Hugh wrote:A 3d slice of a 4d hypercube is a cube. As you say though, how this multi-dimensionality would get integrated into our ordinary 3d experience is the question.
Hugh wrote:VRIs are 90 or 180 degree instant rotations of one's visual orientation. It's as if the whole universe is "turned around" instantly. You may have heard of someone getting lost because they got turned around in their orientation. The fact that the flips are always orthogonal makes me think it may have to do with a higher dimension.
From page 4 of Human Visual Orientation in Weightlessness , Charles M. Oman says:
"Actually, it is possible to have a VRI right here on Earth, as when you leave an underground subway station labyrinth, and upon seeing a familiar visual landmark, realize that e.g. you are facing east, not west. On Earth, gravity constrains our body orientation, and provides an omnipresent "down" cue, so we normally only experience VRIs about a vertical axis."
When one experiences a VRI, you do see light from the same object coming from what you perceive as another orthogonal direction.
In 4d, wouldn't it be the same? If we did a 360 degree turn in 4d space, wouldn't we come back to the starting position? Wouldn't we only see a 3d boundary sphere around us if we were in a 4d hypersphere, or a 3d boundary cube around us in a 4d hypercube?
Hugh wrote:quickfur wrote:Hugh wrote:[...] When I see the picture of a 2Der with a 1D line in front of it, I think of a 3Der being able to move around the vertical 1D line 360 degrees and see the exact same 1D line from any of those directions.
Is it correct that a 3Der with a 2D plane of vision in front of it, could be similarly encircled by a 4Der being able to move around the vertical and see the exact same 2D plane of vision from any of those directions as well?
Yes, that's correct. In 4D, rotation happens not around an axis, but a plane. (We like to think of rotation in 2D as happening around an axis, but actually that axis doesn't exist in 2D space; it's protruding into our 3D space. Rotation in 2D happens around a point.) So given any 2D plane, one can go around it in 4D in much the same way as we can walk around a pole (i.e. vertical line) in 3D.
Okay, thanks quickfur! That's great to hear!
Hugh wrote:So along this line of reasoning, is it possible that the 3D world that we see around us is just a 3D "slice" of a 4D world around us, and is it possible to see our vision of it from different angles through VRIs because we are actually 4D ourselves?
gonegahgah wrote:So my answer is that we need to simply characterise what 4D is and if you can provide a sound characterisation that explains VRI in four dimensional terms then the ability is four dimensional within the terms of that logical definition. As a scientific principle it can be difficult to nail anything down to absolute definitions; with different definitions abounding.
Keiji wrote:On the subject of VRIs, I used to have a lot of trouble understanding them when I first read about them on this forum - but by now they happen very often, usually when I'm in my room and it's dark, I'll suddenly feel like I'm in a different room or the house is pointing a different way, and have to reorient myself.
I also play Minecraft a lot, and I'm not sure if reorientation in 3D video games is relevant here, but in my latest world, I used to have a staircase where, every single time I travelled up or down it, I would rotate round 540 degrees, and think I rotated 720 degrees. The result was that the route to spawn on the surface was in one direction, while the route to spawn in my tunnel was in the completely opposite direction! Even after realising that, I still never interpreted it right, and found it very difficult to imagine both routes going in the same direction. Eventually I rebuilt the staircase though, so it doesn't happen any more.
Hugh wrote:Isn't it weird to feel like the "house is pointing in a different way"?
Have you been able to discern whether it is a 90 or 180 degree flip from how you normally see it?
When you first realize that a VRI has occured, and then it flips back to normal, have you attempted to cognitively do the VRI flip back to its other position immediately to see if you can go back there again?
Also, have you attempted a VRI in a movie theatre yet? Earlier in this thread you said you didn't go to the movies very much but has that changed?
Keiji wrote:It reminds me of when I was a child, when on holiday I would wake up and not have a clue where I was. Actually, perhaps the fact that I wanted to experience that feeling again subconsciously made the VRIs happen?
Keiji wrote:I'm not actually sure, to be honest, even after thinking about it really hard. It's like trying to remember a dream, you know certain facts, but not the details. I know I've done a bunch of VRIs, but I have no idea whether any of them were in any specific direction.
Keiji wrote:Actually yes, I pretty much always try to do this. It's very weird, because different "landmarks" in my room - bed, door, window, computer, wardrobe etc. - move around to relative positions they shouldn't be from each other.
Keiji wrote:Ahaha, nope!
Hugh wrote:We think of what a 2D being sees around itself (a 1D infinitely thin line) and realize how limited that it would be in projecting what is actually around it.
Could it be that we see only a limited 3D slice around ourself of a higher dimensional universe?
If there was a 4D universe around us we'd only see a 3D slice of it right?
gonegahgah wrote:That is an interesting thought but I would tend to say that by direct analogy to the 2Der seeing a 1D line before them; we only see a 2D plane before us.
Hugh wrote:If we are actually 4D ourselves, how would we view that 4D space around us?
