>Sorry, there is only one dimension of reality.

How do you know that?

And is it length, width or depth? Surely our reality has atleast three dimensions.

Those dimensions are an invention of our brains

𝑚=𝐸/𝑐2

Yes, energy is heavy. What's your point?

No, there are three plus one dimensions of reality.

The cardinality of ℝⁿ is the same though for all finite n (same for ℕ, ℤ, or ℚ), so it doesn’t make that much of a difference. ;)

Ah! I see I've found a cosmologist!

Why are you not using normal letters to denote Rⁿ and N, Z or Q?

They're using the typical symbols for denoting those sets, which are fancier than the symbols used for mere variables. One only resorts to using basic letters if the usual symbols aren't available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_number

Isn't it much more work to find those symbols and copy and paste them though?

More work for the author, but nicer for the reader, and makes it more self-explanatory which sets are meant. The latter is what I cared about.

Also, if you’re on desktop with a suitably configured Compose key, it’s actually simple to type (Compose I R for example), no need for copy&paste.

Interesting, thanks.

I was not talking about the physicality of reality. They were saying people enter or see into another dimension.

I have no idea what "another dimension" means if we're not talking about degrees of freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qORYO0atB6g

> Sorry, there is only one dimension of reality

I doubt it. I'm pretty sure whatever reality photons, black holes, etc are in, it's not really mine, except where it happens to slightly intersect with mine so I can detect it.

String theories give somewhere between 10 and 26 dimensions, depending on which one you like.

Have string theorists been able to find empirical evidence for any of those supposed dimensions?

String theory isn't yet reality, it's just a sometimes-useful thought experiment. Something doesn't become real until we can interact with it experimentally.

Things don't exist until their existence is discovered?

Independent of us, something may or may not exist, but until it can be interacted with, it is not real. It remains hypothetical. You can't do anything with it, only the idea of it is real.

(Edits to make my argument a bit less snarky.)

If it interacts with you but you don't realize it (say, radiation from uranium), is it real?

Where did you learn all of these things anyways, and which meaning of the word real are you working with?

Yes, radiation from uranium is real even if you don't realize it, because it causes measurable impact on our world. The definition of real I'm working with is an attempt to synthesize the demands of empiricist and rationalist epistemologies. While an objective world exists, it only matters insofar as we have access to it. Radiation is real because even if you don't know about it, it will kill you. Its existence affects what happens to us, and therefore it is a thing we can conceive of verifying experimentally.

String theory on the other hand operates at energy levels so small that it's completely inaccessible to us. A collider would have to be the size of the galaxy to probe the energy levels we're discussing. At the energy levels that govern on our lives and environment, quantum field theory doesn't require string theory to explain what's going on, and we would require godlike powers to approach testing it. This makes it very unreal. Not entirely unreal, and still important for understanding the corner cases, but it is about as ephemeral as it can get.

Something must not just be in principle falsifiable, but the means of falsifying it must be something we could possibly carry out. The more readily available those means, the more real a thing becomes.

"there is only one dimension of reality" - what do you mean by that?

What we see is only an interpretation of a reality we can never comprehend.