Are we already in the fourth dimensions?

[3dftw]

I was thinking...
In our world things just work the way that they work (forces, matter, time, etc.), and in order for us to be able to understand and comprehend the world we put conventions into place, like dimensions (3d=up/down,left/right,forward/backwards).
In this forum the fourth dimension is talked about following those conventions and the laws of our physical world, but the conventions we have set in place to understand our world exclude any reality of a fourth spatial dimension.
I put it to you...are we using the correct conventions to define our world, or is there already evidence of the fourth spatial dimension, but we are so blinded by our understanding that it prohibits us from knowing the truth? Are we living in a world with four spatial dimensions, but looking at it through the conventions of only three dimensions?

[4 degrees oiT]

I think that's a bit much. We didn't "place" these limits. They're just there. It's not a case of, "Hey look at this cool new world, lets make rules for it."

It was more a case of "Oh, we can't do this because....."

We didn't place the limits. We hit them, and were limited by THEM. If we could experience the fourth dimension just by thinking about it, accepting that it's possible, and doing it, then we'd have done it already, if not on purpose, then by accident (as most great scientific discoveries tend to be made).

It was an interesting idea though. I have this friend who has ideas like that. How we can make stuff happen by believing it. I think its nonsense.

[3dftw]

Its not about the limitations of our physical world, its about our perception of them.

The very fact that we dont understand certain things means that the models we have put into place to explain the things we cannot see are inadequate. This doesn't mean that the things we can't see however, cannot be explained or that they don't exist.

Im simply suggesting that we initiate better conventions to explain our world.

[4 degrees oiT]

What you're talking about is very small discrepencies that cannot be explained, but you seem to be suggesting that we're already living the 4th dimension, we just don't realise it.

Just because we don't know why a few exceptions happen, doesn't mean that an enhanced understanding of them will suddenly elevate us to a new level of existence. 2,999,999 times out of 3,000,000 things will still follow the fundamental laws that we've explained.

Most of the discrepencies occur in space anyway, where conditions are not the standard, under which the laws of physics were set. Newton hardly had the ability to conduct experiements in space. If he did, I suspect we'd have a few more of his laws to play around with.

[3dftw]

Good argument I look forward to further civilized discussion about this topic after I have been fully rested. For I have had a trying day.

[papernuke]

? Are we living in a world with four spatial dimensions, but looking at it through the conventions of only three dimensions?

no we're not. our eyes are 3D eyes, and are designed to see in three dimensions (width height breadth) unless we get our eyes redone by a fourth dimensional being (or higher) so that the pupil can catch light from an extra dimension, we wont be able to see in the fourth dimension. and if we were in the fourth dimension, then a fourth dimensional being would most likely have affected our world in some way. or even revealed their universe to us..

[Hugh]

Its not about the limitations of our physical world, its about our perception of them.

The very fact that we dont understand certain things means that the models we have put into place to explain the things we cannot see are inadequate. This doesn't mean that the things we can't see however, cannot be explained or that they don't exist.

Im simply suggesting that we initiate better conventions to explain our world.

I agree that we may be living in higher spatial dimensions that we realize, but we are limited in our perception about them.

A simple way to envision this is how limited a theoretical 2d being would be limited in his perception. Let's say he's a 2d square. He's completely "flat", with no third dimension "up". So all he can "see" around himself is the "edge" of a 2d plane that he lives within. But that "edge" has no 3d height, so he's looking at an infinitely thin 1d "line", which can't be seen at all because there's no thickness to it.

So a 2d being actually would see "nothing" around itself, zero dimensions, which is 2 dimensions lower that what it would be made of...

[malkuth]

Hello. I am new to this forum.

I personally think this hole 2d/3d parallel with Fred and Bob is a bit off.

If we imagine Bob taking the picture of Fred's world off the wall, Fred would plunge on the floor of Bob's room. And in that case Fred would find him self in a 3d environment which he would not be aware of. He would be able to see but 2 dimensions, although, given the circumstances could move left and right. Therefore it is quite possible that we are living in a 4d environment which we cannot percept.
I'm sure we've all heard stories of things floating in mid air, disappearing for no apparent season, Budist monks whose half the body's are invisible during meditation, etc... Why is it not possible that such events have occurred because objects or parts of objects have for some reason fallen into the fourth dimension?
I personally am of the opinion that the answers to these questions lie within our grasp. It's only for our conventional boundaries that we are unable to reach them.

