Thread: My take on the 4th dimension and some on other dimensions

My take on the fourth :

As three dimensional people, our vision is limited to seeing everything in sort of special two dimensional view. We can never physically see all six faces of a cube at once, but we can understand that there is depth. Without depth, people would unfortunately see everything as directly in front of them. Even the farthest object seem to be the same distance away from everything else. Some people do see like this, suffering from a depth perception disorder. This depth perception defines our ability to understand the third dimension.**How, then, do two objects in the fourth dimension see each other? It is my belief that beings in the fourth dimension see each other as true three dimensional objects, with a sort of "depth perception" that acknowledges the presence of the fourth dimension. That is to say, they can see all six faces of a cube at once, as well as being aware of the fact that there is a sort of "depth" to what they see. They are incapable of seeing all eight faces of a 4D cube, but can clearly see most of the multiple 3D cubes that makes up the faces of the 4D cube.

Let's go back a step. Imagne you're a 2D stick figure. The most complex thing you can understand fully is a square, but even the you will never be able to see all of a square at once. In fact, since you will only see two faces of the square at most, all you could ver see is a single line from your perspective. That is, a 1D figure. But, at the same time, you know that there is more to that line because of you're ability to perceive two dimensional (2D) depth.

This is, at the very least, how I understand why is it I cannot truly perceive what a 4D cube would look like. Any thoughts?

So.. a cube is 3 dimensional, not 6. And we do experience at least 4 dimensions. Care to fix your post?

Why yes, a cube is 3 dimensional. What I was saying was that a cube has six sides. We cannot observe all six sides of a cube at once, merely a 2 dimensional representation coupled with a perception of depth. With out the depth, the mind could only see it as 2 dimensional, since, as I have said, we cannot see all faces of a cube or any 3 dimensional object at once.

Also, we experience every possible dimension there is, to the nth dimension technically. But we only perceive three, or four if you count time, though some do not.

I'll change my post if it came off like I said there was six dimensions, but it doesn't look that way.

In reality we can observe all 6 sides of a cube. You must be confusing probability with physical reality.

Where does probability take place in what I said? We can observe a cube, yes, but not simultaneously, which was what I am getting at. Our view doesn't encompass the figure of a 3D object as a whole, because we can't perceive the entire 6 sided cube or 4 sided pyramid as one. We only see a few faces at a time. Just as we see a 2D figure in its entirety and simultaneously, but not a 3D figure in the same way, the thought occurred to me that one able to perceive the 4th dimension could see three dimensional figure as a whole with every face of the figure simultaneously.

Originally Posted by Arxe

Where does probability take place in what I said? We can observe a cube, yes, but not simultaneously, which was what I am getting at. Our view doesn't encompass the figure of a 3D object as a whole, because we can't perceive the entire 6 sided cube or 4 sided pyramid as one. We only see a few faces at a time. Just as we see a 2D figure in its entirety and simultaneously, but not a 3D figure in the same way, the thought occurred to me that one able to perceive the 4th dimension could see three dimensional figure as a whole with every face of the figure simultaneously.

"Probability"? Seeing one side or three sides of a cube surface is probability. Seeing everything is more of a quantum concept of being everywhere at once. Do you really want to go there? Your version is intriguing. Please go on.

Indeed, it gets complicated, but it doesn't have to do with being everywhere at once from the way I see it. We will never be able to imagine how a 4 dimensional object looks because of our inability to percieve every face of a 3 dimensional object at once. Your video you posted on my intro lightly scratches what I was suggesting. The "flat lander" doesn't truly see the 2D representation of a three dimensional object. The object will be 2 dimensional on the same plane as the flat lander, that much is true. Here's where the complication comes. How can a flat lander see the entirety of a circle? At any angle, all he can see is a line(a one dimensional figure), since he has no perception of depth. He would have to be everywhere on that two dimensional plane at once, as you suggest we need to be to see every face of a cube. But, as 3 dimensional beings, we can see the fullness of a two dimensional object.

Now, apply that to a 4 dimensional being. with the ability to percieve the fourth dimension, he should be able to see the entirety of a 3d object on a 4d plane, or at least I think so.

Originally Posted by Arxe

This is, at the very least, how I understand why is it I cannot truly perceive what a 4D cube would look like. Any thoughts?