3D stays 3D in 4D as well, this is important to think about.
If a 4D being has a 3D viewpoint, it would see 3D around itself, in 3D.
gonegahgah wrote:But 'around' is different to 'before'. A 2Der sees a 1D world before their eyes but a 2D world around themselves.
We see a 2D world before our eyes but a 3D world around ourselves.
Hugh wrote:So where do the other directions come in... ana and kata?
Well, my way of thinking is this... A 4D being sees a 3D slice of the 4D universe all around itself (it's limited in vision just like the 2D being is)...
So the extra directions allow it to see that 3D slice around itself from the other directions that are available.
gonegahgah wrote:This is where I've been saying that a 4Der doesn't just have ana-kata in my approach; a 4Der has towards ana and towards kata. They have a whole 180° towards both of these.
So where you mention flipping; I mention rotation.
If you were seeing in the space, that I could fit 16 people, 64 people instead, when I can only see 16, then I would think you were seeing 4D as I picture it to be.
My picture of 4D is that things need to be able to move in and out of our 3D space without our understanding why; not just our world flip around as it is.
As in the introduction, if a 4Der put a 4D fence post sideways through our world we would only see a cube and not the whole post.
Do you see objects floating in the air for no apparent reason? This would be my test of if your 4D matched the type of 4D I'm espousing.
Hugh wrote:All this talk about a 4D being seeing 3D as "flat" is, in my way of thinking, the wrong direction to think in... it would see 3D as it is, in full 3D, as we see the world all around us.
gonegahgah wrote:With your model; yes. With my model; no. Hopefully this will become a little more 'intuitive' with some of the next pictures.
Hugh wrote:Like Aale de Winkel said earlier, 4D vision isn't x-ray vision, it's just seeing the light rays coming from more directions.
gonegahgah wrote:But, the doesn't mean that they flip directions. When we move our vision the image changes smoothly.
So in my model the 4Der's view would change smoothly as they turn their head in all direction. It doesn't suddenly flip.
Hugh wrote:So if we think that if we're 4D, and we're looking at a 4D table in front of us, but that we are limited in our vision and only see the table in 3D in front of us (a 3D slice of it), then the fact that we can use VRIs to cognitively see it from a different 90 or 180 degree direction, to me, shows that those directions that the light is also coming from actually do exist.
Like I've said, I truly wish that I could show each of you exactly what a VRI is, and let you perceive it fully, to see the potential that it has in explaining the possible existence of higher dimensional space.
gonegahgah wrote:Hmmm, it would probably be very confusing to start off with.
gonegahgah wrote:If what you have is a form of 4D vision then it is, by my model, a very limited and rigidly aligned model that can't escape the bounds of our 3D space.
gonegahgah wrote:The model I'm looking at doesn't have the rigid alignment to our 3D space and movement can exist out of our 3D space. Hopefully, as I say, some of the following pictures will give a better impression of what I'm defining as 4D vision.
gonegahgah wrote:Hi Hugh. Personally, I don't really believe in higher dimensions. I don't believe in the higher dimensions of string theory with these extra dimensions that are somehow very short, very curled, and uniquely special in that they have some unknown mechanism to prevent us crossing into them. I also don't believe in higher spatial dimensions because we would experience unusual phenomena such as magically suspended objects; that we don't experience.
gonegahgah wrote:I don't believe, as our science does, that time is somehow a dimension on the same par with the spatial dimensions. I don't even really believe that there are individual dimensions - ie x, y and z - per se. So, I'm a bit of a non-believer overall.
gonegahgah wrote:I do believe, however, that there are things that can be considered to be extra dimensions necessary for our calculations. To calculate movement we have to not only take into account our speed vector; as we don't simply just move in a straight line at a constant rate. We also have to take into account gravity and magnetism. We also have to take resistance and other forces into account. We even seem to have to take into account adjustments due to relativity and localised gravitational variations if we want to be totally precise. So, with respect to our calculations, these other facets are extra dimensions that need to be taken into account. To my mind these various factors could be classified as dimensions.
gonegahgah wrote:I was looking at those links you gave. I must admit I can't find anything really VRI related there and the experiences expressed there don't seem to match VRI.
gonegahgah wrote:IPerhaps you can quote particular passages that you think support VRI as 4D?
gonegahgah wrote:I recall you speaking about 3D shapes not being flat in 4D. My definition of flat is a surface that before your eyes appears that it would be the same distance - allowing for perspective - from your eyes for each point on its surface, when you look at it face on. Of course, if we look at a big square via it's centre, the corners will be further away from our eyes than the centre is, but that is a matter of relative size. We still recognise the square as flat and that all the corners are the same distance from our eyes.
