## 4D Apocalypse

If you don't know where to post something, put it here and an administrator or moderator will move it to the right place.

### 4D Apocalypse

I'll start off with an apology. I am a philosophy student and haven't had experience with math in quite some time. With that said, the theory I will propose below is nothing that I intend on being able to prove. I post it because I'm interested in the responses I will get. If anyone has the time to try and prove it (or refute it) it would be greatly appreciated.

Alright,
From everything I've read on these forums and elsewhere I believe that the fourth dimension isn't something that is present at the same time as the third. Rather, there are certain areas of space that access tetraspace, i.e. black holes. I also believe in the theory (previously discussed on this site) that the third dimension is wrapped around the fourth. This would explain our concept of infinity. I find that it is useful to take it a dimension down when explaining things. An infinite 2d universe is a sphere, or a 2d plane wrapped around a 3d object. Likewise, an infinite 1d universe would be a circle. Therefore, in an infinite 3d universe (infinitely small and infinitely big) one could travel in a straight line and eventually end up where one started (a la asteroids).
This is something that I would also like to apply to the big bang theory. The expansion of our universe started when the third dimension began to wrap around the fourth. The universe will continue to expand around tetraspace, until it begins to close in on itself. This would be a result of some kind of 4D rotation that I couldn't even begin to explain.
What if the creation of our universe and destruction of it had to do with one dimension transferring into the next? In our 3D universe we have no evidence of a 2D universe or 2D beings. What if the big bang, or creation of matter in the 3D universe, was simply the second dimension passing into the third? Likewise, the big crunch would be the third dimension passing into the fourth. The Mayan calendar explains that the 'world' was created 3 times and destroyed twice. This is concurrent with my theory, as three dimensions have been created, but only the first and the second have been destroyed. The Mayans predicted that the 'world' would end on December 23, 2012 at noon. What if on December 24th, we were all living in the fourth dimension?

Besides the Mayan thing, I have no other proof that what I theorize is correct. I just think it's an interesting idea to play with. If anyone could explain if this is or is not possible or if this is completely ridiculous I should just shut the hell up and stick to Socrates, that would be amazing.
FortySIXandTWO
Mononian

Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:46 pm

This is a very interesting theory... one cannot prove/disprove this, but *if* there is a fourth dimension this is very possible. I always thought of the universe being wrapped around a glome (4d-sphere), but never thought that it would connect and make a full "circle".

One question, though: if it made a perfect "circle" around a glome, where would the big crunch start? Since it's a full "circle", it's just as likely to start at one point then it is to start at another point.

Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

irockyou wrote:Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.

No, many "end of the world prophecies" have already come and gone. The universe has been around for over 13 billion years and it will certainly last billions more.
jinydu
Tetronian

Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

jinydu wrote:
irockyou wrote:Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.

No, many "end of the world prophecies" have already come and gone. The universe has been around for over 13 billion years and it will certainly last billions more.

Thanks. Way to ruin the mysticism of it all :wink:.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

### Re: 4D Apocalypse

FortySIXandTWO wrote:December 23

... That's my birthday O.o

[/irrelavent comment]

Keiji

Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Torquay, England

### Re: 4D Apocalypse

iNVERTED wrote:
FortySIXandTWO wrote:December 23

... That's my birthday O.o

Lucky you , you get to end it all on a high.

Hugh
Tetronian

Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2005 11:44 pm

### Re: 4D Apocalypse

iNVERTED wrote:
FortySIXandTWO wrote:December 23

... That's my birthday O.o

[/irrelavent comment]

[laugh point="yes"]LOL!!!!! :rofl: [/laugh]
I'll be thinking of you come december 23. :wink:
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

irockyou wrote:
Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.

I've done some research on the mayan calendar and it's pretty intricate. Our gregorian calendar looks like this 5/14/2006. A Mayan Calendar looks like this 12.18.0.0.1 0Ahau 4 Pohp. They actually had 3 calendars that worked together. The first set of numbers represents a 'toll' of the days, going up to 19 and then starting over at 0. For instance after 12.0.0.0.19 the day would be 12.0.0.1.0. The Next two sets of numbers and words correspond to two other calendars. In this way, it takes 5,125.36 years for the calendar to reset.
Basically, the whole end of the calendar thing is that we are approaching one of those times when the calendar resets. The last time the calendar was set at 13.0.0.0.0 was August 11th 3114 B.C. Roughly around the 21-23 of december in 2012 the calendar will again reach 13.0.0.0.0.

haha then it's happy birthday to iNVERTED
FortySIXandTWO
Mononian

Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:46 pm

What if the big bang, or creation of matter in the 3D universe, was simply the second dimension passing into the third? Likewise, the big crunch would be the third dimension passing into the fourth.

