Children's Books and Education ResourcesResources to make learning fun and affordable!

Mind 11-dimensional

Today, scientists say that our universe may be upwards of eleven-dimensional space, yet we do not perceive three. Is not it interesting that our mind can not cope with the reality we are immersed in?

And yet this remarkable existential disconnect does not receive more than a mention in the popular books of modern physics. A sentence as "Of course, our minds can not really imagine or understand these dimensions … "Begins and often ends the discussion. This aspect fundamental to human existence has been ignored, as if it were but a strange artifact of scientific theory.

But is it possible that this difference affects the daily life of man in ways which we do not know?

Science shows the way

In addition to the concept of extra dimensions, modern science has become a treasure of theories and concepts that can not really be grasped by the human mind. They can be clearly revealed in the language of science and mathematics, and many of them were experimentally verified to be accepted as valid, but they can not be "represented". What, for example, is "space curve? "Or how the universe has a size"? "

Consider the theory of the Big Bang. Although it is foolish to think that everything at some point in the universe emerged from a microscopic point explosion, the concept does not seem to be a problem logic. However, when this was? space itself did not exist – all that was inside "Dowry. This, of course, nonsense. My mind goes.

To be sure, humans have always been aware that there are issues beyond our perceptions. Looking up at the stars, men have constantly asked: Where does it end? T terminate? It must end, he can not finish … You know what I mean.

An interesting thing about science is it is often useful results even without being able to grasp the concepts experientially. Thus, most scientists just Understandably go about their business without worrying about whether their new ideas that make sense. If, for example, some important equations conflict can be "smoothed" by assuming a spatial dimension eleventh, who cares what this dimension is actually, or similar?

In addition, the paradoxes and contradictions are entities very hard on to focus on. Think about it – how long can you really think about whether the universe has an outer limit? For me, ten seconds.

But again, is it not interesting to note that these contradictions exist at all? Would it seem logical that this lack of perception of consonance with the empirical reality would have ramifications and that these ramifications may be felt in the areas of our life outside of science and cosmology?

Flatland

There is a curious twentieth century, little book called Flatland is a story about life in a world 2D. Sound boring? It is. But it is mentioned in a surprising number of serious physics books popular today.

The author a mathematician, spent a lot of time to provide details about what life for the inhabitants of Flatland geometric shapes. But, as might be expected, the highest point of the story comes when the hero / narrator, himself a square (literally), is visited by an emissary the third dimension (a sphere), and is given a glimpse of the real 3-D. Needless to say, it blows his mind small apartment. His revelation goes far beyond the spatial geometry is a spiritual epiphany. He considers the sphere of being a god.

Naturally the author's point is: are we, perhaps, in the same boat as the square, unwittingly trapped inside Awareness severely limited? What would happen for us to be able to experience the fourth spatial dimension? What would happen if our minds were to be inherently capable of capturing phenomena that today seem paradoxical or contradictory?

Paradoxes in everyday life

I am of the opinion that the limitations become more evident from the first twenty-first century mind rights in fact have ramifications that make a difference in everyday life. every day. All the time. In fact, I believe we are now Soupy in a sea of paradox and lack of clarity that is so prevalent that have escaped our attention.

One of the first philosophy I have taken courses in college was called the great problems of philosophy. It was an intro, like during investigation explored fundamental philosophical questions as: What is that right, and what is the problem? Does God Exist? How do we know something to be true? stuff like that. Chronologically, it began at about the time of Socrates.

The issues discussed in this course persist Unanswered. In thousands of years of bickering about what are essentially simple problems, we have not yet found them! And there is no end in sight. In our limited vision, we convinced ourselves that these issues are actually quite complex, but in reality they are not. It's just that we operate in an incomplete mind, a three-dimensional framework in which it seems correct perhaps inevitable that some issues are never resolved. This is an example of life in the soup, and not opinion.

Lets look at some paradoxes of everyday.

Paradox # 1: Probability

When I say that some one-horse race one in ten chance of winning a particular race, does that mean exactly? We think we know – but do we?

Does this mean that the horse lose? No, because one in ten plans, sometimes win.

Does this mean that the horse will win? Of course not.

Is this means that if the race has been repeated many times the horse would win about 10 percent? No, because there is no world where This race will be repeated many times. In the real world this particular race will be, and can be run only once.

Thus, when the race is over, and the horse has won or lost, my statement will not be shown to have been true, and will not be shown they were falsified.

