All of human knowledge and experience is predicated on the reality that our bodies are cognitively and/or physically limited to interpret up to 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension*. You probably fall into a few camps:
>"That's because there are only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension"
I have yet to come across a rigorous argument for this claim, and suspect I cannot be provided with one. You must examine the axioms of these arguments and determine if their system is predicated on their perceivable quantity of dimensions being equal to the actual number of existing dimensions.
>Additional dimensions are irrelevant if we cannot perceive them or are unaffected by their theoretical presence
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't drive down the interstate at 85mph with my eyes closed on the basis that what I cannot perceive cannot affect me. I do it because I've seen enough and am ready to exit, but I digress.
>We would have evolved to perceive other dimensions if they existed
You do not know how evolution works, go back to the books and find you a tutor who knows how to summarize it into 2-4 words, the maximum required to explain exactly what it is and is not.
>/x/, schizo, meds
Cope, seethe, dilate
The hilarious part about watching flat earth debates is that the people who have them, or dismiss them, are actually incapable of convincingly proving or disproving them in person. It is always delegated to authority. That makes the participants of either side equally compromised in terms of cognition. You can argue that one side is "right" even if they don't know if or can't prove it, which is of course what science is all about in the end, right?
>"That's because there are only 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension"
I have yet to come across a rigorous argument for this claim, and suspect I cannot be provided with one. You must examine the axioms of these arguments and determine if their system is predicated on their perceivable quantity of dimensions being equal to the actual number of existing dimensions.
>Additional dimensions are irrelevant if we cannot perceive them or are unaffected by their theoretical presence
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't drive down the interstate at 85mph with my eyes closed on the basis that what I cannot perceive cannot affect me. I do it because I've seen enough and am ready to exit, but I digress.
>We would have evolved to perceive other dimensions if they existed
You do not know how evolution works, go back to the books and find you a tutor who knows how to summarize it into 2-4 words, the maximum required to explain exactly what it is and is not.
>/x/, schizo, meds
Cope, seethe, dilate
The hilarious part about watching flat earth debates is that the people who have them, or dismiss them, are actually incapable of convincingly proving or disproving them in person. It is always delegated to authority. That makes the participants of either side equally compromised in terms of cognition. You can argue that one side is "right" even if they don't know if or can't prove it, which is of course what science is all about in the end, right?