Let me see if I understand you. We start off with a universe with only 2 dimensions. This suddenly expands into a 3D universe, and explodes in the big bang. Then it collapses into a big crunch. The universe then gains a dimension, and explodes again in another big bang. Is this what you mean? It's an interesting idea.

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

PWrong wrote:
What if the big bang, or creation of matter in the 3D universe, was simply the second dimension passing into the third? Likewise, the big crunch would be the third dimension passing into the fourth.

Let me see if I understand you. We start off with a universe with only 2 dimensions. This suddenly expands into a 3D universe, and explodes in the big bang. Then it collapses into a big crunch. The universe then gains a dimension, and explodes again in another big bang. Is this what you mean? It's an interesting idea.

It could even start sooner than that. What we consider the dawn of time could be the dawn of dimensions, i.e. a zeroth dimension converting into a 1D universe. When the 2D universe converts into a 3D universe there's an explosion that expands that universe, the big bang. When the 3D universe converts to a 4D universe our universe would have to be destroyed (or just ended), which would be the big crunch.
FortySIXandTWO
Mononian

Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:46 pm

46and2 wrote:When the 3D universe converts to a 4D universe our universe would have to be destroyed (or just ended), which would be the big crunch.

Would it have to be destroyed, 46and2 (do you mind the shorthand)? All that's happening is another perpendicluar axis is expanding. Basically, it would be added to.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

irockyou wrote:Would it have to be destroyed, 46and2 (do you mind the shorthand)? All that's happening is another perpendicluar axis is expanding. Basically, it would be added to.

I never really thought about that. So would all dimensions coexist? Is this how things are now, that 1-4D universes are in existence at the same time? If so is there evidence of a 2D or 1D universe in our own or would we be unable to see such universes?
FortySIXandTWO
Mononian

Posts: 11
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 10:46 pm

I wasn't implying that there is a 1-4d universes existing right now... i'm implying that there is one universe with 3 dimensions, and three billion years from now or so it might sprout a 4th dimension in a whole new big bang. Nothing needs to be destroyed, no need for extra universes within universes... just an extra dimension.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

the main difference between the mayan and (for exemple) ours calendar is the complete opposition of time and causality conceptions. while the mayan and many other conceptions are instances of cyclical (circular, curved) time-conception, the western and other time conceptions are linear, straight, flat. this is indivisible from Aristotle's principle of excluded middle and linear causality, which trumpled circular causality - mutual causation aka feedbacking aka interdependence aka mututal causation, etc.

in the mayan calendar, the different radiis of different circles rolling with and against the present time-plane are different time-spans of quality-cycles, because differently sized circles take different times to roll once around themselves.

also note that the point of contact of the mayan calendar-circles with the plane of time (which looks like a line because being seen sideways) is the place of herenow focus, and so the part of circle that's in the focus always expresses its qualities most fully at that time.
also, the line can be conceived of as a circle with infinite radius, so there's a continuity from circular to linear model and vice versa just by zooming.

... something that I would also like to apply to the big bang theory. The expansion of our universe started when the third dimension began to wrap around the fourth. The universe will continue to expand around tetraspace, until it begins to close in on itself. This would be a result of some kind of 4D rotation that I couldn't even begin to explain.

i think this is partly coherent, i mean coherent for a certain reduced range of questioning. as has been mentioned already, the limits of 2.3.4 dims are artificial. as was said, one could start with 0 as well.

but i think that dimensions are not ontic, out there in the world, they are rather ontological, we project them onto the fabric of noumena. cosmos functions in infinite-dimensional copresence, even beyond and in negative dimensionality.

