Jump to content

2D vs 3D


Tom

2D or 3D  

54 members have voted

  1. 1. what do you prefer?

    • 2D
      19
    • 3D
      3
    • I like both
      27
    • LOLIS!
      19

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

Multiverse? Okay, so in some other universe somewhere what you're saying is true. In some other universe the Earth is a ball of fire. Neither of those universes have anything to do with ours, so for all our intents and purposes those things aren't true. Unless you think that "The Earth is a ball of fire" is true.

This is all ignoring the fact that the many-worlds interpretation is still only a hypothesis. It is a model that at first glance isn't completely wrong, but neither is there enough evidence for it to call it a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multiverse? Okay, so in some other universe somewhere what you're saying is true. In some other universe the Earth is a ball of fire. Neither of those universes have anything to do with ours, so for all our intents and purposes those things aren't true. Unless you think that "The Earth is a ball of fire" is true.

This is all ignoring the fact that the many-worlds interpretation is still only a hypothesis. It is a model that at first glance isn't completely wrong, but neither is there enough evidence for it to call it a theory.

 

From the beginning I was saying that 2D worlds exist in another universe. And it's not true that those universes don't have anything to do with our own as in these universes we/I wish to live in instead of this one. And this topic's purpose is to discus 2D and 3D worlds so...

 

And complex theories like this one can't have more evidence than this as science isn't developed enough to give us more knowledge on the matter. You yourself posted "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Then why now you won't accept this as a possible theory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Something that may or may not exist, especially without any proof to back it up, essentially doesn't exist because in fact it doesn't"

let's take it to the extreme: the only thing we know about gravity is the effect that it has on us, other than that we have NO proof to back it up, only the effect. something like

since there is the effect x, then there must be Y...

since we have no idea of why our universe started, we can only see the effect. But why the universe started? i personally think the most convincing one is a multiverse theory where at the beginning the time goes back on itself to allow the self-creation, some may believe that god created it, or someone else that our universe is born after some 2D being thought about us and that simple act is enough to create a whole new universe, and in the same way we are all "gods" in the sense that when we die we go where we think we are going, actively creating our next world....

going back at a certain point is just speculation, you can do it with some math backing you up or without but in the end we are just discussing about something far too big for us....

 

the point i'm trying to make is that you should not criticize someone for his believes as long as he doesn't create problems for others because its plain stupid...also his believes are not of those that goes against common sense, like "i believe that tomorrow my arm will get torn off", but are on a level that nobody not even science has any proven theories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is build on an axiomatic system, most often it's rules we take for given or greatly simplify proving things; they are handy. Before the 20th century physics built upon axioms neglecting parameters like relativistic effects, because there were no indications of them at the time.

 

For about everything proven, one unwritten axiom must be "what we see, exists". But it can't be proven, because that would be a closed circle-argumentation.

 

In short, for what we know today we have to believe what we can observe as some axiom, it's practical and works for us, here and now.

 

This has nothing to do with my opinion that 2D is better than 3D, because what makes 2D inferior because it's not "reality"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the beginning I was saying that 2D worlds exist in another universe. And it's not true that those universes don't have anything to do with our own as in these universes we/I wish to live in instead of this one. And this topic's purpose is to discus 2D and 3D worlds so...

 

 

The only 2D worlds you want to live in are the ones that "exist" in our universe, like Steve lives in his world with Mare, because once again, if you assert that what is true in other universes influence ours, then I am correct in saying that the Earth is a ball of fire. But you deny that too, your 2D worlds aren't made by man, and apparently the 3D world is changing in specifially the right ways to make it similar to one of the 2D worlds, both of which are completely wild assumptions neither of which you have proof of.

And complex theories like this one can't have more evidence than this as science isn't developed enough to give us more knowledge on the matter. You yourself posted "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

Then why now you won't accept this as a possible theory?

 

Did you really just say that science isn't developed enough to give us sufficient knowledge to make a well-substantiated explanation about complex hypotheses, and then proceed to ask why it's not considered a well-substantiated explanation?

"We don't have enough apples to make an apple pie, so why can't we make an apple pie?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only 2D worlds you want to live in are the ones that "exist" in our universe, like Steve lives in his world with Mare, because once again, if you assert that what is true in other universes influence ours, then I am correct in saying that the Earth is a ball of fire. But you deny that too, your 2D worlds aren't made by man, and apparently the 3D world is changing in specifially the right ways to make it similar to one of the 2D worlds, both of which are completely wild assumptions neither of which you have proof of.

 

Did you really just say that science isn't developed enough to give us sufficient knowledge to make a well-substantiated explanation about complex hypotheses, and then proceed to ask why it's not considered a well-substantiated explanation?

"We don't have enough apples to make an apple pie, so why can't we make an apple pie?"

 

Science isn't devepoed enough to give us more knowledge so we can't be completely sure if one theory is corect or not, as we can't get a proof. But we can have well-substantiated explanation without proof (= Theory). So then I am asking you why you don't want to accept it as such (as possible theory).

 

And and I didn't deny that the earth might be a ball of fire in some other universe, actually it is very like that it is considering that in far past earth was a ball of fire even in our Universum. And I also never said that 3D world is changing to in specifically the right ways to make it similar to one of the 2D worlds but that it was made that way to begin with. And no I don't want to live in only 2D worlds that we can see from this Universum but in any 2D world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science isn't devepoed enough to give us more knowledge so we can't be completely sure if one theory is corect or not, as we can't get a proof. But we can have well-substantiated explanation without proof (= Theory). So then I am asking you why you don't want to accept it as such (as possible theory).