[Tessa]

we wont be able to see in the fourth dimension. and if we were in the fourth dimension, then a fourth dimensional being would most likely have affected our world in some way. or even revealed their universe to us..

Just because we don't have the ability to see the fourth dimension doesn't mean it isn't there. And even if there were four dimensional beings (and who says there actually are? No one said there had to be life in the fourth dimension), it wouldn't be possible for them to interact with us. Think of a two dimensional square. Not drawn on a piece of paper, but floating in the air. We would only be able to see it if we were looking at it perpendicularly. And even then, we wouldn't be able to hold or handle it. Same goes for 4D beings and 3D objects.

So a 2d being actually would see "nothing" around itself, zero dimensions, which is 2 dimensions lower that what it would be made of...

That is technically incorrect. Think of a five-dimensional being. A 5D being could only see a hypercube floating before him if he were looking at it perpendicularly, same as a 4D and 3D being would with their respective one-lower dimensions. By simple transposition, then, a 5D being would not be able to see a 3D cube at all. Should he then assume that a being living in the third dimension would not see anything?

[Keiji]

A simple way to envision this is how limited a theoretical 2d being would be limited in his perception. Let's say he's a 2d square. He's completely "flat", with no third dimension "up". So all he can "see" around himself is the "edge" of a 2d plane that he lives within. But that "edge" has no 3d height, so he's looking at an infinitely thin 1d "line", which can't be seen at all because there's no thickness to it.

So a 2d being actually would see "nothing" around itself, zero dimensions, which is 2 dimensions lower that what it would be made of...

No, a 2D being would indeed see a line. To that 2D being it doesn't need thickness to be seen.

[IQ Boost]

no we're not. our eyes are 3D eyes, and are designed to see in three dimensions (width height breadth) unless we get our eyes redone by a fourth dimensional being (or higher) so that the pupil can catch light from an extra dimension, we wont be able to see in the fourth dimension. and if we were in the fourth dimension, then a fourth dimensional being would most likely have affected our world in some way. or even revealed their universe to us..

Actually, our vision is 2d. We have 2 eyes that each individually see in 2d. Our brains interpret those 2d images and create a limited 3d mental image of what we are looking at. Our brains use shadows, recognized textures, boundaries, and edges to guess at the actual depth of what we see. That is why people who have lost an eye have an extremely difficult time with depth perception. They only have 1 2d image which the brain can work with to interpret 3d.

Its similiar to how Fred see's in 1d. If he is looking at a square he sees a line, but if Fred is looking at the corner of a square, he might be able to get a mental image of the 2d square, if his brain can interpret differences in shadow along the two sides of the square that he sees. The line he sees would be shaded differently and not one continuous color possibly allowing him to determine depth (away from him) as well height (which 1d vision provides.) Thus he sees in 1d but can comprehend or build a mental image of the 2d world. Very similiar to the system of human vision which takes a pair of 2d images and interprets 3d out of them.

[Hugh]

No, a 2D being would indeed see a line. To that 2D being it doesn't need thickness to be seen.

A true 1D line has no thickness to it at all. Zero. I think we agree on that. I disagree with your statement that a 2D being doesn't need thickness to see. I think that all sight is based on some sort of thickness. With zero thickness there is zero to see.

Think of a five-dimensional being. A 5D being could only see a hypercube floating before him if he were looking at it perpendicularly, same as a 4D and 3D being would with their respective one-lower dimensions. By simple transposition, then, a 5D being would not be able to see a 3D cube at all. Should he then assume that a being living in the third dimension would not see anything?

Sight requires at least 3 dimensions so that you can see something that has a 2D thickness, or area to it. A 5D being would know that a 3D being could at least see a 2D plane, but even a 5D being couldn't see a 1D line, nor could a 2D one.

[Keiji]

I disagree with your statement that a 2D being doesn't need thickness to see.

Why?

A 2D being sees a line.

It's not really something anyone can prove, since it's obvious.

[Hugh]

A 2D being sees a line.

It's not really something anyone can prove, since it's obvious.

It's not obvious actually. This is the problem. Most people think, well of course it's easy to see a line, here, see this?

_______________________

"It's a line, and it can be seen" is what most people think.