considering for exemple the ancient Bon cosmologies in Tibet before the arrival of buddhism, those myths (that can be understood ontologically) talk about our universe arising from karmic traces left as potentiality in the element of space by the previous beings and universe, out of which arose the other elements, first air by movement of space within itself, than from friction the fire, from heat by condensation the fire and finally earth.
while the mythological structure of mayan time-holders (the qualities-segments dividing around the time-circles) might be more refined in terms of division, the Bon conception is interesting by the co-presence of linear and circular paradigm, which can be tracked in western thought-flows too (exemplified best by parmenides and heraclites), but in our history, parmenides and statics are repressing the fluxers, if one might state it so.
feedback loops rolling against-with time are of whole range of radii, from infinitely small(and less) to infinitely big(and more). from moments to out-of-time.

so to cut the shit, the Bon cosmology says that this universe is but one of many universes that faded and of many to come. and western cosmologies have not settled on a conclusion as far as the shape of space goes. depending on the curvature of the space, there might be models of (and not only): bigBang-bigCrunch, bigBang-forever and ...bigBang-BigCrunch-bigBang...
the last one is the oscillatory model which is what mythical cosmologies claim.
in those, the universe while it is, also goes through different eras, where locally the change from one to the next might seem as catastrophe, anomally, codebreaking, but globally is a metamorphose. the biggest time-span oscillatory process would be something like cosmos and inhabitants cycle of ...absence(latency)-becoming-generation-being-fading-destruction-absence...
while the smallest would be some micro-interactions at-under PlanckScale, having to do with consciousness-phenomena duality operating if we break down physus/logos duality and stick to order (making it unnecessary to look for physical models and logical models of microspan time processes, like quantum interactions for microphysus and time-consciousness microgenetics). (and to all reductionists and analytics: kiss my ass :wink: )

last summary of how i think it is: all infinite dimensions copresent as potential projections over nondimensional actuality of the facticity of Being-as-such. the infinite dimensionality we have at-hand is the inifinite degrees of freedom of our ecstasy (that Heidegger equals with projection, with Dasein as being t/here) in dimensionless facticity of Being-as-such. (writing 'being' for ontic and 'Being' for ontological).

some of deepest explorations into the structure of mayan calendar were prolly undertaken by terrence McKenna, further refinements of which (and not few corrections) can be checked at here: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/2012.html
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

Oh no, thigle's back Take cover ... Neah, just kiddin'. You've been off for a while...

Now, back to the subject, I find it difficult to imagine how a (n-1)D object could exist in a nD world. As stated numerous times, including a conversation I had with bo198214, that object won't be able to interact with the objects in the superior dimensional world. The Big Bang - Big Crunch transformation cannot just "add" a dimension. You don't look like a extruded planar figure, do you?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

i have qute a lot work at my university now, also i've been temporally cut off from permanent internet-access, so my posting is more sporadic, yeah. but beware, i'll have plenty of time in 2 or 3 weeks when i do all the exams.

the question of adding a dimension is not a question of simple 'extrusion'. i surely don't feel like extruded planar figure, at least right now. :wink: although i felt planar few times, never was it extruded.

as for the n-1 dimensional object interacting with n dimensional world, what about RP2 as the limit of E3 ? i think that we perhaps won't find agreement, due to the fact that you might consider 'world' to be something substantial, out-there, while for me it is but a certain scale of schematisation, world-scale, projected onto existence. so for you perhaps the world is the objective world, while for me that world is but a huge reduction from the lived-world. where surely RP2 is an at-hand actuality. in the objectivized thus reduced world, there surely ain't no actual infinity present.

as for the bang/crunch pulse. i think that dimensions are not generated per se, as i stated i don't believe dimensionality to be 'out-there'. for me it doesnt exist apart from projecting consciousness.existence is not just n dimensional, it is any/all dimensional potentially, and dimensionless as such.

the bang/crunch pulse coflows with morphing schemas of consciousness, so for me the dimensionality perceived is the current socially constructed schematism projected over world. and this structure of external spacetime and internal timespace is a ratio of un/concealedness of dimensionality of manifestation - a specific form of closure over openess, a 'boundary' shape that determines the perceptual prism. this ratio determines how much a given consciousness structure perceives of the sheer open dimensionality of existence and how much it projects reified reduced dimensionality over its stream of experience, freezing it into homeostatic perceptual configuration with finite dimensionality.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..the value of indicative expression over explanations, descriptions and proofs is often not understood. which is a pity for those who can't grasp it by not grasping it.
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

We agree on the fact that there is nothing infinite "out there", however I rephrain myself from making suppositions about the RP2, as I don't fully understand it. As far as I can remember, it is a self-intersecting manifold, so I tend to disagree, taking into consideration you don't run that often into points where the limit of the universe has two values...

