Study Says Videogames "Problematize" Religion as Violent

[BrotherRool]

Hmm, I think I disagree that an infinite amount of nothing is nothing.

Well, if an infinite amount of nothing is something, and if you can do this to multiple objects, then you would have multiple instances where an infinite amount of nothing added up to different numbers. Thus, an infinite amount of nothing wouldn't be any particular discreet number, but could be literally any number. Could you even prove that an infinite amount of nothing only added up to real numbers, or could it also add up to imaginary numbers as well?

This actually happens in physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

If you take an infinity from another infinity you can technically get any result you choose, which is basically what they do.

From what I know about Plancks, they are a concept of physics and not pure geometry. I don't think that we can now say that two dimensional objects all have a depth of one Planck. I would like to see the geometric proof for that. A two dimensional plane with the depth of one Planck would be a Physical plane that is functionally (from the standpoint of physical laws) two-dimensional. If that's what you mean by two dimensional planes, then sure they can interact with three dimensional objects, but they wouldn't be two dimensional planes in the proper geometrical sense.

Oh! I thought you were trying to talk practically.

IF we are talking geometrically, the 4 axioms defining geometry define everything as zero-value points o your objection was a non-objection. Geometric calculations assume an infinite number of points composing a line, an infinite number of lines composing a plane and an infinite number of planes composing three dimensional space. You can do operations composing both points and lines, or lines and planes etc. Calculus is a good example of 1 dimensional objects interacting with two dimensional objects.

Anyway, that's getting down to the practical, it's still true that theoretically there's nothing impossible to get different dimensioned things to interact, because in theory everything is made of an infinite amount of nothing.

But what kind of interaction? That goes back to my original objection that what you're talking about is a kind of mathematical/conceptual 'interaction' and not a real physical/causal interaction.

If we're stepping back from theory and back to practicality, any interaction you choose. If you've got a three dimensional block of air I can choose to four dimensionally stick a brick in the middle of that block of air.

And that's what I meant by it being a matter of faith, nothing more than before you can just accept some things as given to you as true you have to have absolute faith that the truth giver is a reliable narrator Like I can be happy understanding that God is loving without knowing the whys and I can accept that even when it seems hard and things go on that I don't understand because I have faith in God and so it's right for me to accept that

Ha! I'll do you one better! ;D I don't even think you need absolute faith that the truth giver is a reliable narrator. Because your purposes are practical you only need a sufficiently practical reason for accepting what the narrator has to say. For instance, I have enough practical reason to accept the truth of relativity in that I don't have the Physics background necessary to really question it.

On a completely unrelated note, my captcha says, "do more sit-ups".

Fair enough I much prefer these captcha's. I guess they must be more insecure but I haven't seen a rise in spam. I got 'Good Samaritan' a few days ago, that was a very well timed co-incidence and made me smile

With the other ones I felt we were quickly going to be getting to a situation where computers were outdoing humans

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

This actually happens in physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization

If you take an infinity from another infinity you can technically get any result you choose, which is basically what they do.

Ok, but I would think that dividing infinity by infinity is different from saying that 0 x infinity = any discrete number. What you're talking about is an infinite amount of nothing adding up to something.

From what I know about Plancks, they are a concept of physics and not pure geometry. I don't think that we can now say that two dimensional objects all have a depth of one Planck. I would like to see the geometric proof for that. A two dimensional plane with the depth of one Planck would be a Physical plane that is functionally (from the standpoint of physical laws) two-dimensional. If that's what you mean by two dimensional planes, then sure they can interact with three dimensional objects, but they wouldn't be two dimensional planes in the proper geometrical sense.

Oh! I thought you were trying to talk practically.

IF we are talking geometrically, the 4 axioms defining geometry define everything as zero-value points o your objection was a non-objection. Geometric calculations assume an infinite number of points composing a line, an infinite number of lines composing a plane and an infinite number of planes composing three dimensional space. You can do operations composing both points and lines, or lines and planes etc. Calculus is a good example of 1 dimensional objects interacting with two dimensional objects.

I feel like we're going around in circles here. I'm not sure what the practical/theoretical division you're talking about is. I'm talking about a theoretical division between pure a priori geometry and the empirical science of physics that describes physical causality. What I'm saying is that mathematical interaction between mathematical objects (planes, spheres, lines, points, etc.) is not the same as a physical causal interaction between physical objects (molecules, atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.). We can describe parts of the physical interactions we observe in terms of mathematical objects, e.g. we can call the surface area of a sphere a two-dimensional plane, but that doesn't mean that these mathematical objects actually exist separately from the physical objects. The physical objects can be described and conceptually broken down in an almost infinite amount of ways, but the physical object is just the physical object. In other words, mathematical object =/= physical object, but physical objects can be described as mathematical objects in an almost infinite amount of ways.

