|
|
Back to UserFriendly Strip Comments Index
|
UF Philosophy Corner - Ontology | by MatthewDBA | 2008-09-15 07:31:56 |
|
In 2D, 3D, 4D, or more-D? | by bitflipper | 2008-09-15 13:27:57 |
|
I'm assuming that we're constrained to | by MatthewDBA | 2008-09-15 13:36:00 |
|
"Reach" the inside? Not really, not in 3D | by bitflipper | 2008-09-15 13:55:24 |
|
I'm not worried about access | by MatthewDBA | 2008-09-15 13:56:53 |
| Definition is pretty simple |
by bitflipper |
2008-09-15 14:14:51 |
You've already offered one in terms of intersecting bounding surfaces. Normals to surfaces is another approach, and intersecting rays is another. All will suffice to define interior, exterior, and non-included points for a brick.
However, although we could only touch the exterior of the brick, we can examine the interior with other methods, such as X-ray or higher-energy penetration, magnetic resonance, penetrating sonar, radar, and so forth. Just because it is not accessible to our base senses, does not mean it does not exist nor that it is necessarily inaccesible to any sense. The only surfaces I can imagine which have interiors that are necessarily inaccessible to any possible sense are all singularities of some sort--theoretical limits beyond which physics breaks down due to the nature of the limit. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