As for the BB-BC, from your post I gather that you do not consider that dimensions create themselves or are, in any way, created. They are out there a priori, but they "reveal" themselves at singularity points. Am I right?
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

As for the BB-BC, from your post I gather that you do not consider that dimensions create themselves or are, in any way, created. They are out there a priori, but they "reveal" themselves at singularity points. Am I right?

quite so. i believe that the facticity is dimensionless, and through being perceived, it appears to be dimensional according to the way of observation. so dimensionality is a Being, projected upon existence to make it cognizable.

in fact, the universe is dimensionless or infinite dimensional in case of totally open perceptual mechanism apprehending it.

We agree on the fact that there is nothing infinite "out there", however I rephrain myself from making suppositions about the RP2, as I don't fully understand it. As far as I can remember, it is a self-intersecting manifold, so I tend to disagree, taking into consideration you don't run that often into points where the limit of the universe has two values...

i dont belong to that we. i think that what there is is infinite; just that habitually, out perceptual modes are dimension-bound.

i dont fully understand RP2 either, but i understand it good enough to perceive its functioning in the operation of my visual perception. this is btw not completely my invention, nor discovery: from the time of Leonardo it was known (though not much admitted) that the renaissance perspective is but a flat approximation of curved vision we have. through Turner, Escher, Flocon, Barre and other pioneers of curvilinear perspective it was found that human perspective is curved (perhaps not elliptic as Flocon thought but hyperbolic), though we locally observe close-to-flat space.

try this:
stand in front of a LONG wall, or a fence. any 2 lines, parallel and at least as long as to extend beyond one´s FOV will do. you can also lay on the grass under a telephone wires that run over the landscape.
now if you are in front of a wall, according to common belief, assumption and education of perspective, the 2 parallels to the right as well as the 2 parallels to the left should be straight lines intersecting in a vanishing point in inifinity, one to the right, one to the left. BUT, if that were so, one should observe in the middle, in the front of oneself, how the topline coming from the right and its left part coming from the left intersect in an angle !
that is not the case. you can perceive how your vision is curving with extended FOV. parallels lines start to curve gently as you expand your FOV and relax attention and mindbabble that is bitching 'it must be flat!' all the time.
usually, the habit is to look with 45-70 degrees of human vision, while we have more than 180 degrees available. if that wholeness of visual field is apprehended, one clearly experiences the curvature of the visually perceivedWorld.

now this whole FOV starts/ends from its so-called horizon, which is a margin of vision, and used to be shining before our metaphysical era came to be fully established. even before that, it might not be there in that form.

i think this horizon is a section through RP2. the presence of RP2 as the visual infinity is obvious: the totality of the vanishing points for all the directions through origin(you in this case) is a model of projective plane.
standing on a road that goes towards horizon, its edges seem to meet in a point at the horizon - that is an ideal point at infinity. if i turn back, the same road comes to the horizon on the other side, in a vanishing point opposite to the first. but according to projective geometry, these 2 ideal points are the same point: they get identified, or you can conceive of them as the same point from 2 antipodal direction.
so one gets a model of projective plane fully present in human visual system. maybe that is an approximation, as was a flat perspective to curved vision and perhaps the true geometry of human visual space is ruled by confocal quadrics as we have 2 eyes, and the sphericity is rather a horizontally elongated ellipsoid. more to that is supposed to be in an article in Leonardo from 1976 and also in a book 'Vision - From Photons to Phenomenology' - a true tome of vision, but i have no resources right now to acquire those and enrich this information.

if the doors of perception were cleaned, everything would appear as it is - infinite. w blake
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

I believe the two lines seem curved for the sole reason that the projection method used (to retinae) deforms them. It's like mapping the globe to a plane, just that it's the other way around...

