institutionalized

[reconsiderate]

G'day:

I've been passionate about 4D speculation since before I can remember. It's seemed very natural to me to merge my thoughts on the topic with quantum and astro-physics-- perhaps you've similarly found this.

For all my life, this has been only a hobby, though I would love to study more seriously with others who have compatible academic histories. I've never heard of a master's or PhD program that offers a path for 4D study, have you?

Please forward your response directly to feelthis06278@yahoo.com, or simply respond here on the forum.

Thanks! :wink:

[jinydu]

I've never heard of a master's or PhD program that offers a path for 4D study, have you?

As far as I know, there's no bachelor's program in that either.

Why? Because there's no need. What kind of 4D study do you want? 4D geometry? Algebraic geometry and topology cover that. 4D spacetime? General relativity covers that. etc. etc.

Thus, all this material is already covered under existing fields of study.

[reconsiderate]

What kind of 4D study do you want?

What I'm interested in is bringing 4D as a practical construct into mudane life. How does a fourth dimension play into my day between brushing my teeth and driving to work, etc.

I have indeed found some very useful findings... in my world... and I'd like to verify them with the findings of others, and maybe while I'm at it pick up a PhD for prestige. :wink:

But, like I said earlier, if it must be only a hobby, so be it. Ultimately, I'm doing this for my own passions (so I'm gonna keep doing it forever, regardless of how it is received by others). To find comrades would be very welcome.

Incidentally, I suppose I could share a little on my "useful findings". What I've found is that it is possible to navigate myself through some direction which I feel is "forward" through tunnels of entangled memories. "Some direction" I surmise is some kind of fourth direction, "entangled" means quantum entanglement, and "memories" means mind-like things (whole bunch of mystic/psychological references here).

If I find anything posted here in the other folders that is closely associated with my work, I will be prompt to post there as well.

(PS jinydu-- thanks for the quick response! )

[wendy]

On the other hand, is four-dimensions practical?

There is certianly a lot of useful things that one can see in the higher dimensions, that detangles assorted misconceptions in 3d, but is that meaningful?

I normally wrangle six dimensions as a physical point. So four dimensions is itself like 2d or something. Still, i been at it nigh on next to a quater century (ie 30 years), and still have not found 'practical use' for it.

It does make other things easier to understand though.

W

[jinydu]

Incidentally, I suppose I could share a little on my "useful findings". What I've found is that it is possible to navigate myself through some direction which I feel is "forward" through tunnels of entangled memories. "Some direction" I surmise is some kind of fourth direction, "entangled" means quantum entanglement, and "memories" means mind-like things (whole bunch of mystic/psychological references here).

You seem to have confused the study of four dimensions (a mathematical and scientific topic) with some vague, mystical (read unscientific) ideas.

A four-dimensional space is a space in which it is possible for a particle to travel in four mutually perpendicular directions (nothing vague or subjective about that). Using that (or some equivalent formulation) as a starting point, it is possible to prove theorems about four-dimensional space, just as rigorously as in three-dimensional space. For instance:

Given two points with Cartesian coordinates (x1, y1, z1, w1) and (x2, y2, z2, w2), the distance between the points is:

sqrt((x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2 + (z2-z1)^2 + (w2-w1)^2)

[thigle]

wendy wrote:

I normally wrangle six dimensions as a physical point. So four dimensions is itself like 2d or something.

wendy, i was searching for another quote by you in which i remember you stated that some correspondences like: 4d~planar, 5d~linear(rays?), and 6d~(physical)points.

these utterances are both not specific enough. (=i can't see nor imagine the connections between your cloud-words)

in "the Fourth Dimension", R.Steiner says this:

"we can reamin on the abstract purely intellectual level as long as we do not need to visualize what we're doing. when we attempt to do so, however, we are confronted with a problem of elasticity, whereas our purely abstract train of thoughts led to a regressus in infinitum. we can also imagine initially that a pendulum simply will continue to swing indefinitely, but in dynamics we have oscillations. that is the reality of the situation.
when we rise to the level of imaginative perception, we cannot simply repeat the process [of dimensional generation] indefinitely, assuming the existence of a fourth and subsequent dimensions. if we use the notation +a for the first dimension, +b for the second, and +c for the third, we cannot, if we are describing real space, write the fouth dimension as +d. Instead, the reality of the situation forces us to write -c. the fourth dimension simply nullifies the third, and only 2 remain. at the end of the process, therefore, we are left with 2 dimensions instead of four. similarily, if we assume 5th dimension, we must use notation -b for it and -a for the sixth. that is we come back to a point"

then he restates this 4 times in 3 pages.

can you please tella bit more of in what way does for you your 4d interface make 4d planar, 5d ray-like and 6d physical point-like ?

or do i misinterpret you ?

[thigle]

also, you wrote:

On the other hand, is four-dimensions practical?
....
Still, i been at it nigh on next to a quater century (ie 30 years), and still have not found 'practical use' for it.

It does make other things easier to understand though. "

so it surely is very practical, in epistemological domains of action, at least.

[wendy]

In some cases, one can reduce large numbers of dimensions to a point, because this makes things easier to visualise. For example, i drew a picture of the 8d polytope i call /6B, aks 5_21, by reducing six of its dimensions to a point, and projecting it onto paper thus.

None the same, because one might draw a plan of a building, or some view, there is nothing special about loosing dimensions. Likewise, there is nothing special about adding dimensions either.

One can easily convert a point-wise scalar into a dimension, turning an isoheight graph into a pattern of valleys and mountions. I no more attrit to six dimensions, anything that is not pressent in five: width, is after all, a kind of length, and none the special or magic exists because we can in 3d, pass each other, while in 2d, one does this by climbing one over another.

In many senses, dealing with 4d is easier than 3d, in much the same way that complex numbers are simpler than sine-waves. So while 4d orcomplex numbers no more manifests itself in our real world, life is the easier for having them around.

W