plz try to help me!!!!

[Aakash Pandita]

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. Now bodies which are

classed as parts of the whole are each complete according to our formula, since

each possesses every dimension. But each is determined relatively to that part

which is next to it by contact, for which reason each of them is in a sense many

bodies. But the whole of which they are parts must necessarily be complete, and

must, as the term indicates, extend in every direction and not just in some.

 

 

 

These are the words by Aristotle...in his book On the Heavens...but i could not understand this para....

It would be gr8 if any1 could help me out....

Thanks in advance!!

[Blahah]

He's saying that you can represent one, two or three dimensions of space: linear (i.e. x-axis), two-dimensional (x and y axis) and three-dimensional (x,y and z-axis).

 

Then he argues that since we can't represent any more than three dimensions, there must be only three. Then he concludes that since we can perceive all three of these dimensions in the real world, i.e. in existence, that the whole of existence must be perfect and complete. Then he further derives that since the whole universe is perfect, each constituent part is perfect and complete, and that the perfect parts interact with one another.

 

Essentially, it's nonsense.

[imatfaal]

He's saying that you can represent one, two or three dimensions of space: linear (i.e. x-axis), two-dimensional (x and y axis) and three-dimensional (x,y and z-axis).

 

Then he argues that since we can't represent any more than three dimensions, there must be only three. Then he concludes that since we can perceive all three of these dimensions in the real world, i.e. in existence, that the whole of existence must be perfect and complete. Then he further derives that since the whole universe is perfect, each constituent part is perfect and complete, and that the perfect parts interact with one another.

 

Essentially, it's nonsense.

 

For someone working before Euclid it's pretty amazing actually. It still correctly identifies the human innate understanding of dimensions - that there is nowhere else to put another dimension. I think his use and the translators of complete and defective refer to physical solidity and its lack rather than some value judgement of quality. We can go beyond the surface because it lacks height/depth ie it is defective; we cannot go beyond the body because it does not lack a dimension. He goes on to say that objects in 3d space must be themselves 3 dimensional. How is this nonsense?

[Blahah]

For someone working before Euclid it's pretty amazing actually. It still correctly identifies the human innate understanding of dimensions - that there is nowhere else to put another dimension. I think his use and the translators of complete and defective refer to physical solidity and its lack rather than some value judgement of quality. We can go beyond the surface because it lacks height/depth ie it is defective; we cannot go beyond the body because it does not lack a dimension. He goes on to say that objects in 3d space must be themselves 3 dimensional. How is this nonsense?

I was being facetious, and failed to appreciate the allegory of completeness. Your explanation that objects in 3D space must be 3D makes it seem more sensible.