EDIT: Also, just because these parallel lines meet at infinity, you don't have to see them intersecting at an angle. Consider it true, and calculate, for example, the tangent of half of this angle. It should be infinite divided by the distance between the two lines, which is infinite. Arctan(infinite/finite) is 2k pi + pi/2, for any integer k. Therefore, half of the angle is 90 degrees, and the two lines are parallel.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

the reason for curved vision of ours is surely the curvature of the projection surfaca within the eye. but not only.

there is a difference considering the visual space as it appears and visual space as it is by itself. both consoderations are complementary, and it is unfruitful to reduce one to the other or vice versa. as you propose when you write:
you don't have to see them intersecting at an angle.
but i DO ! and you do too ! you CAN will your understanding over your perception if you want, but do you know you do it and why ? it might not be appropriate. because you SEE them intersect and you KNOW them to be parallel. that is a big difference, one that makes a difference.

as for the lines intersecting, i agree on what you say but i think you misunderstood me, or i didn't make it clear: it's not the angle of intersection of the parallel lines i was pointing to. what i was saying is, that having two parallels, lets say parallel to x axis in E3, for z=0m & z=2m (ground and top edge of a fence 2m high), and they stretch on both sides far enough to intersect within observer's horizon of vision, before cutting the edge of FOV, then...
according to classical perspective, the vanishing point on the right and the vanishing point on the left (for x equals plus/minus infinity) should be points in which families of parallel straight lines intersect.
and having 2 2d angles, one of which is a mirror image of the other through a mirror perpendicular to angle bisectrice, there should be 2 new angles at the mirror line, one pointing in plus z direction other in minus z direction.
the truth of perception is, that we DONT see any angle there, when standing before such a wall or fence that is there or that we just imagine to perceive. both parallels BEND instead, upper upwards, lower downwards.

actually, i think that from projective geometry point of view, the angle around points at infinity is unmeasurable, the ideal point just such.

you write:
you don't have to see them intersecting at an angle.
i see what i see why should i dumb myself and reduce what i see to a model of it ? you surely don't see straight road to horizon as 2 parallels forever. they intersect in your perception. perspectival space is projective space and as such it is closed.

so according to projective geometry, each family of parallel lines in E3 have one and only one ideal point at infinity at which they intersect. the totality of those points forms a fabric that is nonorientable and cannot fit into 3d without selfintersection - the RP2. so one can see how RP2 'bounds' E3 by being the totality of its limits, it is the infinity that closes on upon the E3. it's what lies just touching the potential 'ending' of E3, what bounds it, it's limit.

space of visual experience is not E3 at all.

am i off topic ?
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

to get back to topic, i think it is possible that by 2012, at that date, the time in its linear clothes will be dropped globally, ends up. what that means is that the realm of our imagination will permeat the realm of our perception fully and we enter the open dimension. the discontinuity. i think that that is the point where our era will explicitly turn from metphysical to another one. some say heterochronic, i don't.
so our consciousness structuring can become fundamentally transformed globally, as it happened at the turn from mythopoietic to metaphysical eras, or in smaller when the subject & object flipped in renaissance with infinity reversal. so many individuals have learned or are doing so right now to operate in other time-modalities, that by 2012, global habit might be transformed by exploring all the possibilities and stepping out of that logical framework into beyond the presently established mode of time-perception.

so we learn to pass through the plane at infinity, which is the plane of time which is RP2, into the internalsymmetry timespaces, each being in a each point of spacetime. if these doors or tresholds are kept open, and if this Opening is expanded enough, we can acquire and reclaim the land of dreams that we were expelled ourselves from by our ignorance.
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

The first thing that strikes me is that RP2 is not the only 2D manifold to intersect itself. Moreover, I believe (but I'm not confident with it) that RP2 can be embedded in E4 without any more self-intersection. So if we live in a 4D universe afterall, there might not be such points.

Secondly, I just realised RP2 does not have an interior and an exterior, and thus cannot be the limit of a space. I, again, am not confident with this.

Now, to sum up, it seems you believe our universe has a negative curvature. Perhaps H3?