What I'm saying is that a two-dimensional plane would have no depth, so how could it be said to possess mass, electromagnetism, strong force, weak force, or gravitational force? A proper two-dimensional plane couldn't contain any particles or energy. So in your example of a ball passing through a two dimensional plane, what physical effect could the two dimensional plane have on the ball?

Anyway, that's getting down to the practical, it's still true that theoretically there's nothing impossible to get different dimensioned things to interact, because in theory everything is made of an infinite amount of nothing.

But what kind of interaction? That goes back to my original objection that what you're talking about is a kind of mathematical/conceptual 'interaction' and not a real physical/causal interaction.

If we're stepping back from theory and back to practicality, any interaction you choose. If you've got a three dimensional block of air I can choose to four dimensionally stick a brick in the middle of that block of air.

Conceptually, you can do almost anything you want. Physics and geometry are both theoretical. But physics studies causality, which is what I'm talking about. How can something two dimensional interact with a three dimensional object through physical forces such as electromagnetism?

 

[BrotherRool]

..

Okay how about this for an actual multi-dimensional, physically sound, well-defined interaction
http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

Three+1 dimensional space yet we're all feeling the affects of 11 dimensional forces

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

..

Okay how about this for an actual multi-dimensional, physically sound, well-defined interaction
http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

Three+1 dimensional space yet we're all feeling the affects of 11 dimensional forces

Mmm... not the type of causal interaction I'm talking about. Different dimensions effecting each other on the whole is different than a two dimensional object physically interacting with a three dimensional object. I'll grant you that I probably just have a narrow definition of causal interaction. I think we always describe lower level dimensional objects as parts of higher level dimensional objects, so that interactions at the higher dimensions definitely have an effect on the lower dimensions, but this is only an indirect causal interaction. If another fifth (or what-have-you) dimensional object bumped into our universe, it doesn't mean that the fifth dimensional object bumped into my desk or chair, thought it might have a colossal effect on these things through the effect it has on our universe.

 

[BrotherRool]

..

Okay how about this for an actual multi-dimensional, physically sound, well-defined interaction
http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

Three+1 dimensional space yet we're all feeling the affects of 11 dimensional forces

Mmm... not the type of causal interaction I'm talking about. Different dimensions effecting each other on the whole is different than a two dimensional object physically interacting with a three dimensional object. I'll grant you that I probably just have a narrow definition of causal interaction. I think we always describe lower level dimensional objects as parts of higher level dimensional objects, so that interactions at the higher dimensions definitely have an effect on the lower dimensions, but this is only an indirect causal interaction. If another fifth (or what-have-you) dimensional object bumped into our universe, it doesn't mean that the fifth dimensional object bumped into my desk or chair, thought it might have a colossal effect on these things through the effect it has on our universe.

I think maybe that you're asking for a multi-dimensional interaction between forces that you are specifically defining as three dimensional (or 4 dimensional). Because when a ball hits the ground there are models where's that's 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional (I mean there are mechanical systems that define 2d interactions, and they dont have hang-ups about things like mass because they treat that as a property.

But even these are just theoretical models of something that is (possibly) a 4d, 11d interaction. I mean the only reason that ball moves is due to gravity. The only reason your chair is staying on the floor is gravity. When your chair is knocked, it's specifically an 11dimensional force that is making it move.

I guess what you were looking for is a 4d object knocking a 3d object but the problem is objects are basically described as a 3dimensional thing. You don't want a model, or a theory, or to look at a slice of the problem and since you don't have any experience of 4 dimensional objects you feel the interaction is impossible.

In a way I guess it is because we don't have 4d objects, but I think this started with us talking about a foreign object (God metaphor) interaction and I blew it by talking about humans and paper. I guess we don't have any knowledge either way because we can't test it out but I just don't see any theoretical problems with it.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

..

Okay how about this for an actual multi-dimensional, physically sound, well-defined interaction
http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

Three+1 dimensional space yet we're all feeling the affects of 11 dimensional forces

Mmm... not the type of causal interaction I'm talking about. Different dimensions effecting each other on the whole is different than a two dimensional object physically interacting with a three dimensional object. I'll grant you that I probably just have a narrow definition of causal interaction. I think we always describe lower level dimensional objects as parts of higher level dimensional objects, so that interactions at the higher dimensions definitely have an effect on the lower dimensions, but this is only an indirect causal interaction. If another fifth (or what-have-you) dimensional object bumped into our universe, it doesn't mean that the fifth dimensional object bumped into my desk or chair, thought it might have a colossal effect on these things through the effect it has on our universe.

