four dimensional being

[FortySIXandTWO]

I know there's been a lot of talk on this forum about what a 4d being would look like. I've seen a few threads that mention it would have fourteen fingers and three eyes. I was wondering if anyone had any other insight into what a 4D entity would look like.

[Nick]

What's the difference between a 4d being and a 4d entity?
Also, could you link those other threads? I'd like to argue against the three eyes idea... you only need two for depth perception.

[FortySIXandTWO]

What's the difference between a 4d being and a 4d entity?
Also, could you link those other threads? I'd like to argue against the three eyes idea... you only need two for depth perception.

Sorry, I was using entity and being as interchangeable terms. They seem to be synonyms.
This is the thread that has most of the discussion about the fingers and eyes:
http://tetraspace.alkaline.org/forum/vi ... .php?t=226
don't worry the third eye thing is well refuted haha.

[Hugh]

Whatever a 4d being would look like, if it were standing in front of us, we should be able to see at least a "3d slice" of it.

[FortySIXandTWO]

Whatever a 4d being would look like, if it were standing in front of us, we should be able to see at least a "3d slice" of it.

What would this 3D slice look like? Would it be a person or just a mass of organs and flesh? Do tetronians have flesh and organs?

[Hugh]

What would this 3D slice look like? Would it be a person or just a mass of organs and flesh? Do tetronians have flesh and organs?

I think we would see the outside of its body that is facing us, nothing on the inside. It's logical that tetronians would have a body, with flesh and organs.

[moonlord]

You'd only see skin, no insides. Tetronians do have a lot of skin.

[darthbadass]

Yeah, maybe Wendy could enlighten us with her crazy theories about visiting higher dimensions :?

[moonlord]

She's just joking .

[darthbadass]

Hard to tell on the internet.

[thigle]

some people simply cannot believe whats over them. that's what's called egoism and rigidity. one might even consider it an objectivistically habituated form of verbal aggression against others autonomy of authentic experience. not to offend anyone, but what's so strange about visiting 4th dimension ? many people do so, even if they don't consider it so. but let the one's who don't want it have it so.
as for the others, well, see you there.

[FortySIXandTWO]

not to offend anyone, but what's so strange about visiting 4th dimension ? many people do so, even if they don't consider it so.

i would love to hear about someone's trip to the fourth dimension. and what exactly do you mean by even if they don't consider it so?

[thigle]

what exactly do you mean by even if they don't consider it so

that multidimensional processing is natural feature of our psychophysical functioning even though it seldom crosses the treshold of conscious perception because we tend to focus on contents of consciousness, not on the consciousness itself, or further beyond consciousness.

for me, we are all floating in infinite dimensional sea, we're soakin in it, just that we have all these dimensional neoprenes that make us confortable and able of operation within the world.

[moonlord]

Rule number zero: Never EVER contradict thigle. He can always prove you're wrong.

Rule number zero': thigle is not weird, he's SPECIAL.

Rule number zero'': Never EVER ask thigle about something. Every time he answers, the server crashes due to the size of one of his regular posts.

Rule number zero''' (and final): Never EVER try to talk about phylosophy with thigle. You'll be able to follow him for at most one sentence.

[jinydu]

i would love to hear about someone's trip to the fourth dimension. and what exactly do you mean by even if they don't consider it so?

Allow me to answer your question simply.

As far as we know, this physical universe essentially has three spatial dimensions. There is no mystical place called "the fourth dimension" that you can visit for fun or "enlightenment".

Furthermore, the "four-dimensional space" is not some fuzzy concept that is related to "consciousness". It has a precise, mathematical definition that one can learn in a linear algebra class. If you want, I can attempt to explain it here.

[thigle]

jinydu, you really are a regretable moron
your misunderstranding of your of Being is as fuzzy as your grasp of value of fuzziness.
and btw, if you have not noticed, this whole site was named and set up by alkaline, not you, and he chose a title (which you seem to have not noticed):

Fourth Dimension: Tetraspace
Speculations on the 4th dimension

(bold font added)

SPECULATIONS.
so stop messing up the speculative flow. rather find a girlfriend or something. sexing it up, you might as well drop into this nonexistent mystical place you feel the need to deny so much.

As far as we know, this physical universe essentially has three spatial dimensions. There is no mystical place called "the fourth dimension" that you can visit for fun or "enlightenment".

as far as you know.

Furthermore, the "four-dimensional space" is not some fuzzy concept that is related to "consciousness". It has a precise, mathematical definition that one can learn in a linear algebra class. If you want, I can attempt to explain it here.

so aggresive ! imposing one particular concept of something over all possible concepts of it. just drop it. you don't see the forest because of a tree (with 'mathscience' sign on it) you gaze at. glimpse around, dude.

moonlord, what would be anomalies, or breaking of those rules ? the exceptional fractures within the code...

[jinydu]

you don't see the forest because of a tree (with 'mathscience' sign on it) you gaze at. glimpse around, dude.

To use your analogy, perhaps that is because the tree is a grand and beautiful tree whose top branches are taller than the eye can see, yet whose trunk is solid and and unshakeable. Meanwhile, the rest of this "forest" is just a few parched blades of flimsy grass in comparison.

I have stated numerous times on this forum why math/science is a better way of doing things. For instance, I challenged you to name a single advance from the "subjective perspective" (or something to that effect) that has been made in the past 1000 years; you were unable to do so.

[Nick]

I agree with Jinydu. When I first joined this forum, I was very skeptical about how you could figure out a fourth dimension through patterns alone. I think every body (or at least most people), when they first starting learning about a fourth dimension believed that mathematicaly formulas and patterns could not determine a fourth dimension. Now, I know better.

[thigle]

... a grand and beautiful tree whose top branches are taller than the eye can see, yet whose trunk is solid and and unshakeable. Meanwhile, the rest of this "forest" is just a few parched blades of flimsy grass in comparison.

from that i would infer that you not only are too close to that tree, you are hugging it ! a huge mathHug.
but all trees have beginning and end.
and all trunks fall when time comes.
maybe when you climb high enough up that mathtree, youll see more beautiful trees around in the landscape. coniferous, exotic, bonsais and other.
but, if it is LOVE that makes blinds you and unable to unHug, let you have it. just dont forget you cannot force your love to that tree on others who already hug other trees.
or to those who travel the planetaryJungle.

... challenged you to name a single advance from the "subjective perspective" (or something to that effect) that has been made in the past 1000 years; you were unable to do so.

i never answered that because that is as arrogant question as one can have. you really think that apart from more refined mathphys models of seemingly objective reality, no advance in logical sphere has been achieved ? you think all humanities were stuck for 1000 years ? here you go:

there are oh so many steps made.
firstly, all objective science is made subjectively. so i can claim all the growth of the mathTree to be subjectively driven, and you hardly can refuse that. so my first answer to your question is SCIENCE.

on the other hand, if I take your question as YOU understand/mean it, you ask for the refinement of the knowledge of the subjective pole of what we experience during the last 1000 years.

_all the refinement of languague during last 1000y.
_husserl discovered difference between ideas and essences. while ideas are abstract glosses, essences are constraints on the attributes of things.
_heidegger discovered ontological difference: difference between the beings and their Being. (the Being of beings)
_phenomenological standing was formulated
_system science was born and produced general systems theory
_personal Unconscious was articulated, then found to be embedded in collective Unconscious (Freud, Jung)
_meaning of 'subject' & 'object' were flipped in renaissance
but to cut this, i don't believe in independent existence of objective knowledge. anyone who does is an ignorant (not only of him/herself).
_cognitive science discovered autopoietic systems and had to drop its objectivistic premises
_the concept of Gestalt was formulated, refined, walked through.
...
...
...

[jinydu]

You have given some examples of changes; that is a good start. But you have not explained why they should be regarded as advances in the "subjective pole of experience". That is, you have not clearly provided an example that is:

1) An advance. Of course, in just about any field, new ideas are appearing all the time. However, a new idea is not necessarily an advance. For instance, I would argue that the "refinement of language during the last 1000 years" is not really an advance at all. Why would you say that today's languages are any better than say, ancient Greek?

2) A truly subjective area of knowledge. You cite an example about cognitive science, but cognitive science (at least how I learned it in high school) is an objective science that relies on testable hypotheses and repeatable and quantitative experiments.

[FortySIXandTWO]

Furthermore, the "four-dimensional space" is not some fuzzy concept that is related to "consciousness". It has a precise, mathematical definition that one can learn in a linear algebra class. If you want, I can attempt to explain it here.

I think thigle may be right. (or for moonlord’s sake should I say thigle is always right?) One could think of dimensions as the existence of mobile directions, but when you look at it from a different standing point dimensionality essential is our perception of physical space. In 1D we have the perception of two directions, in 2D we have perceptions of four directions as well as surfaces, in 3D we have perceptions of six directions as well as understanding of depth.
Maybe, in order to see the fourth dimension we don't need a different set of eyes, just a different set of perceptions. This could account for why people who use LSD or other psychoactive drugs have visual experiences that are indescribable, simply because they perceive the world differently. (I know that Terrence McKenna is a big DMT buff. Coincidence?) Whether or not they perceive another dimension is subjective.
Excuse me while I jump threads, but this could relate to the 2012 idea of a revolution of consciousness.
And when you look at it from this perspective, that’s what this forum is all about, alternate forms of perception. Therefore, philosophy is intrinsically tied to other dimensions. and jinydu, how can you ask someone to measure the advancement of ideas? That's not really what they're there for, because they can't ever be proven or disproven. They exist merely to provoke and assist people in their search for self-definition. Hypothetically we are able to define infinty in abstract terms, but mathematically we will never be able to fully define infinity, because it's quantity is much to great.
If you do need proof of an advancement, this forum is a living example. I know that my perception of the world has been enlightened even just by reading this stuff.

[darthbadass]

i would love to hear about someone's trip to the fourth dimension. and what exactly do you mean by even if they don't consider it so?

Allow me to answer your question simply.

As far as we know, this physical universe essentially has three spatial dimensions. There is no mystical place called "the fourth dimension" that you can visit for fun or "enlightenment".

Furthermore, the "four-dimensional space" is not some fuzzy concept that is related to "consciousness". It has a precise, mathematical definition that one can learn in a linear algebra class. If you want, I can attempt to explain it here.

I agree that no one can visit the fourth dimension save by virtual reality or something to that effect, but the universe does have a 4th dimension, have you never heard of the curvature of spacetime or quantum foam?

[moonlord]

darthbadass: That is a timelike fourth dimension. We're reffering to a spacial 4th D in here.

FortySIXandTWO: I disagree with you. The main reaso of the need to be exact is that the complexity of the Universe cannot be described exactly using metaphysics. I do not neglect that they are sometimes useful, but are not the domain to explain the world with.

Ideas can be proven and disproven. I have a brainstorming idea that if I will jump out the window I will turn into Harry Potter or Superman. However, my idea can simply be infirmed if I perform the jump.

Moreover, math describes infinity most exactly. Where do you find infinity? In the Universe, the same Universe you still need to be exact when reffering to.

And please don't mix drugs and science... You don't see 4D, you're just "high". Never had a I-could-swear-it-was-true dream where walls pass each other and so on?

Now, to say something on perception. My model is that the human brain is restricted to use information from six sources only: sight, smell, taste (which is, by the way, a very useless sense, as you cannot taste without smelling), touch, hearing and electromagnetic waves. I don't introduce EM to have some "gate" for supernatural. In fact, it even explains some of it. Brain works by very weak electric signals that can easily interfere with external fields.

And taking into consideration my post on thigle's rules ended with a smiley, I can safely say that we mostly disagree, but we (or at least I) try to compare our views. See for example the thread on objectivity and subjectivity.

[jinydu]

but mathematically we will never be able to fully define infinity, because it's quantity is much to great.

Here is a definition that (I think) is from Cantor:

A set S is infinite if there exists a one-to-one function from S to a proper subset of S.

Done.