One has to realize though that what we are talking about with the above example is a very thin 2D rectangle. It has a length and a width (or height if you want to call it that). You can see it because it has 2 dimensions facing your eye, one pixel wide (or high).

To understand what a 2D creature would see one has to realize that one doesn't look "up" from the plane at another 2D creature, one only can look "along" the plane. That plane has measurements of length and width along it but no "height". If it did then it wouldn't be a 2D plane. Also if the 2D creature had ANY thickness in a 3rd perpendicular direction, it wouldn't be a 2D creature, but a 3D one.

So the 2D creature looks "along the plane" at a one dimensional line. That line has one dimension only, length, no width or height. There is nothing along a 3rd axis there to give any thickness to that line, nor is there anything along a 3rd axis on the 2D creature to allow it to see anything either.

[Keiji]

Ugh...

You can see it because it has 2 dimensions facing your eye, one pixel wide (or high).

Yes. WE can see it because it is 2D, as 2 = 3-1.

However, we're talking about bionians here, not trionians. They can see a 1D line, because 1 = 2-1.

I full well know planespace doesn't have any thickness in 3D (the dimension one above from it). However, realmspace also lacks thickness in 4D (the dimension one above from it). Are you going to say that we can't see anything because our world lacks "thickness"?

[Hugh]

However, we're talking about bionians here, not trionians. They can see a 1D line, because 1 = 2-1.

The fact that 1=2-1 doesn't relate to the discussion. 1D only has that, one dimension, it offers no thickness to differentiate itself from it's background in the 2D creature's line of sight so it cannot be seen.

I full well know planespace doesn't have any thickness in 3D (the dimension one above from it). However, realmspace also lacks thickness in 4D (the dimension one above from it). Are you going to say that we can't see anything because our world lacks "thickness"?

I'm saying that there has to be a minimum of 3 dimensions for anything to be able to be seen. There has to be at least length, width, and height available to see something. If there is only length and width but no height to "rise up off the plane" from, then you can't see the plane at all.

[zero]

I think you two are talking past each other because you're using different ideas about what dimension "thickness" applies to, without spelling it out fully enough to prevent ambiguity.

Without going into that part of it, I think it makes sense to say at least that the field of vision for any n-dimensional sighted being will be of dimension n-1.

[Hugh]

I think you two are talking past each other because you're using different ideas about what dimension "thickness" applies to, without spelling it out fully enough to prevent ambiguity.

Without going into that part of it, I think it makes sense to say at least that the field of vision for any n-dimensional sighted being will be of dimension n-1.

I don't know how to explain it in easier to understand terms lol.

Zero, do you believe that a 1D line presents a "field of vision" that has any "thickness" at all? Do you think that a 1D line can actually be seen? If you believe it has "thickness", in what direction would that be relative to the 2D plane that the 2D being would be in.

[zero]

Zero, do you believe that a 1D line presents a "field of vision" that has any "thickness" at all?

Not in a higher-dimensional context, no; however, I think it's clear that any 2D object would present a one-dimensional appearance (like a line segment) to any 2D viewer. That's not the same thing as saying it "is" a line. The 2D being's field of vision is linear. Likewise, any 3D object presents a two-dimensional appearance to any 3D viewer. Our field of vision is planar. Continuing up a dimension, any 4D object would present a three-dimensional appearance to a 4D viewer, and so on.

In your post of Dec 15, you made the following statements:

Let's say he's a 2d square. He's completely "flat", with no third dimension "up". So all he can "see" around himself is the "edge" of a 2d plane that he lives within. But that "edge" has no 3d height, so he's looking at an infinitely thin 1d "line", which can't be seen at all because there's no thickness to it.

Will you reconsider this?

After all, even though the object only appears 1D (the dimension of its field of vision) to a 2D observer, it is actually a 2D object being viewed, so if does have some thickness within the 2D manifold where it exists. Just like everything we see appears 2D (the dimension of our field of vision) to us 3D observers -- despite having some a thickness within our 3D manifold where it exists.

Why would a 2D being need "3D height" in order to perceive its 2D surroundings within its linear field of vision? That unjustified remark seems to be a source of confusion here. We should be careful not to assume our experience with a planar field of vision must apply to all other dimensions.

[Hugh]

Not in a higher-dimensional context, no

Agreed.

