Describe What Four Dimensions Looks Like…I Dare You…

In Response to Megan’s Post: “Lineland.”

For those of you who have not read the novel "Flatland," A. Square, has a dream that he goes to Lineland – a world that is only one-dimensional, composed of only a straight line. In Lineland, the inhabitants cannot move around (because they cannot walk around their neighbours) and their field of vision consists only of a single point (as if you were to look at a line from its end).

The argument is that because A. Square has an unconscious vision of Lineland, that the perception of other realities is possible, without the use of our senses. This is true, when we are speaking of the perception of realities that are less complex than our own. It is not too difficult for us to imagine a two-dimensional world – we can draw diagrams, and explain which dimension is missing from our own world. Likewise, A. Square can easily paint an accurate picture of Flatland or Lineland for us. There is nothing new in a one dimensional, or two-dimensional world that we cannot experience to some degree through our three-dimensional senses – we all know what a point and a line are.

It is when it comes to imagining dimensions beyond our own (like God), that it becomes impossible to perceive. Just as A. Square cannot imagine anything more than seeing only straight lines, we three-dimensional beings cannot imagine seeing a fourth dimension. Some people might call time the fourth dimension, or some people might call thought the fourth dimension, but I am talking about a physical fourth dimension here. It cannot be measured, it cannot be drawn, and it cannot be imagined – our minds are limited to our own world. Just try and imagine what it would be like – you can’t.

Megan also argues that people who see angels or miracles are using their senses to prove the existence of God. For starters, if angels or miracles are anything like God then we cannot perceive them either. A miracle can just be a random event, and an angel might just be someone or something that looks like an angel – those of us that are foolishly blinded by this false sense “faith” interpret them as acts of God. If you could actually sense these things, then they would likely exist. I’m just saying that they can’t possibly be sensed in the first place.

Perceiving God (I Don't Think So)

The short novel "Flatland," written in 1884 by Edwin A. Abbott, illustrates perfectly the impossibility of our human senses in perceiving God. As I have already explained below (and which the Metaphysicals seem to accept as truth, as they have made no contrary arguments to it), perceiving does not entail faith or belief, but actual observation through one or more of the five senses.

First, I need to explain a few basics of the novel. The story of “Flatland” follows A. Square, a geometric shape (a square) living in a two dimensional world. Since Flatland has only height and length, and no width, the inhabitants of this world can perceive nothing more than straight lines. A. Square explicates this to his readers in Spaceland by explaining:

“Place a penny on the middle of one of your tables in Space; and leaning over it, look down upon it. It will appear a circle.

But now, drawing back to the edge of the table, gradually lower your eye (thus bringing yourself more and more into the condition of the inhabitants of Flatland), and you will find the penny becoming more and more oval to your view; and at last when you have placed your eye exactly on the edge of the table (so that you are, as it were, actually a Flatlander) the penny will then have ceased to appear oval at all, and will have become, so far as you can see, a straight line.

The same thing would happen if you were to treat in the same way a Triangle, or Square, or any other figure cut out of pasteboard…Take for example an equilateral Triangle – who represents with us a Tradesman of the respectable class. Fig. 1 represents the Tradesman as you would see him while you were bending over him from above; figs. 2 and 3 represent the Tradesman, as you would see him if your eye were close to the level, or all but on the level of the table; and if your eye were quite on the level of the table (and that is how we see him in Flatland) you would see nothing but a straight line.”

Later in the story, A. Square encounters a Sphere, who descends into Flatland from the third dimension. To A. Square, all he is able to perceive of the Sphere (regardless of the fact that the Sphere is three-dimensional) is a straight line which changes in size as the Sphere lowers himself into and out of Flatland (see diagram). For A. Square, anything outside of Flatland does not exist – it cannot exist because it is not part of his world. It is only after the Sphere has pushed A. Square out of Flatland and into Spaceland that the humble Square is able to see the Sphere for what he really is.

This creates a parallel between the Sphere and our so-called God. Just as A. Square is unable to even conceive the notion of a third dimension, we are unable to conceive anything that is not limited to our three dimensions. Imagine what a four or five dimensional “extra-solid” (as A. Square calls it) would look like. Try and draw a picture of it. Try and explain which direction the new dimensions would work in. It is impossible. Our limited three dimensions cannot even come close – it isn’t a matter of figuring out the correct mathematics, or developing new ways of making models; it’s just simply impossible.

Apparently there is a group of mathematicians working on developing a model of a tesseract (the four-dimensional equivalent of a cube). This is almost as ridiculous as those people out there that think they can perceive God. Unless we can raise ourselves to some extra-dimensional status (and, I suppose, this dimension would have to be infinite – seeing as how we are dealing with the infinite God), we will never succeed in perceiving Him.