I think maybe that you're asking for a multi-dimensional interaction between forces that you are specifically defining as three dimensional (or 4 dimensional). Because when a ball hits the ground there are models where's that's 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional (I mean there are mechanical systems that define 2d interactions, and they dont have hang-ups about things like mass because they treat that as a property.

But even these are just theoretical models of something that is (possibly) a 4d, 11d interaction. I mean the only reason that ball moves is due to gravity. The only reason your chair is staying on the floor is gravity. When your chair is knocked, it's specifically an 11dimensional force that is making it move.

I guess what you were looking for is a 4d object knocking a 3d object but the problem is objects are basically described as a 3dimensional thing. You don't want a model, or a theory, or to look at a slice of the problem and since you don't have any experience of 4 dimensional objects you feel the interaction is impossible.

In a way I guess it is because we don't have 4d objects, but I think this started with us talking about a foreign object (God metaphor) interaction and I blew it by talking about humans and paper. I guess we don't have any knowledge either way because we can't test it out but I just don't see any theoretical problems with it.

Well, I was never trying to say that different dimensional objects can't interact, I was just saying that they can't interact in the classical sense of reciprocal causal interaction between discreet objects. That kind of interaction requires that things exist in the same dimension.

You're right, the conversation did originally involve the idea of God. What I was essentially trying to say was that God, as a timeless being, couldn't interact with temporal objects within time, though he could definitely affect time from the outside. I think this conversation arose out of a confusion over the narrow definition of interaction that I was using. On that note, it occurs to me that God would be a special case because he pretty much has to be the ultimate cause of all dimensions by definition. That being said, I guess you could say that an aspect of God can exist in time etc.; just not the big guy himself.

 

[BrotherRool]

..

Okay how about this for an actual multi-dimensional, physically sound, well-defined interaction
http://d0server1.fnal.gov/users/gll/public/edpublic.htm

Three+1 dimensional space yet we're all feeling the affects of 11 dimensional forces

Mmm... not the type of causal interaction I'm talking about. Different dimensions effecting each other on the whole is different than a two dimensional object physically interacting with a three dimensional object. I'll grant you that I probably just have a narrow definition of causal interaction. I think we always describe lower level dimensional objects as parts of higher level dimensional objects, so that interactions at the higher dimensions definitely have an effect on the lower dimensions, but this is only an indirect causal interaction. If another fifth (or what-have-you) dimensional object bumped into our universe, it doesn't mean that the fifth dimensional object bumped into my desk or chair, thought it might have a colossal effect on these things through the effect it has on our universe.

I think maybe that you're asking for a multi-dimensional interaction between forces that you are specifically defining as three dimensional (or 4 dimensional). Because when a ball hits the ground there are models where's that's 2-dimensional, 3-dimensional (I mean there are mechanical systems that define 2d interactions, and they dont have hang-ups about things like mass because they treat that as a property.

But even these are just theoretical models of something that is (possibly) a 4d, 11d interaction. I mean the only reason that ball moves is due to gravity. The only reason your chair is staying on the floor is gravity. When your chair is knocked, it's specifically an 11dimensional force that is making it move.

I guess what you were looking for is a 4d object knocking a 3d object but the problem is objects are basically described as a 3dimensional thing. You don't want a model, or a theory, or to look at a slice of the problem and since you don't have any experience of 4 dimensional objects you feel the interaction is impossible.

In a way I guess it is because we don't have 4d objects, but I think this started with us talking about a foreign object (God metaphor) interaction and I blew it by talking about humans and paper. I guess we don't have any knowledge either way because we can't test it out but I just don't see any theoretical problems with it.

Well, I was never trying to say that different dimensional objects can't interact, I was just saying that they can't interact in the classical sense of reciprocal causal interaction between discreet objects. That kind of interaction requires that things exist in the same dimension.

You're right, the conversation did originally involve the idea of God. What I was essentially trying to say was that God, as a timeless being, couldn't interact with temporal objects within time, though he could definitely affect time from the outside. I think this conversation arose out of a confusion over the narrow definition of interaction that I was using. On that note, it occurs to me that God would be a special case because he pretty much has to be the ultimate cause of all dimensions by definition. That being said, I guess you could say that an aspect of God can exist in time etc.; just not the big guy himself.

I don't buy the causal bit still, because 'causal' is just our mind building up rules by experience and actually all causal happenings are fundamentally wrapped up in gravity which is possible multi-dimensional, but your conclusion makes sense in many ways

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well, I was never trying to say that different dimensional objects can't interact, I was just saying that they can't interact in the classical sense of reciprocal causal interaction between discreet objects. That kind of interaction requires that things exist in the same dimension.

