Could Visual Reorientation Illusions be 4d Related?

[bo198214]

It's interesting to hear you refer to your "normal" view as "reality" and your flipped view as "imagination".

No, thats no judgement about reality and imagination. It was simply that maybe the window was to my right in reality and in my imagination, in the 180° rotated view, the window was to the left. And because I cannot make the reality change the window to my left, I changed my imagination to the window comes right Thatswhy I conjectured that its not VRI.

A question I have is, if people can see the world from other directions, could this be an indication that there are higher dimensions of space and ourselves in order to allow for this?

But they see the completely same image of the world. So no additional information is gained.

To the topic of seeing in 4d with 2d retinas: You can simply reduce one dimension. Then you would have seeing 3d with 1d retinas (for beeings in 2d). It looks to me as if this scenario doesnt mach your intentions. Seeing with 1d retina in 3d would possibly mean that (if the retina is vertical) horizontal lines become averaged to a point.

Having a look at 2d beeings with VRI. Can you explain their VRI by using the 3rd dimension? The only plausible case I can imagine is changing my viewpoint from above the 2d plane to below the 2d plane. But thats not a (2d)-rotation but a mirroring. This scenario is like my consciousness is 3d but body catched in 2d. So I can move my viewpoint from above to below the existence plane without actually see something different. What results in flipping perceived moving direction. (But as I said not rotation but mirroring.)

The whole thing reminds me of a 3d necker cube.

The necker cube also has to do with changing the viewing sides, but it is again a mirroring. Not a rotation.

Ah, that's the big question, can one see all different possible perspectives at the same time thus seeing the whole of reality and not just a "3d slice" of it?

But by VRI you always see the same thing, you dont see more, though it may feel different and so you feel more (whole).

[Hugh]

Thats why I conjectured that its not VRI.

Okay, if you're only imagining it then it's not a VRI, if you actually sense it and see it flipped, then it is .

But they see the completely same image of the world. So no additional information is gained.

The additional information is involved in seeing light reflected off from other directions. Like Aale theorized, a tetronian view would be able to see light from more directions. With the VRI, you don't turn and look at a different side of an object, you just see the same object in front of you, but the light from it reflected off from other directions.

To the topic of seeing in 4d with 2d retinas: You can simply reduce one dimension. Then you would have seeing 3d with 1d retinas (for beeings in 2d).

If we are actually 4d beings in a 4d universe, then our retinas would have extensions in 4d, but our imaging system might be limited in only being able to process a 3d slice view at any one time within it. If there were a 4d hypersphere directly in front of us, we'd only see a 3d slice of it. If we were 4d ourselves, we'd be able to see the light from that sphere from more directions, but if we didn't move around it, we'd still see the same image of that sphere.

Seeing with 1d retina in 3d would possibly mean that (if the retina is vertical) horizontal lines become averaged to a point.

It's interesting to think about the ramifications of having a limited viewpoint of the space that you are within.

Having a look at 2d beeings with VRI. Can you explain their VRI by using the 3rd dimension?

Well, I'm not saying that we are 3d beings, I think that we may be 4d, in 4d space.

The only plausible case I can imagine is changing my viewpoint from above the 2d plane to below the 2d plane. But thats not a (2d)-rotation but a mirroring. This scenario is like my consciousness is 3d but body catched in 2d. So I can move my viewpoint from above to below the existence plane without actually see something different. What results in flipping perceived moving direction. (But as I said not rotation but mirroring.)

This is an interesting analysis. What if we are 4d but with our consciousness of space catched in 3d? We could move our viewpoint around the cube seeing mirrored reflections without actually seeing something different?

[bo198214]

But they see the completely same image of the world. So no additional information is gained.

The additional information is involved in seeing light reflected off from other directions.

No, the perceived direction is different, the image is completely the same. When you turn to the right and turn then your head to the left then you see completely the same image as you saw before. Though now the light comes from the left instead of the front. But there is no additional information gained (and completely the same light rays involved). Thats, how I understand VRI and you agreed with me in the previous post.

Like Aale theorized, a tetronian view would be able to see light from more directions.

I dont agree with Aale that a tetronian couldnt look into the body of a trionian. A trionian can look inside the body of a duonian. Though that is anyway hypothetical that beeings of different dimensions can contact each other.