So the Pope says he can speak with God, eh? Well, unless he can comprehend an infinite voice (which he can’t), I don’t think his statement has much validity. In my books, no proof, and no possibility of proof equals non-existent. I think you need to find a new hobby, Mr. Benedict.

An Inter-Polemic Blog

Seeing as how the Metaphysicals on this blog can’t seem to make any actual arguments (figures…they’re so caught up in this love crap, that they can’t make a solid stance on anything for fear of offending someone), I am going to engage with an argument from one of the other blogs.

Elliott Lummin argues that faith is a sense. He says:

Hobbes portrays sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch all as objective, perfect receptacles for information (which Hooke proves is untrue), while conveniently reducing faith, or "fancy" as he calls it, to an after thought of these supposedly more legitimate senses. This is precisely why Hobbes fails to perceive the goodness of man and the universe; he has denied the one sense required for the accuracy of his study: faith. For the metaphysicals, we can point to universal goodness and love because of this. Faith is no product of imagination, but the sense with which we percieve this purely benevolent force. By this, I do not mean to group you with the perceptually impaired members of society. After all, I would not dream of insulting the visually and hearing imparied, people born with conditions that limit given senses, in such a way. Unlike them, you have chosen your "blindness"...the same way Satan chose Hell. If you had faith, you might join us in seeing the balance Boethius sees in nature.

First off, the Oxford English Dictionary would disagree. Sense is defined as:

“Each of the special faculties, connected with a bodily organ, by which man and other animals perceive external objects and changes in the condition of their own bodies.”

Faith is not connected in any way to a bodily organ. And don’t give me that crap about souls and hearts. Souls are not real organs. Hearts pump blood. And as for the perceiving – we cannot perceive God. God is infinite and (if he even exists) therefore cannot be comprehended by human beings.

How can you say that faith is a sense, then? Senses give us evidence of the existence of things (for example, smelling a cinnamon bun, or hearing a telephone). Faith only gives us the idea that we are perceiving something – you can’t say to someone else: “Hey, I sense God. Can you sense that too?” Faith is something personal to the individual and is therefore only a work of imagination.

The OED uses words like “confidence,” “reliance,” “trust,” and “belief” to define faith – hardly anything to base an argument on. I might have faith that that roast beef is going to taste good, but when I put it in my mouth and taste rancid meat, well…which argument are you going to side with?

Acceptance is not Love

I accept that Stephen Harper is our Prime-Minister and I'm not going to deny that fact. But I sure as hell don't love Mr. Harper (or necessarily respect him or his policies).

I also accept that there are two sides to any debate, and will listen to both arguments. But I don't think this constitutes love in any way either.

Milton presents us with more than one option because he wants to demonstrate our free will to choose between them. In other words, Milton may present both sides, but he still wants to push us in one direction. He is still opposed to certain aspects, and just because he admits they exist doesn’t mean he’s being a loving person. If anything, it makes him more malicious due to the fact that he gives the appearance to two choices, while stripping one so bare that you are only left with one plausible choice.

Hobbes ..a Protestant?

How can Hobbes be a secular- calvinist- protestant? Isn't the word secular related to atheism? WOuld someone clear this up for me? And isn't protestant a sect. of religon that believes in God, Jesus Christ and the rest of the lot. If anything I think that Hobbes only claim to religon would serves purposes of saving his butt from accusations of heresy and also, appealing to a wider market of people that he can seduce into his Hobbesian mindset of political rule (Tatiania, is this what you ment by "Hobbes thought the teachings of the church are great... but God's are crap"....to Hobbes?) Hobbes's only use for religon is as a tool to regiment people into a monarchial form of government. To refer to oneself as a protestant, on some level or another is to say you believe in Love and Freedom of death. Hobbes is probably barbequing hambergers with Satan right now....

Calvin and Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is a secular Calvinist.

Presbyterianism evolved out of Calvinism.

It's interesting then that Milton is a Presbyterian. Calvinism came first; therefore, Milton’s beliefs are nothing more than an offshoot of Hobbes’ beliefs. Milton was also a Puritan. What a hypocrite – if Milton was so caught up in love and cooperation, why should he feel the need to “purge the Anglican church of Arminianism?”


Just to get this straight – Milton chose (of his own free will, no doubt) to associate himself with an anti-Catholic, anti-Armenian sect of Christianity. This doesn’t sound like love to me. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that it was Hobbes who based his ideologies on conflict and war. Hell, I guess this makes Milton pretty much the same as Hobbes. Maybe Milton should start practicing what he preaches.


Bill Waterson knew exactly what he was doing when he failed to create a character named “Milton.” Or wait, maybe he did…that’s right, he was only in the first two comic strips; after that Hobbes ate him.