Talk:Interdimensional being

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

ISBN Issues[edit]

This article cites 2 books. Why do the ISBN numbers not work? I swear, I copied them directly from the books themselves. --Carrot Lord (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Goddess vs goddess[edit]

Shouldn't a monotheistic goddess be called Goddess? The word goddess is used in the article, but only to refer to monotheistic goddesses. --Carrot Lord (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The term interdimensional being has broader meanings[edit]

There is discussion of interdimensional beings among quantum physicists and UFOlogists. The topic is perhaps more than just fiction! I can see this article expanding, and am surprised that such an article didn't already exist. Misty MH (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Added an example of interdimensionality in real life (physicists do talk about this). Thanks for the suggestion. I guess this needs to be worked on. --Carrot Lord (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. And thank you. Not sure the best way to split this into non-fiction and fiction sections. The part about these beings being able to travel, I think, should be a separate idea, and not part of the main definition. I also believe the word "intelligence" needs to be added to "being", which I may do next. Misty MH (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

New Intro. Article being further developed.[edit]

The Intro has been rewritten to improve article's definition, coverage, and distinct areas. The Article is continuing to be further developed, and sections reorganized. Deletion notice removed. Misty MH (talk) 09:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I split the article into two sections 1. Nonfiction and 2. Fiction. I added some nonfiction material, and added a few references (2 books, and 1 Web article via NASA). Misty MH (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Article labels' indentations, etc.[edit]

Thanks to the person who took the time to change the Article labels' indentations, etc. But it seems to have sort of messed it up, size-wise. It seemed fine the way I had it. Please fix or discuss. Thanks. Otherwise, if I remember, I may feel a need to tweak it, again. Misty MH (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:HEAD single heading levels are not used for articles. Past that, I'm not particularly wedded to the subheading changes I made (some of them could even have been mistakes). — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Interdimensional Artificial intelligence[edit]

I just put the word "intelligence" after "being" in the Intro, but someone removed it, probably thinking it was redundant, but since there is no separate article (and maybe shouldn't be??) for "Interdimensional artificial intelligence", I thought it smart to simply cover that base too, in this article, by putting the word "intelligence" after "being" in the Intro.

On the other hand, if – in reality or fiction – one is dealing with an intelligence from another dimension that is artificial, it might be a little confusing to some to call it a "being" (as broad as that term is). But, on the OTHER hand, it might want to call itself a being, or call itself "life".

For example, in Star Trek, the android named Data thought of himself as a life form. Others on board the Enterprise may have too. Yet there were still others who thought of Data as a machine, and as property. A number of episodes considered the subjects of his autonomy and self-determination, or whether there should be strict safeguards in place, and whether he was to be considered property or not. Since there was only one android as advanced as Data, other than his devious and dangerous brother Lore, I don't recall the theme of dangerous robots within the Federation (or at least from Earth) being explored in-depth in the TV shows: or at least, no major war with androids. However, there were several episodes that showed androids, holograms, or machines attempting to do whatever to or with people or things. And there was the combination of machine and biological forms, such as the Borg, that were explored at length. Many fictions explore such dangers, as do non-fiction considerations (such as Isaac Asimov's book A Choice of Catastrophes).

Even in the very-real discussion of robotics here, it is extremely important to realize the dangers in making a robot that can replicate itself, or a computer that can take over systems, robots, or even force people to do things. It is critically important that people avoid making androids that might try to take over or destroy people, or act on their own behalf to the detriment of people, etc., common themes in many fictions and in theorizing about what might occur, could occur, if we made robots too smart or too ambitious—or, if they simply were reprogrammed somehow, or the programming became faulty.

In any case, it is conceivable that, since artificial intelligence exists in this universe and its dimensions, artificial intelligence could exist in another dimension. And thus, it seems to me that the word needs to be inserted back in, or a separate article constructed to deal with that. However, this article here was called into question already, and needed some work, to keep it from being deleted. This article is very important in the discussions of cosmology and what or who is out there, of theoretical physics, of ufology, of science fiction development, and conceivably of the paranormal, etc.

Misty MH (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the term "entity" covers both beings and incorporeal/mechanical intelligences. If that's not the sense you get, feel free to restore "intelligence." — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Correct usage[edit]

While I agree with the recent editor who points out that the common usage of expressions like "from another dimension" in popular literature is not in conformity with the technical meaning of "dimension", I suggest that the best description of the usage is that it is a metaphor, I'm thinking of some sort of synecdoche like Pars pro toto (the dimension of a space standing for the space itself). But I wouldn't be commenting here if that were all had to say. Rather, to call a dimension a "direction" is also technically inexact, and perhaps it is best not to get into a technical discussion of dimension here, but just make a wlink to the appropriate article. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)