.

since were all talking about dimensions i felt that this vid was appropriate

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2u4CFTZtcXE

BigScrufyWookie wrote:since were all talking about dimensions i felt that this vid was appropriate

http://www.seibertron.com/act.php?u=35841&k=f30u2l

The login page? My profile?

Dark Zarak wrote:

Tammuz wrote:Hawkins.

Hawking.

Dyslexia sucks.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Tammuz wrote:Time is a dimension, and it is OUR 4th dimension,being that we cannot percive any of the other dimensions time is quite often referred to as the 4th dimenision particualrily by Einstein, and later Hawkins. what you're talking about is the 4th spatial demension.

Wait. You're saying there is time (OUR 4th dimension) and there is the 4th spatial dimension? That makes no sense to me. If time is the 4th, it's the only 4th. I must have misunderstood.

welcome to scientists, we're odd folk, we have strange hair and don't have a centralised archive of knowledge, sometimes we use the similiar terms to describe totally different things; when einstein talks about the 4th dimension it is time, and what you're talking about is the 5th, when talking exclusively spatial dimensions time doesn't exist, and what your talking about is the 4th.

one important thing to remeber is that you don't have to exist in the nth dimension to exist in nth+1 dimension, they don't have set order they come in, we exist in 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, however it doesn't matter which 3 spatial directions(or which temporal dimension, for that matter) we just need 3 space and 1 time to create an existence analogous to ours; they could be the 5th,6th, &7th dimensions and time, and the inhabitants of that existence would probably call the 5th, 6th, 7th,length height and depth (if for some odd reason they spoke english) though for all we know WE are those inhabitants.

basically we really should be talking about dimensions as qualities(like red blue green, or 1 dimensional, 2 dimensional, 3 dimensional) rather than rankings, if we look at a terrasect in 3 spatial dimensions(any 3 from the first to the nth) it's a cube.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:You mean like this? Because that is funky.

Yes. Exactly like that.

And it is a drawning. Putting a tessarct in 3D space is like putting a cube in 2D space, like drawing it on paper.


This is what it is:

Imagine a line on a paper. That is one dimension because it can't rotate at all. If it did, there would be a radius, which would fill a square, which is another dimension. A square can rotate along a corner, filling a larger square, so it's still only two dimensions. A cube can rotate not only on a corner, but also on its edge, filling a larger cube, still only three dimensions.

But a tesseract can rotate along a face. The thing in the picture alters itself ever so slightly to accomplish this. But a real one would not have to. When a cube rotates along an edge, it remains solid, the relationships of everything remain the same. But if it was to rotate along a face, it would get all bent and ruined.

Each new dimension has a new aspect. A line has an edge. A square has corners. A cube has faces. A terract would have something more than faces, something we can't comprehend. It could turn along a face, but it would get ruined if it turned along that new thing it has. A pentaract (I think), has yet another even crazier thing, and could rotate along the thing the tesseract has. And so forth.


Be sure to clean all your brains off the walls.

So it should move like that, but without changing size or shape of any of it's faces? My head hurts. Time paradoxes, alternate realities, screwed up continuities I can deal with no problem. This, is beyond me.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Insurgent wrote:You mean like this? Because that is funky.

Yes. Exactly like that.

And it is a drawning. Putting a tessarct in 3D space is like putting a cube in 2D space, like drawing it on paper.


This is what it is:

Imagine a line on a paper. That is one dimension because it can't rotate at all. If it did, there would be a radius, which would fill a square, which is another dimension. A square can rotate along a corner, filling a larger square, so it's still only two dimensions. A cube can rotate not only on a corner, but also on its edge, filling a larger cube, still only three dimensions.

But a tesseract can rotate along a face. The thing in the picture alters itself ever so slightly to accomplish this. But a real one would not have to. When a cube rotates along an edge, it remains solid, the relationships of everything remain the same. But if it was to rotate along a face, it would get all bent and ruined.

Each new dimension has a new aspect. A line has an edge. A square has corners. A cube has faces. A terract would have something more than faces, something we can't comprehend. It could turn along a face, but it would get ruined if it turned along that new thing it has. A pentaract (I think), has yet another even crazier thing, and could rotate along the thing the tesseract has. And so forth.


Be sure to clean all your brains off the walls.

I learned something!

Dark Zarak wrote:

BigScrufyWookie wrote:since were all talking about dimensions i felt that this vid was appropriate

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2u4CFTZtcXE

The login page? My profile?

oh crap! my bad, I fixed it! sorry about that!

Insurgent wrote:So it should move like that, but without changing size or shape of any of it's faces? My head hurts. Time paradoxes, alternate realities, screwed up continuities I can deal with no problem. This, is beyond me.

Good.


If you thought you understood it, and weren't confused, you wouldn't understand it. Your confusion is due to being stuck in a 3D world. You'll get used to it eventually.