If there were a 4d hypersphere directly in front of us, we'd only see a 3d slice of it.

Not a slice but a projection to 3d. Like a picture is a projection of something 3d, but usually not a slice through some 3d.

If we were 4d ourselves, we'd be able to see the light from that sphere from more directions, but if we didn't move around it, we'd still see the same image of that sphere.

From more directions compared to what? When looking from 3d at a slice of a hypersphere I would see a 2d image (with one eye).

Well, I'm not saying that we are 3d beings, I think that we may be 4d, in 4d space.

Ok, then please explain it for duonians that are in reality 3d in 3d! (Thats the essential part of this post und should bring you (and me and perhaps the others ) some more insights.)

Btw perceiving our space as 3d is not limited to seeing. Even a blind man can verify that he can maximally put 3 sticks perpendicular to each other.

What if we are 4d but with our consciousness of space catched in 3d? We could move our viewpoint around the cube seeing mirrored reflections without actually seeing something different?

who knows

[Hugh]

When you turn to the right and turn then your head to the left then you see completely the same image as you saw before. Though now the light comes from the left instead of the front. But there is no additional information gained (and completely the same light rays involved).

You would see your left shoulder in your view :wink: .

I dont agree with Aale that a tetronian couldnt look into the body of a trionian. A trionian can look inside the body of a duonian.

Could a tetronian look inside the body of another tetronian?

Though that is anyway hypothetical that beeings of different dimensions can contact each other.

I personally think that however many spatial dimensions that there actually are in the universe, all physical beings within it have the same number as well.

Not a slice but a projection to 3d.

Could we be 4d looking at 3d projections of 4d objects around us?

From more directions compared to what? When looking from 3d at a slice of a hypersphere I would see a 2d image (with one eye).

What about when looking from 4d at a 3d projection of a hypersphere with 2d-at-a-glance vision? What could you see differently?

Ok, then please explain it for duonians that are in reality 3d in 3d

Duonians in reality are 2d in 2d. Also, I don't know if you've read some of the other threads in the forum discussing what a 2d being could actually see. I personally think that because it looks along the plane of its existence, it can't see anything because a 1d line has no thickness to it. It can't even see its own body or the body of another duonian. It sees 2 less dimensions than what it actually is.

Btw perceiving our space as 3d is not limited to seeing. Even a blind man can verify that he can maximally put 3 sticks perpendicular to each other.

If I may quote quickfur from the "Higher dimensions than 4" thread:

The problem lies in the fact that at our macroscopic scale, only 3 dimensions can be observed. In other words, your bars are too big to fit in the other dimensions, if there are any, so you can only ever have 3 perpendicular to each other. To reach into the other dimensions, you'd need to use sufficiently small bars. Who knows, maybe if you were as small as a proton, you might be able to put 4, 5, or more bars perpendicular to each other.

For an analogy, just think of you were using 10-foot poles to measure the dimension of a 2-feet-wide narrow alley. You'd only be able to have two such poles perpendicular to each other, but that doesn't necessarily mean the width of the alley is zero (i.e. there are only two dimensions in the alley), just that the third dimension is too small for your chosen metric to measure. If you used 1-foot rulers to make your measurement instead, you'd find that you can easily have 3 perpendicular rulers, and therefore conclude that there are 3 dimensions possible in the alley.

Very interesting.

who knows :wink:

Yes, no one knows for sure. We're all trying to figure out the universe. One thing to remember though is that bringing in the existence of more dimensions makes more sense in physics and in math. I'm just hoping the VRI can help in some way.

[bo198214]

You would see your left shoulder in your view :wink: .

Yes, and not even such a subtle change would occur in VRI, wouldnt it? The eyes remains at exactly the same position and would exactly see the same.

Could a tetronian look inside the body of another tetronian?

Probably not.

Could we be 4d looking at 3d projections of 4d objects around us?

Tetroninans yes! Photo sharing in the tetronian family *g* But "we" could then see into the inside of 3d objects.

What about when looking from 4d at a 3d projection of a hypersphere with 2d-at-a-glance vision? What could you see differently?

Sorry, I dont get what you mean. 4d looking means I have complete 3d image on my retina.

Ok, then please explain it for duonians that are in reality 3d in 3d

I personally think that because it looks along the plane of its existence, it can't see anything because a 1d line has no thickness to it.

