my thought

[jordan]

ok. ive been thinking about this whole dimension perspective thing. and ive come to the conclusion that we can only see something in the lower dimension. in a 2d world you would only be able to see lines witch you couldnt really see but only knew existed. the same goes for our 3d world. we know the things we are looking at are cubed in some sense or another. but really our vision in 2d. say you look at a square pillar. you know its cubed but really your vision only says its planar. look at one. if you could see in three d. you would be able to see every edge, plane, verticy, at one time.

so when they say fred can actually SEE lines they would have to be 3d. since there is no depth in 2d.

maybe i have this all wrong. i just cant get past this whole thing.

please comment

[Geosphere]

You are wrong.

This has been gone through before. Mirrors. Or perception by touch. Either allows full 3d comprehension.

Please read other posts in the forum.

[jordan]

im talking about our vision. ya, we know theyre 3d, obvioulsy, but our eyes perceive a plane.

[Geosphere]

No, your eye perceives a plane. Your eyes receive parallax planes. Just as your mind interprets light to colors of objects, it interprets the differences of the two planes as depth.

[elpenmaster]

we really see a plane. since we have stereotopic vision (2 eyes), our brains have evolved to think that we are seeing a 3d object, because 2 eyes give us a sense of depth. but that is merely what the brain interprets, it could be wrong. maybe when we feel with our hands, we feel into a portal and do not feel what our eyes see. so our eyes think that they are seeing in 3d, and in reality they are seeing 3d things, but they are really only seeing in 2d but have evolved to assume that they are seeing in 3d

[RQ]

I understand what you are saying elpen, and that may as well be true, as us being hooked up to THE MATRIX, but everything we have in physics is based on what we observe. Otherwise, we would have to use Occam's razor since we cannot observe what we cannot observe.

[elpenmaster]

what about tetrascopic eyes? they could really see in 3-d. maybe tetrascopic eyes would have to be three eyes not on the same plane?

[elpenmaster]

i realize that terascopic vision would be two eyes with a 3-d area for light to be recieved

[elpenmaster]

maybe somebody could evolve tetrascopic vision?
then they could see inside of other creatures!
:twisted:

[RQ]

Maybe, but that is beyond belief.

[chitspa]

tetrascopic vision is only possible in the 4-d world. They would see in the shape of a 4-d cone. We can see in the shape of a 3-d cone and a 2-d person would see in the shape of a 2-d cone (aka a triangle). For us to develope tetrascopic eyes, we'd have to create a fourth dimension since we do not exist in the fourth dimension. The 4-d people won't need a certain number of eyes to have a 3-d eyesight much as we don't need a certain number of eyes to see our 2-d visual area.

People of the fourth dimension would not have to see around us since to them, we are only a plane. Hence, a third eye to see the backs of us are not necessary. They would see us much the same way we see a 2-d world; we only need one eye to see a 2-d world. Having more than one eye helps give a better sence of depth in a field of vision.

[Watters]

This whole topic deals too much with perception. we need to get away from that. It is not the sight of a 3d or 2d object it is the comprehention, we can comprehend a 3d object becasue we can move in all 3d motions, while a 2d person (as hard as it is to belive) would not even be able to comprehend a 3rd motion, just as we can not comprehend moving in a 4d motion (We can imagin the idea of a 4th dimension, but not be able to comprehend waht that motion would be).

[RQ]

Percieve 3D while being 2D?
I wouldn't be too sure of that, but maybe.