The Thematic Imbalance of Starcraft

Actually, it depends on the 4th dimension of time. The theory that one is transcending time by moving at the speed of light may very well suggest that light and time are practically one and the same.

Therefore, the 3 primary colors could represent length, width, and height, and then the governing dimension of time could be seen as "light" which is what the primary colors combine to make up.

So we could say that there are 11 dimensions of the universe.

Length, width, height (3)
Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet (7)
Time/Light (1)

Hence 11 dimensions.

 

Yes but you are leaving out the details, such as the significance of the 3 and 7.

It is not soley the reason why it is a great game, or could be the best game ever made, obviously, it requires also the cooperation of everyone to really try and make the game the most it can possibly be, and that possibility is very high. We should have high standards for this game and not settle for less.

 

You really tend to try and jump to conclusions about knowing exactly what my theory is here. I'm a firm believer that things are not set in stone, especially when it comes to people expressing complex things such as this. It is almost as if you are trying to call me out and get me to clarify what I am expressing.

You tend to do a lot of separating. You separate God from art, and art from nature, and nature from philosophy, etc etc.

You do this because you have a personal hate for the word God. But don't worry, most people do because of the negative connotations that come with the word based on the history of humanity.

Just because I use the word God, it shouldn't scare you in to an over reaction of absolute clarity in order to try and make yourself feel more secure about what you believe truth to be.

 

Well, you didn’t define “God”: it’s not usually a term that means anything other than some all powerful being. “God” isn’t an ambiguous term, and its interpretation is usually straightforward. Now, your latest statement would seem to merge “God” and Nature into a single entity. However, this is inconsistent with at least one of your earlier claims, namely:

In this statement it is clear that you view God as the creator of Nature. This sentence identifies “God” and Nature as two separate entities, which brings me to this comment:

I respectfully disagree with your ideas, so I ask you to please speak of my posts considerately. My analysis of your ideas has been conducted using your own statements to construct Logical inferentials. Rigorous analysis is not called “jumping to conclusions”. If you do not like the inferentials that I have drawn using your own ideas, then that might indicate that you need to revise your Method.

If you don’t separate things, they become indefinable. Here’s an illustration of not defining things: Chickens and horses are both animals. But because they are both animals does not mean that a horse is a chicken, now does it? Similarly, you speak of Nature, God, Philosophy, and Art as if though they are all the same thing. If they really ARE the same thing, then you should be able to answer this question: “How is my house, which is a reflection of Nature, not Art?” If you remember well, I demonstrated that your idea of Art DOES consider my house as such. I have already suggested criteria to identify Art: 1) It must have an Author (but you now deny that Nature was created by God) 2) Art must entertain us somehow 3) this entertainment will engage us on an emotional level, and 4) Art has a moral dimension. Using these characteristics, I can safely argue that my house, while it was created by an architect, is not Art because, despite being a reflection of Nature, it is not designed to entertain us, and it doesn’t possess a moral dimension. My house may engage me emotionally because it is my home, but I doubt that it would do this to anyone else. Please try to do this with the model of Art that you have put forward (Art is the imitation of Nature) ; you will find that your definition of Art is far too broad to be meaningful.

Again, if you are talking about “God” the all-powerful being, I will ask you to stop: we do not discuss religion on this forum. And if you are not talking about “God” in this sense please find another term because it can lead to misunderstandings. Also: my reaction is in no way linked to fear. I study Literary Theory, so I naturally have developed an appreciation for detailed analysis. I have been pointing out all along that your ideas are in need of revision, as they either contradict themselves or are too broad to be of much use. Here's your latest example:

This isn't "Science". And if you're using colours in order to fill in 7 of the putatively "missing" dimensions, what happens to all the different shades of these colours? Are there, then, millions of dimensions? How do you decide what colours constitute "dimensions" Why not have a brown dimension?


On a separate note, have you ever read Plato? Your idea that “God” is the joining of Philosophy (Math) and Art seems to be very similar to Plato’s notion of Ideal Forms. You might consider consulting The Republic in order to further your Method.

Finally, please refrain from double and triple posting: you have been warned twice already.

 

Accept, I was missing one word to my model..

Fun, of or relating to the word funny
Funny, of or relating to the word amusement
Amusement of or relating to the word muse

They don't call them "theme" parks and "amusement" parks for no reason. Thematics are at the heart of entertainment value.

Now... defining muse...

To think, or reflect.

To do what humans "NATURALLY" do.

Anything and everything in waking reality(Nature) can be art because you ARE art itself. Therefore, it is what you make it.

Your house could be art depending on how you see it. If you see it as just a square box, then it is not art. However, if you see it for what it truly is, looking closer at the wood and seeing the beautiful natural patterns... you know that at the heart of reality is art.

Your life force is founded on pattern, with out it you die. You are pattern, you are art.

Amuse yourself.

 

Very well. Everything is Art. So Art has to have Pattern and has to come from Nature? Now, let's talk about Death which is a part of Nature and "Waking Reality". If I decided to murder (Nature) someone every 7 days (Pattern), that is Art, at least according to what you have presented.

Once again, it's too broad to be a working definition.

 

Because "General StarCraft 2 Discussion" isn't really the place for most of the dialogue in this thread, which is less than 1/4 starcraft 2, and 3/4 arguments about gods and art and numbers.

I'm not saying that to be pedantic, but to emphasis that there are two unrelated topics in this thread. The one which is completely irrelevant to this forum is the one taking focus.