Nonono, a line (of finite length) in 2d is something like a wall in 3d. It bares a duoanian the way. Light becomes reflected and absorbed by the line. A photo in 2d is a short line packed with colored points (and thats what a dunonian sees with one eye). A wireframe of a 2d cube (i.e. square) would be 4 points. (a tetronian would possibly also ask himself how trionians can see, though their world has no thickness in it, is infinitely thin.)

If I may quote quickfur from the "Higher dimensions than 4" thread

Yes, I read this. But you are not living at a microscopic scale. So this should not matter for your daily life (as VRI is).

And now I still want to have a 3d-explanation of duonian VRI (you dont escape me )

[Hugh]

Yes, and not even such a subtle change would occur in VRI, wouldnt it? The eyes remains at exactly the same position and would exactly see the same.

Yes, nothing in the view changes, only the viewing direction. I think that in 4d space, one could look along the w or z axis and see the exact same x/y plane of vision.

Tetroninans yes!

I'm glad we agree here. :wink:

But "we" could then see into the inside of 3d objects.

If they were only 3d. :wink:

Sorry, I dont get what you mean. 4d looking means I have complete 3d image on my retina.

Don't we have a 3d at-a-glance image sense of the world around us? Do you think a 4d being has a 4d at-a-glance image sense of the world around itself? Could it be limited in any way? What ways would it be limited?

Nonono, a line (of finite length) in 2d is something like a wall in 3d. It bares a duoanian the way. Light becomes reflected and absorbed by the line. A photo in 2d is a short line packed with colored points (and thats what a dunonian sees with one eye).

Well, I don't think that's the case. If you draw a line to show what a 2d being sees, then zoom in on that line a million times, you see that there is a huge thickness to it. There is a second dimension of thickness to the line to allow for viewing. In 2d, the second dimension is just another direction to look in, it can't be used to give a thickness to the line to allow it to be seen.

Yes, I read this. But you are not living at a microscopic scale. So this should not matter for your daily life (as VRI is)

Even though we don't live at a microscopic scale, we exist in an universe made up of microscopic particles, and are made up of microscopic particles ourselves. We can't see on the scale of the Planck length, so what exists on that scale is currently beyond our complete comprehension, but nevertheless, it is real.

And now I still want to have a 3d-explanation of duonian VRI (you dont escape me ) :wink:

I like your earlier explanation of "The only plausible case I can imagine is changing my viewpoint from above the 2d plane to below the 2d plane." :wink:
So how about changing one's 3d viewpoint from one 3d cube in a 4d hypercube to an adjacent cube for a 90 degree flip, or to the opposite cube for a 180 degree flip in 4d space with a VRI? Possible?

[bo198214]

I think that in 4d space, one could look along the w or z axis and see the exact same x/y plane of vision.

And exactly thatswhy I call on you to show this one dimension decremented. If you can make it clear there, then probably it becomes more clear in 4D.

Don't we have a 3d at-a-glance image sense of the world around us? Do you think a 4d being has a 4d at-a-glance image sense of the world around itself? Could it be limited in any way? What ways would it be limited?

I dont know exactly what you mean by "at-a-glance" (maybe due to my limited english). What I have is a 3d imagenation which I match with my sight and my movement. And what I also have is a 2nd eye so I have a raw depth information about what I see. And a tetronian can have that too.

If you draw a line to show what a 2d being sees, then zoom in on that line a million times, you see that there is a huge thickness to it. There is a second dimension of thickness to the line to allow for viewing.

If a duonian zooms in the line it gains no thickness.
If a trionian zooms into the surface of a wall it gets also no thickness.
With your argument the trionians couldnt see anything (when reasoned by a tetronian.)
The retina of the duonian is also infinitely thin, so that does not matter if the line is also infinitely thin. The duonian doesnt recognize that there could be another dimension into which things could gain thickness when zoomed in.

In 2d, the second dimension is just another direction to look in, it can't be used to give a thickness to the line to allow it to be seen.

The line needs no thickness to be seen. It only needs a length. A surface in 3d needs no thickness to be seen, it only needs width and height.

We can't see on the scale of the Planck length, so what exists on that scale is currently beyond our complete comprehension, but nevertheless, it is real.

I only sayed that it probably does not matter for VRIs, which occur not at planck level.