 

And and I didn't deny that the earth might be a ball of fire in some other universe, actually it is very like that it is considering that in far past earth was a ball of fire even in our Universum. And I also never said that 3D world is changing to in specifically the right ways to make it similar to one of the 2D worlds but that it was made that way to begin with. And no I don't want to live in only 2D worlds that we can see from this Universum but in any 2D world.

If an explanation has no proof it is false.

If an explanation has a significant amount of proof it is a theory.

It is impossible to have absolute proof of something the way science is right now, all we can do is back up existing theories with new proofs and alter theories if there is proof that does not agree with them.

You still seem to think that a theory is just any wild assumption that isn't obviously wrong like 2+2=5. That's a hypothesis, which is what both your idea and the mutilverse interpretation is. Hypotheses cannot be treated as true until they get enough proof to be theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an explanation has no proof it is false.

If an explanation has a significant amount of proof it is a theory.

It is impossible to have absolute proof of something the way science is right now, all we can do is back up existing theories with new proofs and alter theories if there is proof that does not agree with them.

You still seem to think that a theory is just any wild assumption that isn't obviously wrong like 2+2=5. That's a hypothesis, which is what both your idea and the mutilverse interpretation is. Hypotheses cannot be treated as true until they get enough proof to be theories.

 

Did you read a Xypers post above, I think he explained this pretty god.

 

 

"Something that may or may not exist, especially without any proof to back it up, essentially doesn't exist because in fact it doesn't"

let's take it to the extreme: the only thing we know about gravity is the effect that it has on us, other than that we have NO proof to back it up, only the effect. something like

since there is the effect x, then there must be Y...

since we have no idea of why our universe started, we can only see the effect. But why the universe started? i personally think the most convincing one is a multiverse theory where at the beginning the time goes back on itself to allow the self-creation, some may believe that god created it, or someone else that our universe is born after some 2D being thought about us and that simple act is enough to create a whole new universe, and in the same way we are all "gods" in the sense that when we die we go where we think we are going, actively creating our next world....

going back at a certain point is just speculation, you can do it with some math backing you up or without but in the end we are just discussing about something far too big for us....

 

the point i'm trying to make is that you should not criticize someone for his believes as long as he doesn't create problems for others because its plain stupid...also his believes are not of those that goes against common sense, like "i believe that tomorrow my arm will get torn off", but are on a level that nobody not even science has any proven theories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read a Xypers post above, I think he explained this pretty god.

If you mean the part about us only knowing about the effect of gravity, that's true, so we come up with the simplest explanation that we can't prove to be wrong - there is a gravitational force etc.

So if you say that because you can see a 2D world then a 2D world must exist, then you are right. But there is a far simpler explanation than "there is a 2D universe outside of ours which you can inexplicably see", which is "imagination".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you mean the part about us only knowing about the effect of gravity, that's true, so we come up with the simplest explanation that we can't prove to be wrong - there is a gravitational force etc.

So if you say that because you can see a 2D world then a 2D world must exist, then you are right. But there is a far simpler explanation than "there is a 2D universe outside of ours which you can inexplicably see", which is "imagination".

 

That too, But I ment on this part more:

 

 

since we have no idea of why our universe started, we can only see the effect. But why the universe started? i personally think the most convincing one is a multiverse theory where at the beginning the time goes back on itself to allow the self-creation, some may believe that god created it, or someone else that our universe is born after some 2D being thought about us and that simple act is enough to create a whole new universe, and in the same way we are all "gods" in the sense that when we die we go where we think we are going, actively creating our next world....

going back at a certain point is just speculation, you can do it with some math backing you up or without but in the end we are just discussing about something far too big for us....

 

 

Since it is too big for science and as right now those theories are the closest we can come to the truth.

 

Also this part.

 

 

the point i'm trying to make is that you should not criticize someone for his believes as long as he doesn't create problems for others because its plain stupid...also his believes are not of those that goes against common sense, like "i believe that tomorrow my arm will get torn off", but are on a level that nobody not even science has any proven theories

 

 

You commented only on part of his past while you ignored the rest. And even in the part you commented on you missed his point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That too, But I ment on this part more:

 

 

 

Since it is too big for science and as right now those theories are the closest we can come to the truth.

 

Also this part.

 

 

 

You commented only on part of his past while you ignored the rest. And even in the part you commented on you missed his point.

 

I've already explained those points before, but here we go again.

If it is too big for science then, unless you have a different method for determining what's true and what isn't, it is effectively wrong, because nothing you say about it holds any value whatsoever.

I'm not criticizing you for your beliefs, I'm criticizing your beliefs and the ways you justify them.

As for the part I commented on, his point was that we have a theory for something that we only know of from it's effect. But we can see that effect everywhere, we can measure it, we can predict it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already explained those points before, but here we go again.

If it is too big for science then, unless you have a different method for determining what's true and what isn't, it is effectively wrong, because nothing you say about it holds any value whatsoever.

I'm not criticizing you for your beliefs, I'm criticizing your beliefs and the ways you justify them.

As for the part I commented on, his point was that we have a theory for something that we only know of from it's effect. But we can see that effect everywhere, we can measure it, we can predict it.

BVmoihC.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've already explained those points before, but here we go again.

If it is too big for science then, unless you have a different method for determining what's true and what isn't, it is effectively wrong, because nothing you say about it holds any value whatsoever.

I'm not criticizing you for your beliefs, I'm criticizing your beliefs and the ways you justify them.

As for the part I commented on, his point was that we have a theory for something that we only know of from it's effect. But we can see that effect everywhere, we can measure it, we can predict it.

 

So let me get this straight, you are basically saying this "If we can't prove if something is corect or wrong then it is wrong".

And on that I can only say WTF!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...