 

That does not work. As the all the 7 colours of the rainbow are all light. Just all at different wavelengths. in the wavelenhths visible by the human eye. And then there is light not visible by the human eye such as UV, infra red etc. Light is not really a dimension as such. Light is just a stream of photons or electromagnetic radiation. And each stream of photons travels at different wave lengths. And these differing wave lengths is what si responsivle for the different colours. Each different colour and the things we can not see liek UV are all different wavelengths of the photons.

So it's more like a source of energy. Not really a dimension.

Secondly the dimensions are like trying to find something. To find soemone on earth you need a longitude and latitude. Basically an X and Y. And if you want to find someone in space you need a height too so an X, Y and Z. And for 4 dimensions you need a time also. Like if you want to find George Washington and see him becoming president for example. You have to to back to the right time 1789. But you also need the right place. 1789 in Australia is no good. You need 1789 in the USA.

So to find someone in 4 dimensions you need X, Y, Z and T (for time). And so on and so on for the other 7 dimensions. Light being nothing like this and part of it all as you say it is.

***************

And to Jasmine: If you want the topic moved to the lounge just say it. But I do agree this topic has evolved far beyond just SC2 talk.

 

Not necessarily true.

Just read this highly reputable website on philosophy. All down to where it starts giving quotes.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy/simplicity-discovery-of-the-obvious.htm

"So what is the obvious explanation of physical reality?

Well we just had to ask what the most simple science theory of reality is. The article shows that there is only one solution, the wave structure of matter in Space, and then you can deduce from this theory to show that it works. There are no opinions - it is obvious once known."


There are no opinions. Dimensions are made up of waves, Made up of quarks, made up of color.

 

You are right. The universe is made up up of dimensions, colour, matter, anti-matter and more interesting stuff. I was just stating how people tend to define what a dimension is. And people usualy don't say a dimension is a dimension becasue it contains light. Cause they all do. They all contain different forms of energy.

We tend to define them by their differences. And X, Y, X, T etc is how we define one dimension is different from the other. So in essence what you said above is right. But it's not the point I was getting at.

 

Can I get a tl;dr version?

 

Is it not interesting that there are 7 dimensions to the electro magnetic spectrum, and 7 dimensions to light

Gamma
X-ray
Ultraviolet
Visible light (7 total dimensions(color) by overlapping 3 dimensions(Primary colors)
Infrared
Microwaves
Radio waves

If there are 3 dimensions of color, which make up the 7 total dimensions of color,

Would there not be 3 dimensions from the electromagnetic spectrum that make up the 7 total dimensions of the magnetic spectrum?

Merely, an overlapping of electromagnetic waves to make up the other different types of waves, and a total overlapping of them all to make up visible light?

 

Nope. It's all just energy at a differeing wavelength creating everything you stated.
Mind you it is interesting how people tend to use 3's and 7's to define things. Very interesting indeed. But that's more a discussion on how people define things in the world/universe. And nothing to do with science. More a psychological topic. But still very interesting indeed.

 

The only reason you consider there to be three primary colours is because that is how human eyes work : They have three distinct colour receptors, that each react principally (but not exclusively) to red, green and blue light.

Other animals have different numbers of colour receptors in their eyes. Some animals have more (parrots), some animals have less (dogs). So for other animals, there are more or less than 3 primary colours.

You're reading too much into the significance of 3 there.

 

But is not light made up of different wave frequencies, and colors represent this?

Think of the universe being made up of a fractal wave pattern.

That there are waves with in waves, frequencies with in frequencies. Co resonating frequencies to make up other frequencies.

 

I'm saying there is or is not 3 primary colours. You may be right Jasmine.
I am saying people say there is 3 primary colours. And I am saying people define thine thungs using 3's and 7's a lot. Be it right or wrong, they do.

And Primary colour is called that cause it's what we see or not see. It's because those 3 in different proportions can make up any other colour. And at times I tend to use a CYMK colour chart in my photo chart. Just another way to define things. it's not about right or wrong. Mind you if you include all the things humans can not see Jasmine you are right. It's about how humans define things.

 

no. Individual photons have a wavelength. A light beam as a collection of photons can consist of many different wavelengths. The waves don't blend to create intermediate wavelengths.

Also, colour and wavelength are not synonymous. The brain creates the phenomenon of colour; it isn't a property of the light.

For example, there is no wavelength corresponding with the colour magenta. This phenomenon is merely what our brains create when an erythrolabe and a cyanolabe color receptor are stimulated simultaneously.

 

This only proves that light, being composed of many different waves lengths, and being part of a 7 dimensional electromagnetic wave system itself, could be defined as fractal wave resonance, and this would not only explain the colors but the different shades. Just as surely as there are frequencies inbetween all the electromagnetic frequencies.

Resonance:

In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at larger amplitude at some frequencies than at others. These are known as the system's resonant frequencies (or resonance frequencies). ...

 

This doesn't make sense. You're dropping in words you don't seem to understand.



As already explained, colour is a neuro-psychological phenomenon. It isn't a property of the light.

Two beams with completely different photon wavelength composition will appear to be the same colour if they stimulate the retinal sensors in the same proportions.

Colour stems from how the retinal sensors are stimulated. The degree of stimulation is a continuous function of the wavelength of the photons hitting them, as this image illustrates.

 

And you are saying that the fractional relationship between those two beams does not dictate the resulting color?