So how about changing one's 3d viewpoint from one 3d cube in a 4d hypercube to an adjacent cube for a 90 degree flip, or to the opposite cube for a 180 degree flip in 4d space with a VRI? Possible?

Simply reduce one dimension. Changing a duonians 2d viewpoint from one square in a 3d cube to an adjacent square for a 90 degree flip, or to the opposite square for a 180 degree flip in 3d space with a duonian VRI? Possible?

(You know you dont escape me )

[Hugh]

Wow bo, we've been at this all day .

(You know you dont escape me ) :wink:

Okay, I know that your knowledge of 4d geometry far surpasses mine, and so does the knowledge of Pat, Wendy and quickfur too .

If all of you think that the VRI isn't 4d related then I bow to your higher thinking about it.

Now, if there is anyone out there with the 4d knowledge to somehow link it up - probably someone who has experienced the VRI and understands it well - then they can make the case much better than I.

For now, thanks to everyone for your thoughts.

[bo198214]

Wow bo, we've been at this all day

Yes, its time to take a rest.
I mean its open whether there are connections to 4d.
But when you reduce one dimension you can verify various ideas for yourself. Maybe it helps you a bit.
Thank you for the enriching discussion.

[thigle]

deleted

[thigle]

you sure 4 exactly and no more ?

I've only ever seen four here on earth. There may be people who have been able to also do not only vertical flips but also all 24 possible flips (4 rotations times 6 sides in a cube). I'm sure that astronauts can do all 24 flips in space if they can focus well. The whole thing reminds me of a 3d necker cube.

so sorry, but again: what are the 4 views available to you via the VRI flips, for exemple when being in front of the computerscreen, reading this forum ? you flip around which of the cube-axis ? the vertical one ?
why considering 24 to be the set of all possible flips ? you can take any other-than-cube polyhedron as the root-base of flipping-axes. for exemple, cuboctahedron has nice 12 face-face axes, each offering 4 flips in your system which gives 48 flip-positions.

quaternion unit sphere is a double-cover of unit rotations in 3-space (i think), so that is the group that a 'free', or 'dimensionality unbound' flipper should look at. i mean, if you can do 4, you can do any: you're just a free vector, bound to a point with its base and free with its end - able to look any direction. (btw is this a kind of tensor ?)

i think that experienced astro/psycho/nauts can do not just groups of discrete flips, but also smooth quaternionic interpolations between any of these axes.

what's the sight that offers itself from the centre that's in the middle of these 4 ? can you try this ? can you centre yourself at that point ? if so, you end up with what Aale de Winkel called tetronian perspective.

Ah, that's the big question, can one see all different possible perspectives at the same time thus seeing the whole of reality and not just a "3d slice" of it? Although I have not been able to do this visually, I have been able to approach it on a spiritual level and I find there is a sense of a "realization of oneness" with all. If one can look in opposite directions and see the same thing, then it exists in the middle, and all is one.

actually, this entails also the frontality of vision. does it break down ?
let's call this all-at-once-perspective a 'total perspective'.
then, in my experience, there is this difference between centrifugal and centripetal total perspective. you can look either from-a-point-all-ways-around or from-outside-inward. wendy distinct this implicitly as surround/around in her polygloss.

so, looking in from periphery, orbiting the percept, one projects onto the surface of a general polyhedron between him & centre of orbiting(=focus of vision). extrapolyhedric projection.
or, turning around oneself, one projects the image on the inside of a general polyhedron. intrapolyhedric projection.
both of these perspectives have their FOVs full-angulum wide: 360^2degrees. one inwardly, other outwardly.
radius of such a vision is 1 infinity.

these 2 are often mistaken for the 'total view', or the 'whole sight' (which requiring r of visual awareness expanding to 2 infinities). but that is the next level, when this inward/outward fields become copresent in 1 indivisible gestalt.

