# If information has no innate geometric or dimensional extent...

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
What the hell is the Cartesian plane about?

Serious question.

#### Yaakov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
3,481
What the hell is the Cartesian plane about?

Serious question.
Dimensionality can be translated into space but doesn’t require it. We map things in 2- and 3D to help us visualize them but that’s a isomorphic translation into space not a revelation of their nature.

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Dimensionality can be translated into space but doesn’t require it. We map things in 2- and 3D to help us visualize them but that’s a isomorphic translation into space not a revelation of their nature.
Thanks for the reply. “Their” in “their nature“ being what exactly?

#### Yaakov

Joined Jan 27, 2019
3,481
Thanks for the reply. “Their” in “their nature“ being what exactly?
I don't have a ToE to fall back on but roughly those phenomena we choose to isolate as "important". We arbitrarily extract "useful" pieces of what we can sense and consider "them" individually. Ideally, we would understand the whole, but in practice, it is various pieces we carve out because of how our brains operate that we consider, and map onto our experience, which includes space and time, 3D and a flow.

#### bogosort

Joined Sep 24, 2011
678
What the hell is the Cartesian plane about?

Serious question.
Hi JS! Not sure what you're actually asking, but the Cartesian plane is a geometrical object. Specifically, it is the Euclidean vector space $$\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$$ of dimension two.

Needless to say, such a thing isn't a physical object in the usual sense of the word.

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Hi JS! Not sure what you're actually asking, but the Cartesian plane is a geometrical object. Specifically, it is the Euclidean vector space $$\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$$ of dimension two.

Needless to say, such a thing isn't a physical object in the usual sense of the word.
Thought I responded to this, but must have been a browser glitch.

Hey J!

Long time no Kronecker. ;--) Thanks for the reply. I’m still on the front lines of the “dimension wars“ in the psych ward lobby as it relates to consciousness, vectorial dimension vs. physical spatial dimension. I remain convinced the “dog in physical space” is objectively made of something other than discrete bits of information—and is a “conscious” definition of dimension independent of the informational definition (e.g., the old “2D array as manifested discontiguously in a RAM chip”). So the “dimension of two” you mention above in my estimation would be therefore one of two possible dimensional delineations—the “physical object” being the secondary; yet the former itself can have theoretically infinite “correlative“ shapeless dimensions if you will.

J

Last edited:

#### bogosort

Joined Sep 24, 2011
678
So the “dimension of two” you mention above in my estimation would be therefore one of two possible dimensional delineations—the “physical object” being the secondary; yet the former itself can have theoretically infinite “correlative“ shapeless dimensions if you will.
Dimensionality is just conceptual scaffolding, an organizational construct within some domain of interest. In the context of quantum physics, we need an infinite-dimensional space of quantum states to adequately describe the RAM chp. In the context of classical physics, we need just three dimensions. In the context of computer programming, a one-dimensional space is sufficient.

All of these models, though contradictory between each other, are nevertheless consistent within their own domains. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that dimensionality reflects our way of thinking more than it reflects the "true nature" of the thing being considered. Anyway, best of luck on the front lines.

#### andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,751
Hi @Jennifer Solomon

I'm going to have to ask , what's you background ?

This being a technical forum,
Engineers ,
we are trying to use models of what's happening to enable to let us design / construct things.

Its always been this was,

we have no innate knowledge on the "real" thing, just models that work for us..

Are you looking for a more philosophical theoretical discussion ?

As an example,

I'll us theory and model interchangeably here,

Ancient Egyptians were convinced sun disappeared into a gods "anus" each night and come out the "mouth" each day,
thus explaining how the day / night works,
as a model it worked for them ,
but then they started to come up with what we consider much more logical, the sun rotated around the earth,
and that worked for them to do some real amazing mathematics on the heavens, and make all sorts of predictions,
It was only later humans came up with the idea the earth revolved around the sun, and that was great,

newton ( et al ) came up with the idea of gravity.
no one has ever seen it, but its a good model, let us do even more great predictions,
till the behaviour of mercury was noted, and could not be explained,

The some one called Einstein came up with the idea of space time , which explained every thing, and we we all happy,
till recently , when there are some interesting questions being asked about the theory.

So the idea of cartesian format, multi dimensional space / time, they are all theories that let us design and cope with the world as we know it.

Who know , in 200 years people might look back on space time the same way we look back on the earth being at the centre of the universe, And to be honest , good luck , I only have a basic grasp of space time ..

information itself is a theory,
you keep mentioning how the brain does x,y,z
all good questions, we have models, but thats all they are,

I would go so far as to say,
this is not the forum for these sorts of questions as we are all by in large ( according to my model ) engineers, who just make and work with models.

#### BobaMosfet

Joined Jul 1, 2009
1,848
What the hell is the Cartesian plane about?

Serious question.
I think it's important to look at a Cartesian plain differently. Cartesian planes are about linear or 'on a line' dimensions. 1 plane for a single axis. This is frequently how linear space is described- point and line. If however, you work on a surface that is curved, you tend to translate to another system called 'Polar'. This is why you see pi used in mathematics. Pi is a means of translation between cartesian and polar coordinates within a given equation.

#### andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,751
A background on space,
look up Euclidean space / none Euclidean space

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Hi @Jennifer Solomon

I'm going to have to ask , what's you background ?

