Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Planar Cosmography: Netbook of the Planes
2 things about the site
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Klintus Fang" data-source="post: 154566" data-attributes="member: 3580"><p>it's been a long time since I've read Kant too, but to put it bluntly: Kant was obviously wrong on that point. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>trouble with the whole non-euclidean argument is mutlifold though. </p><p></p><p>For example: If you measure the distance between two points on a city map by measuring the lengths of the streets you are going to drive along to get there you are using a non-euclidean metric. In euclidean geometry the distance between two points is "as the crow flys". If you measure it any other way, the metric is non-euclidean.</p><p></p><p>More to the point: if while you are driving down the road you visualize in your head the path to the place you are traveling to in terms of the intersections you are going to turn at then you are visualizing in non-euclidean terms. </p><p></p><p>This is just a simple example, but it clearly indicates to me that we're not hard-wired to think in euclidean terms. If we were, navigating city streets would be hopelessly confusing. flying airplanes or sailing ships on long voyages would be dangerous. these are all examples where you use a two dimenstional non-euclidean metric in order to navigate.</p><p></p><p>If Kant had said we were hardwired to think in 3-dimensions then I might be inclined to agree with him. visualizing in higher dimension is hard. But unfortunately, that's not what Kant said (edit: then again, it may well have been what he <em>meant</em> to say, after all, modern non-euclidean geometry was invented some 100 years after Kant died, so he couldn't have forseen us analysing his argument in these terms). </p><p></p><p>As an aside: Kant also said a number of things regarding the physical make up of the universe that are in direct contradiction to the general theory of relativity. specifically, Kant claimed time to be an absolute. einstien showed its not.</p><p></p><p>If Lovecraft had said the nature of the world was unimaginable for some other reason I might be inclined to agree with him, but to claim it has anything to do with non-euclidean geometry is, to me, silly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>[**grrr** are these message boards always this friggin flaky? it takes forever to get a submission through half the time. or is it just a bad weekend for the server?]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Klintus Fang, post: 154566, member: 3580"] it's been a long time since I've read Kant too, but to put it bluntly: Kant was obviously wrong on that point. :eek: trouble with the whole non-euclidean argument is mutlifold though. For example: If you measure the distance between two points on a city map by measuring the lengths of the streets you are going to drive along to get there you are using a non-euclidean metric. In euclidean geometry the distance between two points is "as the crow flys". If you measure it any other way, the metric is non-euclidean. More to the point: if while you are driving down the road you visualize in your head the path to the place you are traveling to in terms of the intersections you are going to turn at then you are visualizing in non-euclidean terms. This is just a simple example, but it clearly indicates to me that we're not hard-wired to think in euclidean terms. If we were, navigating city streets would be hopelessly confusing. flying airplanes or sailing ships on long voyages would be dangerous. these are all examples where you use a two dimenstional non-euclidean metric in order to navigate. If Kant had said we were hardwired to think in 3-dimensions then I might be inclined to agree with him. visualizing in higher dimension is hard. But unfortunately, that's not what Kant said (edit: then again, it may well have been what he [i]meant[/i] to say, after all, modern non-euclidean geometry was invented some 100 years after Kant died, so he couldn't have forseen us analysing his argument in these terms). As an aside: Kant also said a number of things regarding the physical make up of the universe that are in direct contradiction to the general theory of relativity. specifically, Kant claimed time to be an absolute. einstien showed its not. If Lovecraft had said the nature of the world was unimaginable for some other reason I might be inclined to agree with him, but to claim it has anything to do with non-euclidean geometry is, to me, silly. [**grrr** are these message boards always this friggin flaky? it takes forever to get a submission through half the time. or is it just a bad weekend for the server?] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Archive Forums
Hosted Forums
Personal & Hosted Forums
Hosted Settings
The Planar Cosmography: Netbook of the Planes
2 things about the site
Top