[thigle]

wow bo & hugh, i had the window with the reply to this post opened on my computer almost all day, but had another work, but now that i posted it i see there popped up a dozen of your posts meanwhile.

i still think that there is an indirect connection to 4d, due to the fact that nature (whether physus or logos) is using minimal systems - no unnecessariness. and that is also (in my opinion) embedded in how the mind handles rotations in perception. anyone who writes scripts for rotations in animation software (like 3dsMax or Maya or whatever) knows about the inadequacy of cartesian coordinates and Euler rotation for many rotations. there is even this horrible 'Gimbal-Lock' thing that doesn't even allow certain sequences of rotations to be scripted, as the rotations around different axes cancel out.
the only way to get continuos, smooth rotations, or to animate spins, is to use the algebra which is NATURAL to 3-space (rotations), and that is the quaternion division algebra.
imagine unit quaternions as a sphere centered on a point through which all the possible axes of rotation pass. now each vector from the centre is 1 unit quaternion, with 3 values specifying the direction, and 1 scalar being the amount of rotation. as centrally inverse vectors with reversed signs of amount of rotation represent the same rotations, quaternion unit sphere is the double cover of all possible rotations of whatever in 3space.

i don't know about matrix notation though

[Hugh]

I mean its open whether there are connections to 4d.

Thank you for keeping an open mind about this bo.

But when you reduce one dimension you can verify various ideas for yourself. Maybe it helps you a bit.
Thank you for the enriching discussion.

Thanks bo, I'll think more about your suggestion. Our discussion has led to some new insights into this.

Hi thigle, Your posts are always well above my head but I'll give it a try .

what are the 4 views available to you via the VRI flips, for exemple when being in front of the computerscreen, reading this forum ? you flip around which of the cube-axis ? the vertical one ?

Yes, for me always the vertical one. I can see the computer screen from four different directions if I flip the view around.

why considering 24 to be the set of all possible flips ? you can take any other-than-cube polyhedron as the root-base of flipping-axes. for exemple, cuboctahedron has nice 12 face-face axes, each offering 4 flips in your system which gives 48 flip-positions.

Everyone that I've ever talked to, or have read about, or have experienced myself with regards to the VRI always involves a 90 or 180 degree flip only. There may be others who can do other degrees of flips but I'm not aware of any reference to that. There are four flips possible perceived to be around the vertical axis on earth, with six different ways to orient the up/down perceptual axis in space, six times four equals 24 resultant end flip positions, each with their own definite "feel" of orientation.

wow bo & hugh, i had the window with the reply to this post opened on my computer almost all day, but had another work, but now that i posted it i see there popped up a dozen of your posts meanwhile.

Yeah, I've gone around the clock with this one and then some but its been a lot of fun .

i still think that there is an indirect connection to 4d

Thanks for that thigle, although its hard trying to nail down the exact one.

i don't know about matrix notation though

Your explanations are above my level of understanding, and I don't know too much about matrix notation myself but deep down I have a feeling that there is a 4d explanation for the VRI that involves using higher dimensional matrices.

[thigle]

so one of the flips is face-to-face, i mean opposite to frontal position ?

right angle & its multiples are the easiest to handle. most challenging would be diagonal flips, i suppose.

in the last post, what i am saying is, that if there is this ability to flip, and surely we have it, then its totality of possibilities is SO(3), the group of rotations in 3space.
then another expression of that would be SU(2) which is a subgroup of SO(4).- the group of rotations in euclidean 4space.
clicking the link, you can read that: "The three-dimensional surface of the four-dimensional unit sphere in the quaternions is closed under multiplication, and comprises a group known as SU(2)"
this group is the group of natural rotation-operators for 3-space, and being a subgroup of 4-space algebra unit-sphere, it surely is 4d-bound.

btw, Egan wrote an intriguing sci-fi novel, called 'Unusual angle' or something similar...

sorry for the low comprehensibility level, i'll do my best to get concise from now on, you ain't first on these forums to point that out, so i decided to implement the feedback into my action. :wink:

[Hugh]

so one of the flips is face-to-face, i mean opposite to frontal position ?

Yes, it's looking at the same scene from the opposite direction, on the same perceived level.

right angle & its multiples are the easiest to handle. most challenging would be diagonal flips, i suppose.

I find the right angle flips to be harder than the 180 degree ones myself. Also, I see the 180 degree flip as less of a diagonal flip, more of a straight on flip, but essentially its the same thing.
The links to the special unitary group explanations and pictures were interesting. Somehow there may be a link from these descriptions to a possible VRI higher dimension explanation. On the SO(4) page near the bottom it says:

In the second view, the half-copy of SU(2) is used to produce rotations via RvR–1. These are effectively three-dimensional rotations, since they leave the identity vector unchanged. Left-multiplication with elements from a path around the other, full copy of SU(2) gives a net rotation of T(v)=LRvR–1. For each choice of L, antipodal points R and –R will have the same effect, so as the path is traversed, every slice of SO(4) shown in this view has the same topology as SO(3), the group of rotations in three dimensions.