Tammuz wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:Wait. You're saying there is time (OUR 4th dimension) and there is the 4th spatial dimension? That makes no sense to me. If time is the 4th, it's the only 4th. I must have misunderstood.

welcome to scientists, we're odd folk, we have strange hair and don't have a centralised archive of knowledge, sometimes we use the similiar terms to describe totally different things; when einstein talks about the 4th dimension it is time, and what you're talking about is the 5th, when talking exclusively spatial dimensions time doesn't exist, and what your talking about is the 4th.

one important thing to remeber is that you don't have to exist in the nth dimension to exist in nth+1 dimension, they don't have set order they come in, we exist in 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, however it doesn't matter which 3 spatial directions(or which temporal dimension, for that matter) we just need 3 space and 1 time to create an existence analogous to ours; they could be the 5th,6th, &7th dimensions and time, and the inhabitants of that existence would probably call the 5th, 6th, 7th,length height and depth (if for some odd reason they spoke english) though for all we know WE are those inhabitants.

basically we really should be talking about dimensions as qualities(like red blue green, or 1 dimensional, 2 dimensional, 3 dimensional) rather than rankings, if we look at a terrasect in 3 spatial dimensions(any 3 from the first to the nth) it's a cube.

Okay, I follow you now. That makes sense. I had the same problem when I was fighting my way through Brief History of Time. As soon as he started talking about gravity being a particle, my brain gave up.

BigScrufyWookie wrote:http://youtube.com/watch?v=2u4CFTZtcXE

Yes. That video is awesome.

Salazaar wrote::o I learned something!

I hijacked a topic!

ooooooooooooookay. I'm going to make some mathematical assumptions here, correct me if I'm wrong. The definition of the fourth dimension would be "being able to rotate on the 'new' aspect of the third dimension."

So a tesseract has this thing we can't comprehend, so a penteract would be able to rotate on that thing we can't comprehend, making the penteract twice as incomprehencible.

If there is a tesseract and penteract, in theory there must be a sexteract, nonoract, monoract, and so on. Therefore there is an infinite number of dimensions, but our minds cannot comprehend how they rotate. By the time we get to an octoract, we'll REALLY be picking up our heads off the floor.

Salazaar wrote:ooooooooooooookay. I'm going to make some mathematical assumptions here, correct me if I'm wrong. The definition of the fourth dimension would be "being able to rotate on the 'new' aspect of the third dimension."

So a tesseract has this thing we can't comprehend, so a penteract would be able to rotate on that thing we can't comprehend, making the penteract twice as incomprehencible.

If there is a tesseract and penteract, in theory there must be a sexteract, nonoract, monoract, and so on. Therefore there is an infinite number of dimensions, but our minds cannot comprehend how they rotate. By the time we get to an octoract, we'll REALLY be picking up our heads off the floor.

Bingo.

Dark Zarak wrote:

Salazaar wrote:ooooooooooooookay. I'm going to make some mathematical assumptions here, correct me if I'm wrong. The definition of the fourth dimension would be "being able to rotate on the 'new' aspect of the third dimension."

So a tesseract has this thing we can't comprehend, so a penteract would be able to rotate on that thing we can't comprehend, making the penteract twice as incomprehencible.

If there is a tesseract and penteract, in theory there must be a sexteract, nonoract, monoract, and so on. Therefore there is an infinite number of dimensions, but our minds cannot comprehend how they rotate. By the time we get to an octoract, we'll REALLY be picking up our heads off the floor.

Bingo.

Sweet!

Salazaar wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

Salazaar wrote:ooooooooooooookay. I'm going to make some mathematical assumptions here, correct me if I'm wrong. The definition of the fourth dimension would be "being able to rotate on the 'new' aspect of the third dimension."

So a tesseract has this thing we can't comprehend, so a penteract would be able to rotate on that thing we can't comprehend, making the penteract twice as incomprehencible.

If there is a tesseract and penteract, in theory there must be a sexteract, nonoract, monoract, and so on. Therefore there is an infinite number of dimensions, but our minds cannot comprehend how they rotate. By the time we get to an octoract, we'll REALLY be picking up our heads off the floor.

Bingo.

Sweet!

That's right so go ahead and quote Peter Griffin when he found out dogs don't lay eggs: "And... I learned something today..."

And... I learned something today...

The Omniverse (reality, existence, time etc.) exists in a perpetual ring, like the infinite sphere, without end. So to say God created himself is true. The actions of our time travel infinitely onward as they loop back upon themselves via relative deviations. Think of the time paradox: can someone prevent themselves from existing if they go back in time and change the past? If they don't exist, how can they change the past, therefore preventing themselves from existing? It works both ways, you can cause something to exist by changeing the past, or future. Time flows one way, but back on itself like a ring, due to temporal gravity. So something you do now will affect the past, before it happens of course. God did not exist in the beginning, which is actually the end, which caused him to create himself in the beginning, via his own actions from his future.