; however, I think it's clear that any 2D object would present a one-dimensional appearance (like a line segment) to any 2D viewer. That's not the same thing as saying it "is" a line. The 2D being's field of vision is linear.

A line segment is more of a mathematical construct, an idea, it isn't really "a line". It has zero thickness. It can't be "seen". Whatever one might think is "infinitely small" it's even smaller than that.

Likewise, any 3D object presents a two-dimensional appearance to any 3D viewer. Our field of vision is planar. Continuing up a dimension, any 4D object would present a three-dimensional appearance to a 4D viewer, and so on.

We see 3D surroundings around us, could we be 4D ourselves in a 4D world? If we were in a 4D tetracube room we'd just see a boundary 3D cube room around us wouldn't we?

After all, even though the object only appears 1D (the dimension of its field of vision) to a 2D observer, it is actually a 2D object being viewed, so if does have some thickness within the 2D manifold where it exists. Just like everything we see appears 2D (the dimension of our field of vision) to us 3D observers -- despite having some a thickness within our 3D manifold where it exists.

The 2D "thickness" is hidden from the 2D creature's zero thickness line segment of vision "along the plane" away from it, just as the 3D "thickness" is hidden from a 2D plane of vision "within the cube" away from it.

Why would a 2D being need "3D height" in order to perceive its 2D surroundings within its linear field of vision? That unjustified remark seems to be a source of confusion here. We should be careful not to assume our experience with a planar field of vision must apply to all other dimensions.

Wouldn't the experience of "zero" be the same in all dimensions?

[HicksonX]

I think you two are talking past each other because you're using different ideas about what dimension "thickness" applies to, without spelling it out fully enough to prevent ambiguity.

Without going into that part of it, I think it makes sense to say at least that the field of vision for any n-dimensional sighted being will be of dimension n-1.

I don't know how to explain it in easier to understand terms lol.

Zero, do you believe that a 1D line presents a "field of vision" that has any "thickness" at all? Do you think that a 1D line can actually be seen? If you believe it has "thickness", in what direction would that be relative to the 2D plane that the 2D being would be in.

I think that 'thickness' is the wrong word to use, because if you say that a 1-d line has a infinite length in one direction, it must have a measurement in the perpendicuar direction to be able to be seen? But, if it has a unit of measurement perpendicular to its length, then surely that makes it 2-d?
I am stealing a phrase I have seen recently in a book, but would 'brightness' be more suitable, and not consider this 'brightness' a direction, but just a means to make a line strictly 1-d.

[Hugh]

I am stealing a phrase I have seen recently in a book, but would 'brightness' be more suitable, and not consider this 'brightness' a direction, but just a means to make a line strictly 1-d.

The "line of brightness" would still have "zero" of itself able to be seen.

Picture the sight of a bright square from above. Now go down to the plane of its existence with a 1D viewpoint, see it along its edge, and its brightness vanishes. That's what's available to see from a 2D creature's viewpoint.

[zero]

We see 3D surroundings around us

Sure, but our field of vision is not itself 3D. It is 2D. We can infer three dimensions, but we do not directly see them. When you look at a wall, what you see in your 2D field of vision is the surface, not the 3D front, middle and back of the wall all at once.

Similarly -- if you image a 2D being in a 2D universe -- when it looks at the 2D surroundings all around it, its field of vision is 1D.

The 2D "thickness" is hidden from the 2D creature's zero thickness line segment of vision "along the plane" away from it, just as the 3D "thickness" is hidden from a 2D plane of vision "within the cube" away from it.

So what?

[zero]

Picture the sight of a bright square from above. Now go down to the plane of its existence with a 1D viewpoint, see it along its edge, and its brightness vanishes. That's what's available to see from a 2D creature's viewpoint.

No, you are trapped in your 3D perspective where YOU need a 2D image for vision. Of course WE cannot see anything which has a line for a shadow, because our sight operates with a 2D field of vision.

Hard as it may be to imagine, why should a 2D being's vision be exactly like ours? Do not ignore the fundamental difference that a change in the number of dimensions makes. If you add or subtract a dimension from space, then the corresponding field of vision must also have a dimension added or subtracted. It may be hard to imagine, but this is the logical answer.

[Hugh]

Zero, zero is zero in all dimensions.

[zero]

Zero, zero is zero in all dimensions.

