Plants and animals in tetraspace

[PWrong]

If a plant is defined as an immobile organism that photosynthesises, and an animal is a mobile organism that doesn't photosynthesise, would these definitions still work in the fourth dimension? Would you get organisms that can move and still photosynthesise?

What about herbivores and carnivores? Fred would find it easy to catch and eat another planar being, because it couldn't get past him or out-manuever him. Bob can't catch animals as easily, so he eats a combination of plants and some animals. Would Emily be a vegetarian because it's even harder to catch an animal in the fourth dimension?

[RQ]

It might, but she could just have higher weapons.

[alkaline]

The biology might very well be completely different in the fourth dimension, but the analogy to photosynthesis might exist, so there might still be the same type of dichotomy that we have in realmspace between plants and animals.

humans eat vegetables and meat because they aren't strictly carnivores or herbivores. There are animals that are strictly carnivorous. I would assume it would be the same in tetraspace - there would be both herbivores and carnivores. It would indeed be harder to catch prey, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be plenty of predators. There just might be more prey around, because the ratio of predators to prey balances itself out depending on how many prey the predators eat.

[Geosphere]

Would you get organisms that can move and still photosynthesise?

These things exist already in OUR world. Extreme deep sea animals have been found that photosynthesize off of the luminescense and volcanic activity of the ocean floor, living near volcanic fissures.

[PWrong]

There just might be more prey around, because the ratio of predators to prey balances itself out depending on how many prey the predators eat.

So there would be more prey and the same number of predators? I guess you're right then.

If an analog of photosynthesis does exist, would 4D leaves would be more efficient than ours? It would have a larger bulk, so it would need more energy to keep alive, but it would absorb a lot more sunlight, so it would have a lot more extra energy. Is that right?

[alkaline]

The amount of energy any being needs depends on its mass or volume (the two are related by density). Energy is collected by plants using the surface of the plant. The higher the dimension, the higher the ratio of volume to surface area. Thus, the less energy it takes in for how much volume or mass it has. Thus, it would have to have a lot more leaf structure to absorb all the energy it needs.

[PWrong]

Ok, I thought it was the other way round. Hey, this is the one thousandth post on this forum!