This being a technical forum,
Engineers ,
we are trying to use models of what's happening to enable to let us design / construct things.

Its always been this was,

we have no innate knowledge on the "real" thing, just models that work for us..

Are you looking for a more philosophical theoretical discussion ?

As an example,

I'll us theory and model interchangeably here,

Ancient Egyptians were convinced sun disappeared into a gods "anus" each night and come out the "mouth" each day,
thus explaining how the day / night works,
as a model it worked for them ,
but then they started to come up with what we consider much more logical, the sun rotated around the earth,
and that worked for them to do some real amazing mathematics on the heavens, and make all sorts of predictions,
It was only later humans came up with the idea the earth revolved around the sun, and that was great,

newton ( et al ) came up with the idea of gravity.
no one has ever seen it, but its a good model, let us do even more great predictions,
till the behaviour of mercury was noted, and could not be explained,

The some one called Einstein came up with the idea of space time , which explained every thing, and we we all happy,
till recently , when there are some interesting questions being asked about the theory.

So the idea of cartesian format, multi dimensional space / time, they are all theories that let us design and cope with the world as we know it.

Who know , in 200 years people might look back on space time the same way we look back on the earth being at the centre of the universe, And to be honest , good luck , I only have a basic grasp of space time ..

information itself is a theory,
you keep mentioning how the brain does x,y,z
all good questions, we have models, but thats all they are,

I would go so far as to say,
this is not the forum for these sorts of questions as we are all by in large ( according to my model ) engineers, who just make and work with models.

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,147
Hello there
The some one called Einstein came up with the idea of space time , which explained every thing, and we we all happy,
till recently , when there are some interesting questions being asked about the theory
But some of us continue to ponder the issue. It is one of those great questions that we don’t normally talk about because we don’t like to mention questions for which we have no good answers. And we have to be careful not to ponder deep questions too much. As Nietzsche said, if you gaze too long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Or, as Feynman said (based on what he saw in other physicists), if you think too hard about some of these questions you will “go down the drain.”
Einstein failed; he did not include Mach’s principle in his general theory of relativity. General relativity, even with an empty universe, still has an absolute rotational reference frame.
Even in science the object of research is no longer nature itself, but man’s investigation of nature.
--Werner Heisenberg

#### andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,751

#### andrewmm

Joined Feb 25, 2011
1,751
Hello there

But some of us continue to ponder the issue. It is one of those great questions that we don’t normally talk about because we don’t like to mention questions for which we have no good answers. And we have to be careful not to ponder deep questions too much. As Nietzsche said, if you gaze too long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. Or, as Feynman said (based on what he saw in other physicists), if you think too hard about some of these questions you will “go down the drain.”
Einstein failed; he did not include Mach’s principle in his general theory of relativity. General relativity, even with an empty universe, still has an absolute rotational reference frame.
Even in science the object of research is no longer nature itself, but man’s investigation of nature.
--Werner Heisenberg
Its just this forum is called All About Circuits,

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,147
Yes there are brilliant physicists here as well! And extraordinary electrical engineers such as yourself.

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Its just this forum is called All About Circuits,
Yes... and the reason I ask questions to people here is because the engineers and scientists that frequent this forum know the true limitations and capacities of hardware and software, which is some of the basis of my investigations.

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Hi @Jennifer Solomon

I'm sorry, I asked what is your background, so we can aim to more directly aim a response
I have no problem with your ability to gain views,

Can you explain also your reasoning about your statement as to why number of views equates to relevance

Thank you
The number of views is a reflection of the magnitude of interest in a topic in general. If they’re interested in the topic, it’s obviously a statement concerning how many members here find it relevant. (That is, of course, unless 31,000 views is composed of 49 of the same obsessed people clicking on it 1,000 times every 2 weeks for some reason.) Just to clarify, pointing that out wasn’t at all about “my ability” to gain views—it was about the topic’s ability.

My background is quite varied and spans topics from computer science to epistemology and linguistics.

#### Jennifer Solomon

Joined Mar 20, 2017
112
Einstein failed; he did not include Mach’s principle in his general theory of relativity. General relativity, even with an empty universe, still has an absolute rotational reference frame.
Even in science the object of research is no longer nature itself, but man’s investigation of nature.
--Werner Heisenberg
Leave it to Heisenberg to bring such “certainty“ to the quest of knowing the uncertain!

Speaking of Einstein, he was one of the first popular scientific voices to posit that certain things were illusions, like the linearity of time.

One wonders exactly just what else is an illusion—like some of the ontological assumptions of certain theories, such as his own GR, whose equivalency principle is based on a qualitative equality of gravity and acceleration, and rendering gravity a dependent effect. But maybe this is only true some of the time. Our minds can just as easily model gravity as an independent causeless cause. This shows us, as Heisenberg is implying, a model of reason and consciousness is in order, to understand the mental tools and assumptions of how it is we approach problems to begin with, and employ the very words and numbers that we use to define them.

#### Delta Prime

Joined Nov 15, 2019
1,147
Heisenberg is implying, a model of reason and consciousness is in order, to understand the mental tools and assumptions of how it is we approach problems to begin with, and employ the very words and numbers that we use to define them.
You know of course you're preaching to the choir!
Gaze into my crystal ball.