You're right, the conversation did originally involve the idea of God. What I was essentially trying to say was that God, as a timeless being, couldn't interact with temporal objects within time, though he could definitely affect time from the outside. I think this conversation arose out of a confusion over the narrow definition of interaction that I was using. On that note, it occurs to me that God would be a special case because he pretty much has to be the ultimate cause of all dimensions by definition. That being said, I guess you could say that an aspect of God can exist in time etc.; just not the big guy himself.

I don't buy the causal bit still, because 'causal' is just our mind building up rules by experience and actually all causal happenings are fundamentally wrapped up in gravity which is possible multi-dimensional, but your conclusion makes sense in many ways

Well, I'll grant you that one can have a broader definition of causality. Though you should keep in mind that ALL scientific inquiry is just "our mind building up rules by experience", and that includes our knowledge of gravity and multiple dimensions. Just because the distinction that I was arguing for was largely conceptual, doesn't mean that it isn't useful. I think it ultimately helps us to distinguish between different concepts of causality so that we don't confusedly think that one implies the other. Saying that God causes things to happen in time (in the broad sense of causality) doesn't mean that God exists in time and causes those things to happen by interacting with they physically as a 3 + 1 dimensional object. Same thing with gravity. Gravity certainly causes a lot of things to happen at the three dimensional level, but that doesn't mean that gravity is a three dimensional object that interacts with other three dimensional objects. That was really my entire point.

 

[BrotherRool]

Well, I was never trying to say that different dimensional objects can't interact, I was just saying that they can't interact in the classical sense of reciprocal causal interaction between discreet objects. That kind of interaction requires that things exist in the same dimension.

You're right, the conversation did originally involve the idea of God. What I was essentially trying to say was that God, as a timeless being, couldn't interact with temporal objects within time, though he could definitely affect time from the outside. I think this conversation arose out of a confusion over the narrow definition of interaction that I was using. On that note, it occurs to me that God would be a special case because he pretty much has to be the ultimate cause of all dimensions by definition. That being said, I guess you could say that an aspect of God can exist in time etc.; just not the big guy himself.

I don't buy the causal bit still, because 'causal' is just our mind building up rules by experience and actually all causal happenings are fundamentally wrapped up in gravity which is possible multi-dimensional, but your conclusion makes sense in many ways

Well, I'll grant you that one can have a broader definition of causality. Though you should keep in mind that ALL scientific inquiry is just "our mind building up rules by experience", and that includes our knowledge of gravity and multiple dimensions. Just because the distinction that I was arguing for was largely conceptual, doesn't mean that it isn't useful. I think it ultimately helps us to distinguish between different concepts of causality so that we don't confusedly think that one implies the other. Saying that God causes things to happen in time (in the broad sense of causality) doesn't mean that God exists in time and causes those things to happen by interacting with they physically as a 3 + 1 dimensional object. Same thing with gravity. Gravity certainly causes a lot of things to happen at the three dimensional level, but that doesn't mean that gravity is a three dimensional object that interacts with other three dimensional objects. That was really my entire point.

Fair enough. This has probably been the most expanding conversation I've ever had on the Escapist

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

Well, I was never trying to say that different dimensional objects can't interact, I was just saying that they can't interact in the classical sense of reciprocal causal interaction between discreet objects. That kind of interaction requires that things exist in the same dimension.

You're right, the conversation did originally involve the idea of God. What I was essentially trying to say was that God, as a timeless being, couldn't interact with temporal objects within time, though he could definitely affect time from the outside. I think this conversation arose out of a confusion over the narrow definition of interaction that I was using. On that note, it occurs to me that God would be a special case because he pretty much has to be the ultimate cause of all dimensions by definition. That being said, I guess you could say that an aspect of God can exist in time etc.; just not the big guy himself.

I don't buy the causal bit still, because 'causal' is just our mind building up rules by experience and actually all causal happenings are fundamentally wrapped up in gravity which is possible multi-dimensional, but your conclusion makes sense in many ways

Well, I'll grant you that one can have a broader definition of causality. Though you should keep in mind that ALL scientific inquiry is just "our mind building up rules by experience", and that includes our knowledge of gravity and multiple dimensions. Just because the distinction that I was arguing for was largely conceptual, doesn't mean that it isn't useful. I think it ultimately helps us to distinguish between different concepts of causality so that we don't confusedly think that one implies the other. Saying that God causes things to happen in time (in the broad sense of causality) doesn't mean that God exists in time and causes those things to happen by interacting with they physically as a 3 + 1 dimensional object. Same thing with gravity. Gravity certainly causes a lot of things to happen at the three dimensional level, but that doesn't mean that gravity is a three dimensional object that interacts with other three dimensional objects. That was really my entire point.

Fair enough. This has probably been the most expanding conversation I've ever had on the Escapist

Me too, I've thoroughly enjoyed it!