Although I don't understand this fully, it sounds like something that might help.

btw, Egan wrote an intriguing sci-fi novel, called 'Unusual angle' or something similar...

From what I've been able to gather, it involves a "high school boy who makes a movie in his head". I don't know if there is a VRI connection within it though.

sorry for the low comprehensibility level, i'll do my best to get concise from now on, you ain't first on these forums to point that out, so i decided to implement the feedback into my action. :wink:

Thigle, your education and knowledge is far superior to my own. Words so easily come to you from so many different fields of study. You blend them into a wondrous flow of ideas that encompasses your train of thought. Unfortunately, I'm usually left standing on the platform, unable to catch the train . My inadequacy and inexperience, not yours.

Thanks for being patient with me though.

[thigle]

well, education & knowledge... i wonder how important that is. surely much.
but shitloads of information are still not knowledge if not reflected upon, and only then if actual experience of the reflected upon is enacted, one can speak of wisdom.
so you for exemple can actually induce VRI flips, you have ACCESS, it's not some objective theoretical construction you only reflect upon. you really can experience it and thus truly explore through being it.
which surely is making you wise, as far as this issue goes.

[Hugh]

so you for exemple can actually induce VRI flips, you have ACCESS, it's not some objective theoretical construction you only reflect upon. you really can experience it and thus truly explore through being it.

It looks like by the poll I put up about VRIs that there is someone else on the forum that can consciously do the flips as well. (I didn't answer the poll myself.) Hmm, I wonder who that is? I know Polyhedron Dude has experienced VRIs but I'm not sure how far he has been able to control them.

Also, a question from Katsushiro in the 'pulling it "off the wall"' thread got me thinking about seeing different sides of things in higher dimensions.

Bo's advice is to look at things from a dimension down and see if it can apply to the higher dimensions with regards to the VRI.

Let's say a 2d being is in a 2d plane, and a 3d being turns that plane through the 3rd dimension around 180 degrees. What was facing that 2d being would still be facing it, except it would be facing it from the opposite direction. Because the perception of the 2d being is confined to the plane it is in, it notices only the direction is different, nothing else in the plane has changed, relative to itself.

Let's say a 3d being is in a 3d cube, and a 4d being turns that cube through the 4th dimension around 180 degrees - or, as I think I understand, through the plane as it were. What was facing that 3d being would still be facing it, everything would still be the same around it - even if everything is mirror image, the fact that the being would be mirror image as well, would mean that the positions of things relative to that being would be the same, but that being would be looking at the same things from relatively the opposite direction as before. (Talking strictly geometry here.)

Now, what if that being is actually 4d, in 4d space. Would it then be possible, in the course of moving around within that 4d space, to see the same cube view from opposite directions? Or even from a different 90 degree direction?

[thigle]

Would it then be possible, in the course of moving around within that 4d space, to see the same cube view from opposite directions? Or even from a different 90 degree direction?

i heard that in projective spaces with odd number of dimensions, that are thus multiply connected, going 'through' infinity one comes back reversed, rotated, flipped or inversed.
this would not apply in RP4 as its dimension is even.

someone more skilled could explain perhaps.

however, by rotating an object through flat E4 (by ??? degrees), its projection into E3 is mirrored: it seems inverted.

[Hugh]

I came across this page:http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mbg15/superstrings/superstrings.html while looking for information on even/odd number of dimensions for the universe.

Here is a quote from the above: "In any number of dimensions chirality depends on the outcome of successive mirror reflections along all the spatial axes. When space has an odd number of dimensions, mirror reflection along each spatial axis gives an odd number of reflections, and so a left-handed shape is transformed into a right-handed one. When space has an even number of dimensions, a reflection along each spatial axis leaves any shape unaltered: the reflected image can be rotated into the original shape.

How many dimensions the universe actually has is not yet confirmed, there are various string theories out there for example. Would the above quote then, point more to an even number of dimensions for the universe, if the VRI is somehow related to higher dimensions?

[jinydu]

As I said before, it is illogical to ascribe VRI to extra dimensions when there are much simpler explanations. A far more likely explanation is not getting enough sleep.