While the world of real events or conditions could prove my statement to be true or false? " So no chance statements say nothing about the real world … but surely they do!?!?

Paradox # 2: Being Right

In matter of fact, we all know what it's like to be right. We are "right" when our claims are supported by reality. I argue that the Yankees will win the game, and they do.

But what about the issues who are not so obvious fact?

Suppose I ask "the music of Count Basie's better than Lawrence Welk." How could I be proven correct on this point?

You can say that in this case, I'm just stating a rating, which can be no question good or evil. But this is not true. If I said, "I prefer to Basie Welk," it may indeed be no argument: I like what I like. But what I actually said was "better than Basie Welk", and there is a difference. When I say better, I am going beyond my preferences, beyond the waves in my brain, and went out into the external reality. I speak of Basie and Welk, not myself.

But how "Basie is better than Welk" actually occur in reality Outdoor? He did not! There is nothing in the real world that can possibly check my statement and show me right. Similarly way, nothing can show me to be wrong. So, if "Basie is better than Welk" can be neither right nor wrong, it means what? Does it mean anything?

Paradox # 3: What would have happened if …

What might have happened if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963? We'll never know.

But wait a minute! JFK was assassinated in 1963. There is no JFK assassinated wasn't world – it does not. It is not that "we will never know" – there is nothing to know! The "knowledge" of which we speak is pure fantasy.

Consider such a statement: "If I would have driven a little faster because I light. "This, too, speaks of a reality no. I do not drive faster. What is real is this: I'm here, stopped at a red light. The world in which I that light is a product of my imagination.

Thinking about "what would have happened if …" is always a fiction, playing with mental ghosts that have nothing to do with the empirical world.

But it seems to have more substance than that, does it not?

Logical positivism

These three paradoxes are very similar. They are extremely common in the interaction daily human, and each has attempted to provide information on the empirical world which appears, upon inspection, with no data empirical at all.

logical positivism, a school of philosophy that arose in the twentieth century to the middle, has studied the statements of this kind, but had no tolerance for the existence of the paradox of today, and therefore concluded that such statements hard do not make sense. If I profess to communicate information from the real world, my assertion must be verifiable in the real world. If is not, I speak gibberish. This rigid approach led the logical positivists to reject large parts of human thought and philosophy (Example: ethics, theology, metaphysics, etc.) that make sense. As expected, this school of philosophy has never been very popular and did not last very long.

But they were onto something. There is certainly something odd about a communication ("This horse has a chance to win ten") which can never be verified as either true or false. However, raising his hands and reject the statement that its meaning is not the way forward. That's because this is obviously meaningless. We all have an idea of what it means, even if we do not have the tools to understand.

Soup

We are in the soup. So today the speech of the man-day is cloudy at best. We may think we are logical, rational beings, but when, at worst we can discuss (or argue) the simplest proposals without reaching resolution. We often feel to be "right" without a clear notion of what it means to be right. And we speak, and the basis of countless decisions, the idea of probability, but not really knowing what it is or how it actually relates to physical reality. Something's wrong with this picture but being so accustomed to living within the picture frame, we simply do not. We are beings with three perceptual dimensions, without knowing that our reality is n-dimensional.

I speculate that virtually all differences of human and the animosity stems from the incomplete nature of our mental framework, and the next big step in the evolution of man will be our ability to develop experiential perceive the fourth spatial dimension. It would indeed be an epiphany, and countless millennia, inconsistent "equations of rights" will be finally resolved.

About the Author

Jim Starr is an author, philosopher, and avid student of the human condition. He lives with his family in Boulder, Colorado.

You are invited to visit his blog,
Jim Starr’s Short Pieces.

4/5 Marcuse and One-Dimensional Man

3-Dimensional Jfk Half Dollar $18.50 This history making coin is a genuine Kennedy Half Dollar struck by the US Mint, then restruck with a custom coin die to form its 3D image. This painstaking process brings exquisite detailed dimension to the famous portrait of John F. Kennedy. It creates a truly spectacular collectible coin with the inscription “Liberty” encircling the coin to frame Kennedys lifelike image….

Deep Politics and the Death of JFK $18.70 Peter Dale Scott’s meticulously documented investigation uncovers the secrets surrounding John F. Kennedy’s assassination. Offering a wholly new perspective–that JFK’s death was not just an isolated case, but rather a symptom of hidden processes–Scott examines the deep politics of early 1960s American international and domestic policies.Scott offers a disturbing analysis of the events surroundin…