Philosophy of Mind.

[BLNK]

Is consciousness a dimension? If so, does this make thought a physical reality?

Discuss.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, and no. Thy physical is all there is, it is disingenuous to define something as a dimension, (and thus in existence) when in fact no physical existence to this point exists. The concept of mind dualism always asserts a non-physical existence of some sort, which I consider to be counterfactual to existence at it's most reductive stage.

[NOBLE]

Depending on how one defines it, yes, consciousness is a dimension, but it could be argued that what isn't? A dimension is any way by which a thing can be measured that is different from all other ways, and we measure all things through our consciousness.
Thought is a reality, but it's not absolutely"physical." It's more of a mental reality that can have physical manifestations like the number 2.

[BLNK]

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

[Louie Dawgs]

No, no, no. platonic idealism is all wrong. To think that somehow a more perfect form of a form exists is wrong.

[NOBLE]

If something has a physical manifestation, is it not then a physical object? Numbers are abstract, let's use a different example. A table, for instance. This item began as a thought, and was thus physically manifested. Is a table not, then, physical? I'm not going to touch on Louie's materialism, though.

I'm not arguing that thought can't be identified as a physical reality. I'm arguing that's its not absolutely or exclusively physical.
If a table begins as a thought and then becomes physically manifested, why should we conclude that it doesn't remain a thought simultaneously?
There are many things that have both physical and mental manifestations/applications. Just because something has a physical manifestation doesn't mean it is purely or absolutely physical.

[BLNK]

I'm not restricting the physicalism of the object to be absolute, simply questioning whether it would be physical, if a dimension.

[NOBLE]

Time is a dimension. Is time physical?

[BLNK]

Yes.......

[NOBLE]

We might be applying two different definitions of "physical." By physical, I was meaning "corporeal" or having material existence.

[BLNK]

I'm aware. Yes, time has a material form.

[NOBLE]

Care to explain that further?

[BLNK]

Space time, currently a single continuum. However, with the creation of fourth dimensional space time crystals, we see that time will continue to expand long after space itself has ceased. For time to continue it's forward motion, it must be, then, distinct from space. If time is distinct from space, and decaying particles warp space time(Which they do.) They are, then, warping both, distinctly, time, and space. Therefore, for time to be warped by the decay of particles, it must have a material form.

[NOBLE]

I don't know enough about physics to corroborate or argue against that. I look at it more from a philosophical point of view. But it seems the fourth dimensional space time crystals are still theoretical at this point. Has anyone ever produced one?
I don't think objects warping time and space means time and space are physical, but rather that time and space are/behave relative to physical objects.
I'm sure all this is based on real observations but many ideas in Physics are counter-intuitive to me.
For example, the whole universe/time/space expanding thing. If the universe is all that there is, then what is it expanding in?
I can blow air into and expand a balloon, but it only expands because it is in a space that is much bigger.
Does not the concept of the universe expanding suggest that there is something other than and outside the universe?

[BLNK]

It's expanding into extenuating dimensional subspace. There are multiple universes, ours is not the only one. You see, in M theory, there are 11 different dimensional planes. Our universe, and conversely, all other universes existing within these planes simultaneously. So, yes, there is an "outside of our universe." Look at it from the point of view of linear algebra. You see, the plotting of matrices create on the graph different dimensions. You can have as many of these dimensions as you'd like, but, they all coincide, having one conversional subspace within all of them. This, is where ours, and all other universes would then be located.

[NOBLE]

Thanks for explaining all that.