Back to the subject, I still haven't understood why are you reffering to 2012. That's just an arbitrary number as any other. I'd say the BB-BC is the moment of "enlightenment".
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

RP2 is not the only 2D manifold to intersect itself. Moreover, I believe (but I'm not confident with it) that RP2 can be embedded in E4 without any more self-intersection.

right. as well as Klein bottle.
So if we live in a 4D universe afterall, there might not be such points.

from the 4d point of view. which means one cannot derive from 'objective' state of affairs (like 'universe') only, but has to consider not only what-appears, but how-it-appears as well, the projector. i mean, regardless of the dimensionality of universe-in-itself, universe-as-perceived has an observed dimensionality that derives from the dimensionality of subject's structuring of experience - it is a product of a project.
so by 'there might not be such points' what there do you mean ? objective there or subjective there. or something other.

Secondly, I just realised RP2 does not have an interior and an exterior, and thus cannot be the limit of a space. I, again, am not confident with this.

well, this time the lack confidence is appropriate. the thing is, what kind of interiordo you mean ?
you can see the way how RP2 bounds E3 this way:
consider a star of lines through origin of E3. each has a family of all the lines parallel to it with it. this is the totality of E3.
at the end of each line of E3, there is 1 ideal point. a family of lines parallel to one of the rays through origin meet at this ideal point in infinity where the family of parallels 'join'. so you can consider two antipodal points as one, and a projective line as a closed loop.

so any line of E3 has an 'end' which is ideal point. each ideal point have family of lines that pass through it and to which it serves as an end.
family of all these ideal points together form the ideal plane - RP2.

so there is a 'closure' of E3 by actualising the potential infinities of each E2 it contains by accepting ideal points, ehich for the totality of E3 makes up the RP2.

?

Back to the subject, I still haven't understood why are you reffering to 2012. That's just an arbitrary number as any other. I'd say the BB-BC is the moment of "enlightenment".

BB/BC as the moment of enlightenment is ok, but that is if you consider the moment-like scale - micro-durations. in that case though, as with the silence encompassing all sounds, enlightenment encompasses all times, so the interval between BB/BC is when it naturally shines, like when between one is falling asleep and one starts dreaming.
2012 is a date when a certain timebinding systems that humanity have devised (on different grounds) 'end', or when they reset. there is the I-Ching correspondence and TimewaveZero, and many other 2012-bound theories.
also it is possible that another Earth magnetic poles flip will occur, that we will pass through some cosmic-rain thing, etc etc up to completely far and spaced out scenarios which i ain't gonna mention on these forums.

i entertain the idea that we are passing through phases of evolution of consciousness, that historically at different times we construct our perception of the world differently and that those discontinuities are cycling structures feedbacking orthogonally to time. different radii, from moments to cosmic ages. all rolling synchronically. wildStream.
and 2012 seems to hold a promise for an emergent treshold passing which might serve as boost for restructuring of our structuring of the Openess into Closure. in better case into permanent Opening, so eras might flip, mataphysical era might turn to end and new era might start. i do not fancy any apocalyptic theories, though it might be heavy on some people when time breaks down. it might even lead to a mass panique, but i don't think so.

thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

thigle wrote:so by 'there might not be such points' what there do you mean ? objective there or subjective there. or something other.

I was reffering to the "real" there, the objective one. The subjective is just a deformation of the objective one. Or perhaps the other way. Since the last time we chatted on objectivity and subjectivity I have somewhat changed my point of view. They are closely related, "two ends of the same pole" as you said, if I remember correctly, by the fact they are symmetrical one to the other. You cannot tell which one is real, and which one is the deformation of the other.

thigle wrote:the thing is, what kind of interiordo you mean ?
you can see the way how RP2 bounds E3 this way

Another discrepancy struck me: the E3 is infinite, and thus it requires a infinite manifold to bound it. Therefore, I still believe it is not a RP2 what you're looking for. I'm not tossing your theory though, it's just that if might need polishing. I also had almost no time to ponder on it.

Now about the 2012. I must admit I haven't followed the link. 2012 remains an arbritrary number as this is not the ultimate calendar. It is not the expression of the truth. Therefore, it is randomly defined, and will make random predictions. Likewise happened in 1999 when people were afraid something bad will happen when entering the new millenium, in 2000 (without even knowing that the new millenium starts with 2001).