Was that intended to be a meaningful response to the questions I raised? If so, please expand for clarification.

[Hugh]

Was that intended to be a meaningful response to the questions I raised?

Yes.

If so, please expand for clarification.

Zero is zero in all dimensions. You can't see zero in our dimension, it would seem even more appropriate that zero cannot be seen in a lesser dimension.

[zero]

Let me take this in two parts. First, I will reiterate the question, because I'd like you to address it directly. Second, I'll outline my understanding of the matter with the idea of checking to see where we are looking at this the same way and where we differ.

Part One
Why should a 2D being's field of vision be exactly like ours? (where we have a 2D field of vision)


Part Two
What is "You can't see zero in our dimension" supposed to mean? To me, zero is a number -- an abstraction --so I can hardly disagree with the statement. It's just that you seem to want to communicate something else by it that is unstated and completely obscured. So let me try this three step checklist:

Let's start with our own experience. For something to be perceived in our field of vision requires that it has a two dimensional footprint. We cannot see anything with the footprint of a point or line because those are not 2D. Do you follow this and agree it makes sense?

Similarly, if you move up into tetraspace, then for something to be perceived by a being in that 4D manifold, their field of vision will require that the object has a three dimensional footprint. They would be unable to see anything with the footprint of a point or line or plane, because those are not 3D. Do you agree or disagree with this description?

Finally, moving the other "direction," moves us into flatland. For something to be perceived by a being in that 2D manifold, their field of vision will require that the object has a one dimensional footprint. hey would be unable to see anything with the footprint of a point, because that is not 1D. Do you see the pattern here?

[Hugh]

Why should a 2D being's field of vision be exactly like ours? (where we have a 2D field of vision)

It isn't like ours. It's much less than ours. It only has a 1D field of vision. A 1D field of vision faces a 1D line segment, which cannot be seen.

We can keep going back and forth on this zero, but really, I don't see how anything 1D can be seen. With your line of reasoning, a 1D being could see a 0D point, because it has a "zero-dimensional field of view". Is that correct?

What is "You can't see zero in our dimension" supposed to mean? To me, zero is a number -- an abstraction --so I can hardly disagree with the statement. It's just that you seem to want to communicate something else by it that is unstated and completely obscured.

Simply, you can't see something with zero thickness in our dimension, or in any other dimension.

Let's start with our own experience. For something to be perceived in our field of vision requires that it has a two dimensional footprint. We cannot see anything with the footprint of a point or line because those are not 2D. Do you follow this and agree it makes sense?

Yes.

Similarly, if you move up into tetraspace, then for something to be perceived by a being in that 4D manifold, their field of vision will require that the object has a three dimensional footprint. They would be unable to see anything with the footprint of a point or line or plane, because those are not 3D. Do you agree or disagree with this description?

The vision of a 4D being is debatable. Personally, I think that a 4D being may see a 3D world around itself, but is possibly able to flip its 3D whole viewpoint of it to different viewing angles, but that's another thread http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=401. (Btw zero, I'd be interested to hear your view on VRIs and if you've ever experienced one if you'd like.)

Finally, moving the other "direction," moves us into flatland. For something to be perceived by a being in that 2D manifold, their field of vision will require that the object has a one dimensional footprint. hey would be unable to see anything with the footprint of a point, because that is not 1D. Do you see the pattern here?

According to your pattern, a 1D creature would see a 0D point, which I'd say isn't possible, or logical at all.

[Keiji]

This is getting ridiculous...

Hugh, read this carefully:

How do you see stuff? Light bounces off an object and arrives at your eyes.

Where does light travel? Inside the space you're concerned with, just like everything else. So, if it's in our world, it travels in 3D; if it's in planespace, it travels in 2D, and so on.

So, if light is traveling in planespace, and hits the (one-dimensional) surface of a 2D object, it must keep travelling in planespace, so it may then arrive at a dionian's retina (which is also a surface, so it is also one-dimensional), and the ray is detected at a point along their one-dimensional retina. Thus, the possible places light can be received is one-dimensional, so it is definitely one-dimensional, and no light can "escape" from planespace, so some rays will definitely arrive at a retina to be seen.

I've explained it as best I can, I'm sure zero has too, and as far as anyone else is concerned you're either trying to screw with us or you'll never get it.