Re: [-empyre-] multi-perspectival / cultural hegemony of space

i find it funny that scientists agree on 9 dimensions, but why not 99?

Yes, that's the obvious question isn't it. But, I was under the impression, and perhaps I'm wrong, that 'science' accepts 9 dimensions and the radicals are the ones talking about 37 dimensions, etc.

and what about that 5th dentist who doesn't recommend sugarless gum?

Heh, guess that dentist doesn't get paid :-)

surely if we could all cope with 9 dimensions there would be a group of
scientists who would suggest a tenth or a 99th.

Yes, but let's not forget that scientists don't make suggestions; rather they produce theories that are theoretically testable, and that the two basic criteria of empirical science are that it makes predictions and can be falsified. There's a big difference between me saying "I think there are 99 dimensions" and a physicist saying the same thing based on research.

i love the notion of "our" big bang, as it parallels the brahman (i
think) myth that the universe emanates from the navel of brahma as he
sleeps on a giant lotus leaf. it springs forth, expands, contracts and
is destroyed, over and over again. nobody knows how any times the
universe has been created, existed, and then destroyed.

which of course begs the question 'what universe are brahma and the lotus leaf in?' :-)
Also, though, if my understanding is correct, it isn't really a parallel, as the brahma myth (if i'm understanding it correctly) still has 'only this' universe that has been created then destroyed over and over, whereas the parallel universes that quantum physicists are talking about are an infinite number of universes existing at the same time.

 my personal tastes lean not toward the "correct," but
definitely away from the glitchy.

Fair enough.

This is a very stimulating conversation.

something i found interesting about my recent sojourn on the gameboy
however, was that although i followed the rules to create a proper
space, occasionally, because of the significant limitations of the
hardware, it still rendered wonky. i had to be very careful to ask it
very nicely to please draw this perfectly normal space correctly. the
bugs that bug me could very well be the basis of another artist's
creativity. but it drove me nuts.


Adam Nash wrote: > > This is starting to get very interesting! Unfortunately, I am what I call a > 'selfish artist' (others have less kind words for it),ie, I'm in it for my > own self, like a diary. So, I can't contribute much to this discussion on > the science/maths side of things, but I do have a few soulful reactions > which may be of use in a different way. > > >the geometry of the universe in some cosmologies is supposed to be > >non-euclidean. in the big > >bang theory, there's an origin point to the universe, the beginning of > >time, and the universe is > >supposed to be an expanding four-dimensional sphere. > > I thought scientists generally accepted there are 9 dimensions? I'm asking, > not stating. Also, based on my very rudimentary understanding of a single > article in Scientific American, don't quantum physicists now talk about > 'our' big bang, rather than 'the' big bang because they have accepted that > there are an infinite number of parallel universes? I imagine that there > are a lot of possibilities in infinity... > > >PS: Here is a fascinating 'space' by France's Frédéric Durieu: > > . The nature of > >this space is discussed

> >in . To make a long
> >story short, this
> >piece by Durieu called "Oeil Complex" is using a mapping of 1/(a+bi), ie,
> >is using imaginary
> >numbers.
> Lovely piece, I'm really looking forward to checking out the rest of his work.
> John wrote:
> > its use, by its mathematical nature, is
> > restricted to a euclidean spatial representation regardless how much one
> > tries to confound that space
> Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I initially said that the renderer
> is trapped within a cartesian world view, and I find it interesting to play
> around with what you call the 'machine's understanding' - one of the things
> I find most rewarding about working with computers is telling them to do
> things they have not been programmed to consider. I love the, often quite
> startling, glitches that result when you do some 'physically impossible'
> geometry in a 3D program - they freak out! They don't say "that is not
> possible within the conceptual framework of space i've been designed to
> interpret, let's talk about it", they render it anyway! And often it looks
> wonderful. As Melinda has often said here and elsewhere, she likes to show
> the seams.
> John wrote:
> > humans have a much harder time "believing" in a space
> > that does not equate to the one we walk around in every day
> Some humans do, some humans don't. Certainly I've never considered the
> 'space' we walk around in to be definitive - how do I know that you, or
> anyone else, is perceiving it the same way? What about blind people?
> Children? What about people from non-european traditions? I know in a very
> general way, for example, that Australian Aborigines have what to us is a
> totally psychedelic and incredibly complex perception of space and time.
> I would really like to hear more about the Chinese landscapists that Alan
> mentions and also about Analytical Cubism as mentioned in Simon's paper. Is
> this similar to the point that has been made elsewhere that the
> introduction of switchable viewpoints in games etc is a new development,
> even though they are just a series of camera views, and aren't rendered
> simultaneously as I gather is the case with the Chinese landscapists and
> Analytical Cubists?
> But this brings it to the point that I clumsily tried to make in my
> introduction, which is that I'm not interested at all in how web3D can be
> used to represent the physical world, or visual perceptions thereof. I'm
> interested in the 3D medium itself, which, although it is clearly based on
> the cartesian paradigm, does a piss poor job of representing it, let's be
> honest :-) I much prefer exploring the properties of the space itself -
> there is no gravity unless you assign it, no up or down unless you assign
> it, no here or there unless you assign it, and so on. Of course when it is
> rendered to the screen it attempts to do it in conformance with the
> cartesian framework, but then it goes and does it in a 2D space, which is
> just as unrelated to the space we walk around in isn't it?
> Adam
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
empyre forum

________________________________ Adam Nash 1/360 Carlisle St, Balaclava, Vic, 3183 0412185008

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.