I promise I'll read your material till tomorrow, but now I'm really tired.
"God does not play dice." -- Albert Einstein, early 1900's.
"Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where we cannot see them." -- Stephen Hawking, late 1900's.
moonlord
Tetronian

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:01 pm
Location: CT, RO, CE EU

moonlord wrote:
...was reffering to the "real" there, the objective one. The subjective is just a deformation of the objective one. Or perhaps the other way. Since the last time we chatted on objectivity and subjectivity I have somewhat changed my point of view. They are closely related, "two ends of the same pole" as you said, if I remember correctly, by the fact they are symmetrical one to the other. You cannot tell which one is real, and which one is the deformation of the other.

both subjectivity and objectivity can have values of reality or unreality (that are 1 aspect of Being (of any being)). you can tell which one is real and how and when. there are different shades to 'real' and they do not overlap with objectivity, they are its texture so to say, its possible articulations.
both subjectivity and objectivity are a complementary feedbacking. so one might as well say both are deformations of each other. this amount to phenomenological discovery that there are no phenomena apart from consciousness. all experience can be considered objective, all phenomena subjective. and vice versa. so none of even those standings is radically complete.
i thinks it's simple if we let us make a distinction and state what field of inquiry we operate on in a given case. so if we are interested in space-out-there or space-as-perceived, or both or neither, we have to know that we are here or there or anywhere or nowhere and doing this or that distinction in this or that or any or none context.
You cannot tell which one is real, and which one is the deformation of the other.
this is true for a particular conception of reality, and to a particular level of relationship.
Another discrepancy struck me: the E3 is infinite, and thus it requires a infinite manifold to bound it. Therefore, I still believe it is not a RP2 what you're looking for.

one can have things of finite but unbounded as well as things infinite but bounded.one can have an object of infinite volume and finite surface as well as of infinite surface and finite volume.
the infinity of E3 is potentialInfinity while the RP3 is actualisedInfinity. sometimes they are called open and closed infinities. they fit.

let me distinct these:
an openInfinity is an infinity you think of when you write 'E3 is infinite'. it is an infinity that never closes(or 'actualises') - you can always approach it, its unreachable. it is the infinity on which whole Calculus with limits is based on, it's the unreachable infinity that appears in limits, one which is present by its absence.
on the other hand, closedInfinity (or 'actualised') is what Cantor discovered. that is the infinity you get when you step out of the series.

so you simply close up the potentialInfinity by the actualisedInfinity. in the case we have been talking about, you close the E3 which have infinite volume but closed boundary manifold by the nonorientable RP2.
thigle
Tetronian

Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:00 pm

irockyou wrote:Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.

How old are you? Aren't you going to be alive by then?
"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian

Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

i am not going to sleep the night before.....i`m scared now.
Universally_thinking
Dionian

Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: UK

Icon wrote:
irockyou wrote:Also, about the Mayan thing: How did they come up with that date? It will be interesting to live on that day... see what will happen :wink:.

How old are you? Aren't you going to be alive by then?

Yes, I will be alive by then. I say it will be interesting, not that it would be interesting.
I am the Nick formerly known as irockyou.
postcount++;
"All evidence of truth comes only from the senses" - Friedrich Nietzsche

Nick
Tetronian

Posts: 841
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 8:47 pm
Location: New Jersey, USA

"Civilization is a race between education and catastrophe."
-H.G. Wells
papernuke
Tetronian

Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: California, US of A

### 2012 could mean

That the matter on the fabric of spacial/time will roll because the tablecloth beneath matter will be pulled. For us that could be a uniform tilt of all the planetoids/spheres in this dimension to roll 45 degrees to 180 because of the time shift. But, this could happen throughout the galaxie but, I don't think so. I believe it will only affect our position and maybe a few other stars in our qaudrant. Expansion can be uniform in toto but in some cases flux is a representation of one area of the galaxi expanding faster then the whole. The roll could be related to the amount of dark matter appearing in areas with lessor density of mass than the already expanded darkened areas on the fabric of space/time. In any case I expect this planets poles to shift at least 19.5 degrees with major plasma effect on its ionisphere.
Russ1953
Dionian

Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:28 am