1-D, and the number of dimensions available to see.

[Darkshot]

First time here, first theory, yadda-yadda-yadda. Anyways, my theory is that beings can only see 1 dimension other from their own, and that is the one directly previous to itself.

Let's first talk about Fred, in 2-D. He has his own 2-d world. He, however hard he can visualize 3-D, can never see it.

And Bob, in 3-D. Like Fred he can imagine and visualize 4-D, though he can never actually see it. he can, however see 2-D Fred.

And finally Emily, in 4-D. She can (theoretically) imagine and visualize 5-D whatever that may be, but can't actually see it. She can however see 3-D, BUT, can she see 2-D?

Bob, or any human for that matter, can never truly visualize 1-D. Anything we can imagine, always has a length and a width, no matter how small of one.

Can Fred see the first dimension? Can Emily see the second? I just had to get this out of my head.

[otheronenorehto]

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I am wondering why "Fred" is such a popular name to use for examples of beings in various dimensions?

[PWrong]

Anyways, my theory is that beings can only see 1 dimension other from their own, and that is the one directly previous to itself.

That's a nice observation. If we looked at a very thin sheet of paper (as thin as possible, but not so thin that light can pass through it), we would nearly always be able to see it. But it's much harder to see a very thin piece of string. So by analogy, Emily might not be able to see a very thin 2D sheet.

I don't agree that we can't visualise 1D. All you do is imagine a thick string, and pretend it's very thin.

I don't mean to hijack this thread but I am wondering why "Fred" is such a popular name to use for examples of beings in various dimensions?

Fred is a 2D character Alkaline describes on his website, http://tetraspace.alkaline.org

[miseleigh]

If something is

not so thin that light can pass through it

then it has depth. This makes it a 3D object. Something that is truly bionian has no depth at all, and therefore there is no way a trionian creature could observe it. There would be nothing for light (or anything else) to bounce off of.

[lordofduct]

If something is

not so thin that light can pass through it

then it has depth. This makes it a 3D object. Something that is truly bionian has no depth at all, and therefore there is no way a trionian creature could observe it. There would be nothing for light (or anything else) to bounce off of.

Easier way to say it would be to say something that is truly bionian (2D) can not be seen by a trionian (3D) because it would have to exist in the 3D realm of the trionian for them to see it and that would mean it was 3D.

Light can exist in 2D... it would only move in 2 directions instead of 3.

Light is something that isn't restricted by depth, height and width because it is energy and not matter. It takes up no space.

As for Darkshot it is a good idea; try to prove it though.

The down side is that using the fact we can't really see 1D doesn't prove that 4D cant see 2D due to the correlation is limited to 1 scenario... not proof enough. (I.E. because oranges taste sweet doesn't mean a lemon is going to taste sweet.)

[miseleigh]

Thank you, lordofduct, that is what I meant. I guess I need to work on my phrasing. Howe4ver, I was under the impression that photons had volume, although they have no mass. Am I wrong? They are, after all, particles... (I think).

[miseleigh]

Apparently I was indeed wrong, after having been corrected in another topic on this forum...
Photons apparently have no size at all, and are measured in wavelengths. Thanks again, lordofduct.

However, as for:

The down side is that using the fact we can't really see 1D doesn't prove that 4D cant see 2D due to the correlation is limited to 1 scenario... not proof enough. (I.E. because oranges taste sweet doesn't mean a lemon is going to taste sweet.)

First, not only can we not see 1d objects, we can't see 2d ones either... Nor can we see tetronian objects. And, although I agree that one scenario does not consitute proof, it does seem to be common sense to think that Emily needs trength to see an object the way we need depth, and that Fred probably can't see a 3d object with his 2d eyes.

And where'd everybody go? It's been a week and no one's posted...