A 5 sided square
Greetings
Today i was watching this video were Cliff Stoll shows that by defining a square as a figure with similar sides and 90° angles, he can form a 3 sided and a 5 sided "square".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7GYYerlQWs
On his demonstration the result is a figure that protrude outside the 2d space, "which, correct me if i'm wrong, can't be called a square anymore by common definition, since its not a polygon".
So, depending on the "dimension" of the observation, a previous definition of a concept can be proven insufficient.
This got me thinking about how we tend to establish a well defined and solid conceptualization of who we are,what are our ethics of conduct and what we are doing for the well being of our peers, families, and species and how it seems to work well in general.
But, being the possibility that our perception of the great scheme of existence is incomplete, our conceptualizations might be terribly unfitting or inadequate for such purposes, hence the complications we have been facing throughout history.
Do you think that for us humans the conquest of dimensionality, it's an attainable goal, in the pursue of our balance with the medium we live in?
please let me know if you have any important reference on this topic.
Today i was watching this video were Cliff Stoll shows that by defining a square as a figure with similar sides and 90° angles, he can form a 3 sided and a 5 sided "square".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7GYYerlQWs
On his demonstration the result is a figure that protrude outside the 2d space, "which, correct me if i'm wrong, can't be called a square anymore by common definition, since its not a polygon".
So, depending on the "dimension" of the observation, a previous definition of a concept can be proven insufficient.
This got me thinking about how we tend to establish a well defined and solid conceptualization of who we are,what are our ethics of conduct and what we are doing for the well being of our peers, families, and species and how it seems to work well in general.
But, being the possibility that our perception of the great scheme of existence is incomplete, our conceptualizations might be terribly unfitting or inadequate for such purposes, hence the complications we have been facing throughout history.
Do you think that for us humans the conquest of dimensionality, it's an attainable goal, in the pursue of our balance with the medium we live in?
please let me know if you have any important reference on this topic.
Comments (18)
Can you figure out why the peppy mathematician in the video calls a THREE and FIVE sided object a SQUARE?
Sorry, I thought this was KFC. (Or KFFB, as I like to call it).
Thanks for the reply! yes indeed i believe we need a system of presuppositions in order to have a perspective of the objects of study, in the case of the example i put through, i'm trying to dig about how can we improve our definitions and givens to get a more complete perspective of the real.
And about the goal, that can be defined by every individual as he pleases, i guess as you say, can we ever really get to know how to be on this world?, i'm sure in the end we all have to make the preliminary decision and go with that.
But anyway i'm always been a loner who ask such questions, so it's nice to be welcomed in a community
i'll stick around as much as i can.
Quoting tim wood
better to know that fact while also wrestling with all the conclutions :lol:
Quoting S ok but why though :rofl:
I forgot to put on my reading glasses.
Or I didn't, and the whole thing was actually a joke. But not just a joke: a joke making reference to an example used throughout the history of Western philosophy of an unsatisfactory definition of the term "human being", which, more generally, is the problem you touch upon in your opening post.
Although it was the former. I just forgot to put on my reading glasses.
Thanks for the references, i'll be sure to check them,
Quoting tim wood and thanks for the burnt too maybe this is exactly what i needed, anyway this post it's something i wrote just for the sake of it, anyway it seems to have given more than enough of reward, i'll be sure to check more of your publications in the future.
I love the Numberphile videos. In this case, it appears he's working off of the conundrum faced long ago regarding the 5th postulate.
The best part of science (and math) for me is reading about the incisive minds in the field and how they wedge their scalpels into the seams and expose to the layman a world that is bursting with novelty.
At one point a thought crossed my mind around dimension itself. Reviewing the math behind fractional numbers, negative numbers and 0 as an exponent on Numberphile, I wondered whether dimension, seemingly incontrovertibly discrete, had any meaning as a fraction.
And, of course, it has been considered.
I have on my list of questions for God (or the FSM or the Great Pumpkin), if I ever get the chance, whether existence is at some level "closed" or whether it is, alternatively, infinitely interesting.
Thanks for your reply, yes it seems to me very interesting to think about the hypothetical applications that math can bring into the table for metaphysics, one of the ideas that boggles me is how come math comes so naturally and logically to our minds, like it was a part of nature itself, but our internal nature.
Quoting JosephS
I haven't thought of dimension like that, but now that you mention it it's sure to be an interesting trip, i'll be checking the link before the day finishes. if you have any other interesting topic like this one feel free to mention me so i can catch up later!
And here is the whole (hole?) of philosophy writ small.
@TheMadFool will insist that squares are, all of them, four sided.
You conclude that we need a system of presuppositions...
Tim seems to think it depends on individual reference frames.
And so on.
One can choose whatever approach one likes here - there is nothing that forces us to comply with one view or another. If there were, we would not be arguing...
Philosophical issues consist in such word play. Wittgenstein. Look to the use, not the meaning. All that.
A couple of other videos regarding the genesis and promise of string theory:
String theory explained
Brian Greene
This reflects the sort of scalpel-wielding that I find incredibly engaging.
Added to the reproduction list, Kurzgesagt is one of my favorite channels. thx!
And Banno is an old goat.