## Mass Effect 3- EDI suggests other dimensions

• Topic Archived
1. Boards
2. Mass Effect 3
3. Mass Effect 3- EDI suggests other dimensions

#### User Info: Vacre

Vacre
4 years ago#1
EDI tells Shepard that other dimensions may exist. In these other dimensions, basic principles might be different or non- existent. So, math might be different. Math might be so different that 1+1 might not equal 2, like it does in or universe.

Do not read this post if you do not want to think, or if you don't want a headache.

People like to think about this 1+1=3 because it breaks their perception of reality. 1+1=2 has become a phrase, beyond it’s mathematic nature. 1st graders know it. “How could you not understand? It’s like 1+1=2. It’s simple. Even 1st graders know that.”

But, despite any legitimate support from mathematicians and physicists, the 1+1=3 idea is nothing. Why? Because math is not a basic principle. It is not a fundamental aspect of nature or the physics of the universe. We treat it that way because we are in awe of its reliability and exactness. Don't forget, mathematics and its derivatives were created by humans. Therefore, it can be flawed. I am not saying that it must be flawed because it was created by humans, i'm saying that it is flawed, and therefore it is not a part of nature.

Mathematics is group of numerical concepts and rules created by humans to help explain and predict. Math is used to make skyscrapers. Math is used calculate how much change you receive after paying for your groceries. As I said earlier, it is exact and reliable. Humans view this as powerful and permanent, and some of us foolishly view it as perfection.

1+1=3 is not amazing, or even different. The amazement that comes from it rests in the idea that it is not possible. But it is possible. It is just as possible as 1+1=2. Not at first glance, but I’ll talk about that later (hint: the problem is in the equal sign).

“Wait a minute,” you say in protest, “how?” Math was created by humans. It has purposes like predicting rainfall and measuring in millimeters. But, there are also many types of math. These many types of math exist because one, or even a few, can’t do every job. This makes math necessarily flawed. Because each math type has it purpose, there is also something that it cannot do.

Math is flawed. If you disagree, find out what one- third of 1 is equal to and define it in terms of a decimal, not a fraction (you won’t be able to).

In the old days, whenever a genius mathematician ran into a problem, they developed another mathematical type. But nothing has changed today. The only difference is that today’s mathematicians have wikipedia for researching mathematic principles (and they probably shouldn’t use that anyway). The nature of math is the same. Math is still as incapable and impermanent as it was 400 years ago. We have not, in our supposed modern, infinite knowledge, developed one, completely different set of math that is points out the flaws in all that preceded it and is also capable of answering any question.

So what does this mean? This means that math is only a tool, whose flaws are covered by other types of math that are specifically designed to deal with those flaws. It is not completely based on reality.

That is the important part. It does not have basis in reality. We use it in reality, but it was not derived from reality. It was derived from conceptual thinking. I am not saying math doesn’t work. It does. I am only saying the inherent flaws in math, however many or few, however large or small, prevent it from being a universal or natural principle. So it is a synthetic principle.

And as math was created in our dimension, it can be taken to or created in another dimension. Math does not have basis in the fabric of our reality. So whatever other dimension we are in, it can exist, because the alleged “mathematical inherent properties” that make math possible in our dimension, don’t exist, in kind, don’t exist in another dimension (?). So no matter what dimension we are in, 1+1 still =2, because there were no properties that forced it to be that way to begin with.

----continued in next post

#### User Info: Vacre

Vacre
4 years ago#2
This goes back to 1+1=3. Remember when I said that 1+1=3 is just as possible 1+1=2 in our dimension? There are no binding natural properties for 1+1=2. Nothing forces it to be that way. So, because 1+1=3 has no binding properties, it can also be true.

How does this work? It follows the same logic as 1+1=2. There is systematic progression, using numbers as values and addition, subtraction, and multiplication as procedures for interaction between the values. Those are the same. What changes however, is the “content” that is assigned to the “1” value. In our dimension’s math, the “content” is 1. The other dimensional math still behaves as ours does, as it should, because it is ours. The only thing that has changed is the content assigned to numerical values.

What is the content of the other dimensional numbers? This is where you see the melodrama come into what was legitimate science. 1+1=3. We cannot view the content assigned to 1 as “1”, because that would equal 2, which is incorrect. Why don’t we view it as “1.5”? Wouldn’t that work? 1+1 does not equal 3 in our dimension, but 1.5 + 1.5 does.

Thus, the math in the other dimension is 1+1=3
The math in our dimension is 1+1=2
Because we live in different dimensions, the assigned content of our math is different.
The assigned content of our universe is “1” per 1 numerical value.
The assigned content of the other universe is “1.5” per 1 numerical value.

--
Well… I guess that makes sense. Right? Everything seems okay.
“No, it doesn’t make sense,” says a person who walks into the room. “It doesn’t makes sense because even if 1 as an otherworldly value has a content of 1.5. It still doesn’t equal 3.”
So this doesn’t work?
“No. It doesn’t. 1+1=3. It doesn’t equal 4.5. You are wrong.”
But I never said it equaled 4.5. I said it equaled 3, which has a content of 4.5.
“The end result is supposed to be 3, not 4.5. The last thing that you say must be 3 and not 4.5, so you are wrong.”
But I am not saying 4.5, I am saying 3 which has a content of 4.5.
“The content doesn’t matter, it is-
--
This is an illogical circle. It goes back and forth because one idea does not make sense, and the other idea doesn't make sense. This is like moving from a burning building into another burning building. Things here don’t work, I’ll go here. Wait, things here don’t make sense, I’ll go back there.

It makes perfect sense for different, seemingly incomprehensible math types to exist. They already do (geometry, calculus, algebra). The only thing that makes it seem impossible, is the person talking to us about the formula. When EDI says 1+1=3, she is speaking without mentioning that she is referring to two dimensions within one equation. Earlier I tried to clarify and said that there are two dimensions. But EDI's writer combines the dimensions without mentioning it. They do this because they want to confuse you. That is what makes 1+1=3 pointless melodrama.

1+1=2 makes sense. Changing the content of the numerical values in another dimension makes sense.
So, supposedly 1+1=3 makes sense in another dimension. But it doesn’t.
1+1=3 is a combination of two dimensions’ math types.

The melodramatic person takes each type and combines them to make the other dimension seem more melodramatic.
1+1=2 in our dimension and 1.5+1.5=3 in our dimension
Both of these statements work. No one would disagree with that. But the melodramatic person cuts these in half and puts them together to make 1+1=3. They take our dimensions 1+1 and the combine it with the other dimensions =3 to make 1+1=3. This person claims that the resulting is one unified, natural statement from another dimension, but it isn’t. It is just a result of melodrama.
The scientist would agree that different content could be assigned to the numerical values, which would make our 1+1=2 look different, but the scientist would disagree with the melodramatic person.

-- Continued in next post

#### User Info: FizixMan

FizixMan
4 years ago#3
Vacre posted...
Math is flawed. If you disagree, find out what one- third of 1 is equal to and define it in terms of a decimal, not a fraction (you won’t be able to).

0.33333... = 1/3
Done.

#### User Info: Vacre

Vacre
4 years ago#4
There are and always have been other math types, and the introduction of other universes means that there would other math types.

But the introduction of other dimensions is probably not going to be very exciting to anyone but genuine scientists. Have your heard that Earth’s atmosphere equals 1 atm? You probably wouldn’t be excited if I told you that one foot isn’t 1, it is 12 (inches). It is just called one for the sake of simplified scientific maneuvering.

None of those things are exciting. On the other hand, 1+1=3? Wow! Normally 1+1=2. How different! How exciting! This goes against laws of physics!

While it may be exciting, it is not actual. It was developed by people who wanted to be overdramatic. Not by people who were trying to find scientific truth. Though, some legitimate scientists do this. With their knowledge of physics and math (often combined with the fact there are many unknown things), they make melodramatic statements. And we take them seriously because of their academic background. But the difference between the stuff that they wrote in their doctoral dissertation and the exciting thing they told a videogame developer is that they are not “in scientist mode” when they are talking to the videogame developer.

“But what if you’re totally wrong? Isn’t the power of other dimensions in their differences? You could be totally wrong and 1+1 could equal 3 with no problems.”

The only legitimacy to that rests in being melodramatic and assuming that the power of being in another dimension (combined with science) always backs you up. So let’s say that I am totally wrong. If other dimensions are so incomprehensible, then any statement can be just as legitimate and scientific as yours. If you write a science fiction story, remember that scientifically, 1+1=3 is just a legitimate as 1+ponies= Mondaythurday.

#### User Info: fennell92

fennell92
4 years ago#5
I think there are at least 4 dimensions. One red one, one blue one, one green one, and one refusal one. They're all pretty much the same though.

#### User Info: Vacre

Vacre
4 years ago#6
0.33333 x 3= 0.99999
That does not equal 1. It equals 0.99999
0.33 repeating multiplied by 3 does not equal 1 either.

#### User Info: Ryan-06

Ryan-06
4 years ago#7
I too go crazy when contemplating cosmology and theories on the freaking nature of existence, my life, death, and place in the universe, and the literally infinite possibilities that are incomprehensible to the human sentient mind.

AUUUUUUUUUUUUGHHHHHHHHHH MY MIND!!!!
But I've never posted long essays on this board before because of it lol.

=D
0=Rei. Pronounced Rei-six
"Tougher than I look" http://i.imgur.com/i5krA.gif

#### User Info: FizixMan

FizixMan
4 years ago#8
Math is universally constant because it is independent of context.

Physics, the application of math to describe and predict how the universe works, however is dependent on context.

EDI's line is just a hogwash SCI-FI script intended to communicate to the player something fantastical but mean not much else.

#### User Info: Ryan-06

Ryan-06
4 years ago#9
Also did you just sign up today just to post this, TC? Don't make a habit, no one will care to read if you keep pasting essays.
0=Rei. Pronounced Rei-six
"Tougher than I look" http://i.imgur.com/i5krA.gif

#### User Info: FizixMan

FizixMan
4 years ago#10
Vacre posted...
0.33333 x 3= 0.99999
That does not equal 1. It equals 0.99999
0.33 repeating multiplied by 3 does not equal 1 either.

I did not state 0.33333, I stated 0.33333...

Big difference.

Both are decimals.

EDIT: And yes, 0.33333... repeated multiplied by 3 does equal 1. Welcome to grade 12 mathematics (or earlier if you've received any decent education)

EDIT: haha, whoops, typo'd. 0.33333 times 3 definitely does not equal "3" :-P
1. Boards
2. Mass Effect 3
3. Mass Effect 3- EDI suggests other dimensions