The reason why you cannot perceive what a tesseract ( 4D cube ) looks like is because you have never seen one, so your brain cannot form a model for such an object.
It is much like someone who has been blind from birth - you can describe to them what the color "blue" is like, yet they will never be able to perceive it since their brain cannot form a model for "blue", since they have never experienced it.

You can cheat a bit and draw a projection though :

Tesseract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Arxe

How can a flat lander see the entirety of a circle?

By standing at its center point and looking around ?
What is it you are trying to say ?

Originally Posted by Arxe

My take on the fourth :

As three dimensional people, our vision is limited to seeing everything in sort of special two dimensional view. We can never physically see all six faces of a cube at once, but we can understand that there is depth. Without depth, people would unfortunately see everything as directly in front of them. Even the farthest object seem to be the same distance away from everything else. Some people do see like this, suffering from a depth perception disorder. This depth perception defines our ability to understand the third dimension.**How, then, do two objects in the fourth dimension see each other? It is my belief that beings in the fourth dimension see each other as true three dimensional objects, with a sort of "depth perception" that acknowledges the presence of the fourth dimension. That is to say, they can see all six faces of a cube at once, as well as being aware of the fact that there is a sort of "depth" to what they see. They are incapable of seeing all eight faces of a 4D cube, but can clearly see most of the multiple 3D cubes that makes up the faces of the 4D cube.

Let's go back a step. Imagne you're a 2D stick figure. The most complex thing you can understand fully is a square, but even the you will never be able to see all of a square at once. In fact, since you will only see two faces of the square at most, all you could ver see is a single line from your perspective. That is, a 1D figure. But, at the same time, you know that there is more to that line because of you're ability to perceive two dimensional (2D) depth.

This is, at the very least, how I understand why is it I cannot truly perceive what a 4D cube would look like. Any thoughts?

Interesting, I suspect gallifreyan technology has it's basis in understanding something like this. The idea that extra space can be hidden away from sight, well it seems the 'extra space' is probarbly being hidden in an extra dimension. If this so then the extra dimension can't be seen from the outside but can from the inside by entering the extra space you are actually entering the extra dimension so can percieve it and the things in it.

No, as to not restate myself let me use a very fitting example for this idea of what I believe a flat lander sees. peices of paper have length, width, and such a minuscule height that it's practically *non existent. If you place a sheet of paper on the table, you would see a rectangle, yes? To imagine what a flat lander sees, turn the paper on its side and view the edge as best you can. You will naturally still see a little of the front face or back of the paper, but bear with me. The edge itself is nothing more than a line. At any given moment, the line that makes up the edge of a sheet of paper is all that a flatlander can see.*they would have to step into the third dimension in order to * see the paper in its fullness. Which, of course, is impossible for a flatlander to do.Another example can be made with the iPhone 4S, a rectangular prism. Placing it flat on a table, we see a rectangle. If we were to take a rough approximation of the perspective of a flatlander, we would have to lie our cheek on the desk and look at the iPhone from its side. The only Inaccuracy here would be that when you see the side of an iPhone in this orientation, this edge has length and width. For a flat lander, they would only observe the length, or a line with no width.(this is why the paper example works much better)

It becomes a little complicated, as I've said before, but as one of the users here have said, adding another dimension allows us to step back and observe the fullness of the dimension a level down from us.In this way, I'd predict a one dimensional figure would only be able to see a point, if that at all. They would only be able to see dimension zero with the knowledge that they are in the first dimension. It's like if a worm were to slither through a straw, there is no left or right, just forward and back. Therefore, the worm would only be able to see the point in front of it.

Heaven knows what could a single point possible see.Going back to my first statement, then, a fourth dimensional being sees three dimensional object in its fullness.

Markus, I was trying to say that flatlanders cannot see the circle the way 3rd dimensional beings can. I believe that the form in which we see the circle is how the circle truly looks, but from a flatlanders perspective, which is limited to seeing from within a 2D plane, can only see a line. I explain why in the previous post.My whole spiele is taking this concept of seeing an nth dimension object in its true form from the nth dimension plus one.

Say the flatlander marks that line somehow (with a certain colour signature perhaps) and then walks along that line and after a while they find themselves approaching and then standing on that mark once more...