Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A magnitude if divisible one way is

a line, if two ways a surface, and if three a body. Beyond these there is no other

magnitude, because the three dimensions are all that there are, and that which is

divisible in three directions is divisible in all.

 

One thing, however, is clear. We cannot pass beyond body to

a further kind, as we passed from length to surface, and from surface to body.

For if we could, it would cease to be true that body is complete magnitude. We

could pass beyond it only in virtue of a defect in it and that which is complete

cannot be defective, since it extends in every direction.

-by Aristotle(translated by J.L Stocks)

Is he wrong????or his words co-relate with the modern science in some way or the other???

Link to post
Share on other sites

In modern language Aristotle is asserting that the world we live in has three dimensions.

 

Einstein tells us that we should include time into this and as such out world is four dimensional.

 

Based on string theory, it is quite possible that there more dimensions than this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In modern language Aristotle is asserting that the world we live in has three dimensions.

 

Einstein tells us that we should include time into this and as such out world is four dimensional.

 

Based on string theory, it is quite possible that there more dimensions than this.

 

Einstein is a moron, every genius has to be until the next one comes along and shows you why.(relativity is a beautifully complex idea, but e=mc^2 is not)

 

 

Based upon an already existent system anything can be true, but only of that system.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing, however, is clear. We cannot pass beyond body to

a further kind, as we passed from length to surface, and from surface to body.

For if we could, it would cease to be true that body is complete magnitude. We

could pass beyond it only in virtue of a defect in it and that which is complete

cannot be defective, since it extends in every direction.

It would be helpful to know what he was arguing against, I think. What was being claimed as "passing beyond body to a further kind?" What was the "further kind" that was postulated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein is a moron, every genius has to be until the next one comes along and shows you why.(relativity is a beautifully complex idea, but e=mc^2 is not)

 

 

Based upon an already existent system anything can be true, but only of that system.

 

!

Moderator Note

Do not thread hijack. Please only post accepted science in the science forums, keep everything else to their own threads in speculations

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be helpful to know what he was arguing against, I think. What was being claimed as "passing beyond body to a further kind?" What was the "further kind" that was postulated?

 

Aristotle is saying that we can envisage a line - we see that it is lacking (is defective), we can expand upon (go beyond) the line by adding another dimension to envisage a plane; in turn we can go beyond the plane by utilising the dimension it lacks to create a body. He is saying that every object can be completely determined with these three spatial dimensions; I don't believe there was a speculative higher form he was arguing against, rather he was confirming that the progression from1, to 2, to 3 dimensions stopped at three. It is the lack of breadth that allows a line to be expanded to a surface, and the lack of height which allows a surface to be expanded to a body; there is no other lack/ no defect with the generalised body that allows it to be expanded to a higher dimension, it also implies that the movement from 1-d to 2-d is similar to the movement from 2-d to 3-d, which is not obvious. Bear in mind this was written prior Euclid's Elements; the basic rules of maths were still in their infancy

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aristotle is saying that we can envisage a line - we see that it is lacking (is defective), we can expand upon (go beyond) the line by adding another dimension to envisage a plane; in turn we can go beyond the plane by utilising the dimension it lacks to create a body. He is saying that every object can be completely determined with these three spatial dimensions; I don't believe there was a speculative higher form he was arguing against, rather he was confirming that the progression from1, to 2, to 3 dimensions stopped at three. It is the lack of breadth that allows a line to be expanded to a surface, and the lack of height which allows a surface to be expanded to a body; there is no other lack/ no defect with the generalised body that allows it to be expanded to a higher dimension, it also implies that the movement from 1-d to 2-d is similar to the movement from 2-d to 3-d, which is not obvious. Bear in mind this was written prior Euclid's Elements; the basic rules of maths were still in their infancy

 

Oh, I assumed it was a critique of some claim about teleportation or dimensions that transcend empirical observability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

light is 1 dimensional, thats probably all that matters

 

3d tv's piss me off, if 2d can give the illusion of 3d which make 4d's what difference does it make if the illusion works but is ultimately an illusion?

 

3d tv's piss me off, if 2d can give the illusion of 3d which make 4d's what difference does it make if the illusion works but is ultimately an illusion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.