is this endlessness?

[Heyo]

I have a question that's been bugging me for years

I don't know how to explain this, it's simple to understand but hard to put in words.....

Imagine a chess board

Imagine you move a piece all the way to the edge of the opposite side, so that it is right at the top of the board

Now imagine you move it forward one space

And it reappears on the opposite edge of the board, right on the bottom of the board, to where it begun at the end of the game, on the same line

Now, imagine you have another piece and you move it to a square that is on the right edge of the board

You then move it one space to the right and it reappears on the left edge of the board, on the same row as it was before you last moved it

As though it has gone all around to the other side and as though the board is in some bizarre way round

What do you call this?

If the chess board works like that, does that mean that it is in effect never ending, as it is circular and has no edges?

Is that a type of infinity, or is it finite? It is at least endless and circular?

Might the universe work like that?

It's called a Torus - Wikipedia.

It's edgeless but not infinite. And our universe most probably doesn't work that way but a static universe might.

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is the universe flat?

Wouldn't that mean it was only two-dimensional?

What's past the border of two dimensions?

Immediately I think of Carl Sagon's flatland.

 

[wellwisher]

I'm sorry but I don't understand

It doesn't compute!

I always thought the universe was in three spatial dimensions, is that actually false?

I don't understand how it can be both flat and in three dimensions

This is more about hijacking language, creating confusion. Flat universe simply means infinite in a mathematical sense. It has little to do with a 2-D universe; flat piece of paper. The word flat was hijacked and given a separate meaning, adding confusion.

As an analogy, one of the attributes of quarks, which are the substructure of matter, is some quarks have charm. This charm does not mean that are there are sub particle playboys and politicians. The word charm was used as a placeholder, and given a new meaning for those who study sub particle physics data. If you do not know what the term describes, in particle physics, one can become confused, since how can some sub-particles be more seductive or be the life of the party? Those who know what it means in physics, may give you the physics definition, but may not fully explain why it was called charm. It was the author's choice of word. This is more an effect of liberal arts on science; commandeer language to help sell the book by sparking confusion interest.

In the Christmas song, Deck the Halls, one of the lines is "don we now our gay apparel, fa la la la, la la la". When I hear that line the commandeering of language makes me think of a drag queen show, instead of the original definition of festive party clothes that applies to all the guests. The new unrelated definition sort of creates confusion overlay; sales trick for center stage.

In the case of the word marriage, by adding new definitions for marriage, beyond man and woman, the goal was confusion overlap in a zero sum game. Some feel enhanced, while some feel degraded, due to confusion overlap, with the Left never holding the crap end of the stick. They create the game and set the rules that way. Coining new words would have allowed clarity to be maintained, in all these examples, without adding or taking away to or from others. But that will not benefit the language pick pockets