A 4Der, likewise, sees all the corners of a cube, when they are looking at it flat on, as being the same distance from their eyes at the same time; when they are likewise looking at it face on. They don't see some corners as being at the back and some corners as being at the front for a cube - as we do. So I define a 4Der's cube as being flat to them, a 3Der's square as being flat to us, and a 2Der's line as being flat to them.
gonegahgah wrote:I would use a 2D analogy but if you can't allow them to have 2-space - like we have 3-space and a 4Der has 4-space - then that just would not help unfortunately.
I don't think I can squeeze the 'spatial 4D', of the main section here, down to only the 4 perspectives that your version has.
Mine, and I assume this site's, has a whole extra 360° of perspective and not just 4x~0° of perspective of VRI.
gonegahgah wrote:Thank you for following my pictures. I am trying to help people and myself and also to contribute to developing 4D further if I can.
Hugh wrote:In order for it to see in that fourth perpendicular direction, it has to see everything around itself from another, new perpendicular direction, so everything around itself is viewed from that new perpendicular direction, and it is seen from a different 90 or 180 degree direction, which is possible in that higher dimensional space.
gonegahgah wrote:Hugh wrote:In order for it to see in that fourth perpendicular direction, it has to see everything around itself from another, new perpendicular direction, so everything around itself is viewed from that new perpendicular direction, and it is seen from a different 90 or 180 degree direction, which is possible in that higher dimensional space.
When we turn around we are not limited to flipping in 90° intervals from front to right to back to left. We can rotate a full 360° spinning in a circle.
Why would a 4Der be limited to flipping only in 90° intervals from here to ana to reverse to kata.
Why can't they rotate a full 360° spinning in a circle through the 4th direction; just as we can spin a full 360° in a circle through the 3rd direction.
Why does the 4th direction only allow this non-continuous, non-flowing, but sudden flipping from 0° to 90° to 180° to 270° back to 360°; or only from one of these to another?
What happened to all the angles in-between? Where did they go?
Hugh wrote:Just as it can be shown how a 2D Necker Cube is perceived to flip in 3D space, it would be awesome to show diagrams of a 3D Necker Cube flip in 4D, and how exactly the VRI would be possible in 4D space.
...The left will always fall to our left and the right will always fall to our right.
...The key thing with this view is that anything in front of you stays directly in front of you even as you rotate into the ana or kata directions.
gonegahgah wrote:From what you've explained in your last post here Hugh I'm gathering that the following animation would probably suit your VRI better:
This animation was meant to be for the locate view but having done it I now think the locate view would be slightly different; but it may still be useful for your example.
gonegahgah wrote:If I'm correct in my understanding, then your 4D interpretation doesn't actually add any extra space to our existing universe.
In otherwords, the space is the same but it is just four different orientations of our existing universe.
gonegahgah wrote:My understanding of spatial dimensions - and the meaning of it at this site I think I gather - is that extra spatial dimensions actually add more space.
I know referring to the 2Der is pretty futile but still at this site the thought is that a 2Der has only height x forward space, that we have height x forward x 1 sideways space and that a 4Der has height x forward x sideways 1 x sideways 2 of space. As I say, for example, a 2Der has 2x2=4m2 of space, we have 2x2x2=8m3 of space, and a 4Der has 2x2x2x2 = 16m4 of space.
You don't accept that a 2Der has their own space at all so I hesitate to use them in our discussions.
gonegahgah wrote:I do have to ask, do you believe that your 4D is the same one as our 4D?
illyana wrote:Does anyone have any thoughts on how the theory of parallel worlds can play into the fourth dimension? I've searched the internet and found precious little on a connection between the two. Yet if 2D is a series of parallel 1D lines stacked together to form a plane, and 3D is a series of parallel 2D planes stacked together to form a cube, shouldn't the fourth dimension hold a stack of parallel 3D worlds? Does anyone have any information or ideas on this?
Hugh wrote:With Visual Reorientation Illusions (VRIs), one has the experience of being in multiple 3D parallel worlds, each at right angles to each other, and each with its own individual orientation.
gonegahgah wrote:Hi Hugh. I haven't been on here of late. Just too busy.
I would suggest that this VRI is an example of a rotated & mirrored (+/-) set of four 3D spaces with each identical to each other except for different mirroring/rotation combinations.
I think that saying four spaces - for VRI - is a little more accurate than saying 'multiple'; and as long as they remain identical to each other while differently oriented.
This was one of the differences that I had been meaning to offer to you to explain the difference between your VRI 4D and the spatial 4D understood here.
The spatial 4D, generally discussed at this site, has a full 360° of rotation; not just 4 aspects of that rotation.
If you were limited to only flipping 90° at a time, in the spatial 4D here, then you would get a similar effect to your VRI.
In a true 4D space you would not be limited to this 90° flipping.
Having thought of this, but not having had a chance to express it to you yet, I hope this helps you to understand the difference better...
gonegahgah wrote:Hi Hugh,
Could you show me your picture, with the 4 orientations that I've seen you show previously, again?
I should look for it myself by time is a little squeezed...
I would like to have a look at it to see how the two perpendicular views fit into things?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests