Gomez OdomTue, Jan 12, 2010 http://www.geo600.org/press-information/photos/geo600/exterior-views-of-geo600/bild9.jpg/view
I think most any researcher would readily admit that there is more existent in our everyday lives than we may ever be able to perceive or conceive of. They do figure out new ways of deducing undetected phenomena (not so phenomenal perhaps) or maybe rearranging our limited bubble of perception into some understanding of what may be happening beyond it.
Personally, I'm preferential to a solipsist-esque view that the perceptions of linked beings (socially or biologically or neurologically or what have you. Maybe even chemically.) and the realities deduced are true dimensions. The dimensions of these separate perceptions would need to inherit a new title - something like planes - and voila, you have a pretty simple vision of the extremely complex systems of perception that inhabit our little world. Perhaps the human dimension and the, say, ant dimension, just do not ever overlap for any significant interaction. They obviously exist in the same reality, but the perceived dimensions may never meet, or if they do, they never fully align
As a human being I would no longer say that I inhabit a 3 dimensional reality with time acting as a quasi-dimension link to space. Rather, I would say that I inhabit the ultimate reality and merely perceive the human dimension. In this human dimension I deduce planes of differentiation between behaviors of matter and it's processes. Thus, I may deduce some aspects of how ants interact in reality, but I can never experience their dimension within reality. Neither can I ever deduce the planes of that dimension in the way that they ant does.
Of course, maybe ants and I are linked in a more fundamental perception of reality than we realize, so our dimensions overlap much more completely than say, some distant nebulae and I.
Maybe that's all superficial semantics. Like saying the hindu gods are something bigger than the christian saints.
http://www.geo600.org/press-information/photos/geo600/exterior-views-of-geo600/bild9.jpg/view
I think most any researcher would readily admit that there is more existent in our everyday lives than we may ever be able to perceive or conceive of. They do figure out new ways of deducing undetected phenomena (not so phenomenal perhaps) or maybe rearranging our limited bubble of perception into some understanding of what may be happening beyond it.
Personally, I'm preferential to a solipsist-esque view that the perceptions of linked beings (socially or biologically or neurologically or what have you. Maybe even chemically.) and the realities deduced are true dimensions. The dimensions of these separate perceptions would need to inherit a new title - something like planes - and voila, you have a pretty simple vision of the extremely complex systems of perception that inhabit our little world. Perhaps the human dimension and the, say, ant dimension, just do not ever overlap for any significant interaction. They obviously exist in the same reality, but the perceived dimensions may never meet, or if they do, they never fully align
As a human being I would no longer say that I inhabit a 3 dimensional reality with time acting as a quasi-dimension link to space. Rather, I would say that I inhabit the ultimate reality and merely perceive the human dimension. In this human dimension I deduce planes of differentiation between behaviors of matter and it's processes. Thus, I may deduce some aspects of how ants interact in reality, but I can never experience their dimension within reality. Neither can I ever deduce the planes of that dimension in the way that they ant does.
Of course, maybe ants and I are linked in a more fundamental perception of reality than we realize, so our dimensions overlap much more completely than say, some distant nebulae and I.
Maybe that's all superficial semantics. Like saying the hindu gods are something bigger than the christian saints.
/end ramble.