[Hugh]

As I said before, it is illogical to ascribe VRI to extra dimensions when there are much simpler explanations. A far more likely explanation is not getting enough sleep.

Hi jinydu,

Well, I've found that the amount of sleep I get has little to do with experiencing VRIs, or controlling them.

You're entitled to your opinion about the VRI not being related to extra dimensions, as most people would probably dismiss the idea. The only problem with dismissing new ideas because they are improbable is that sometimes one ends up not discovering something new. Science is advanced by exploring new ideas. This forum section is about new fourth spatial dimension theories. One can just dismiss any theory in here as improbable and leave it at that or one can think about the possibilities related to them, and try to see how they might be possible. This is a theoretical forum, a place to share new ideas and help each other.

Here is an experience that many people have, that reveals new directions in which to view the dimensions of space around us. The fact that we haven't got a theory of everything yet, means that we don't fully understand the workings of the universe. As I've shown by Michio Kaku's quote, things are actually more easily explained when extra dimensions are allowed for.

It's not like I'm saying that the VRI is related to higher dimensions and there is nothing showing that higher dimensions exist. I'm saying that there are logical theories that explain the universe by bringing in higher dimensions, and that the VRI might be an indication of our experience of those higher dimensions.

You can just keep on dismissing it, or you can stretch your thinking to hypothetically theorize about how that might be so. It's easy to be a naysayer, hard to make a new path of understanding.

[moonlord]

It looks like by the poll I put up about VRIs that there is someone else on the forum that can consciously do the flips as well.

I am the one, if I may say so. I can consciously perform 90 and 180 degrees rotations, even up/down rotations. It helps me if it's quiet. However, I couldn't do any flip till now.

My opinion on VRI's is that the phenomenon is not related to 4d at all, it's just because of the way our brain works. I totally agree with Jinydu on Occam's Razor.

[Hugh]

Hi moonlord,

I am the one, if I may say so. I can consciously perform 90 and 180 degrees rotations, even up/down rotations. It helps me if it's quiet. However, I couldn't do any flip till now.

That's fascinating! Nice to talk to another person who can do the flip.

Okay, so the flips are always 90 or 180 degrees right? Same as I've experienced. I've never done an up/down flip. How does it feel? How do your cardinal directions end up relative to where they were? Can you do an up/down flip, choosing where your cardinal directions will end up relative to where they were? Can you do a horizontal axis flip? If so, you would then be able to do all 24 possible flips, here on earth! Do you have a definite "feel" for each perspective flip of your surroundings?

When you say that you couldn't do any flip till now, does this mean that you never experienced them at all before? Or did you experience them before but only involuntarily, and only now can consciously control them?

I'm also curious if anything from this thread helped you to do the flip initially, or did it happen before you read anything here?

My opinion on VRI's is that the phenomenon is not related to 4d at all, it's just because of the way our brain works. I totally agree with Jinydu on Occam's Razor.

No problem, that's fair enough. There likely is a simpler 3d explanation for the phenomenon.

Just curious though, do you think that it is possible that there are higher dimensions to the universe, and if so, what would our experience of them be, realizing of course, that we would be higher dimensional as well?

[thigle]

hey you flippers can (and want) anyone of you draw or even better and more simply sketch, scan, and upload it here ?

for exemple, could you locate yourself in some 'simply sketchable' space (like small room with just as many objects in it as to discern different planes bounding the room-volume, or some notation of different planes to allow understanding of flips.
let's say that you draw all the perspectives of all the flips you can do, each of you two. that might be not that much work.

could any of to or you 2 do it ?
for the benefit of yourself (it surely will reveal similarities and differences between your mastering/realisation of this skill, allowing further discussion and refinement),
as well as for the benefit of others (seeing is different than thousand words, in a certain sense, i for exemple, still am not sure that i know how exactly you mean it when you say you do the flip, however, i can draw seeing weird perspectives and blow-ups and fisheyes, and if you can do it, and astronauts and others seem to be able to do it, i(and others) surely would be able to imagine into it).

1 such minimalist sketch might be just few dozens of lines, with slow drawing of 10 sec/per line, which is around 10 min per sketch, at most. what do you think ?

[Hugh]

Hi thigle,

My own experience only involves 4 flip positions. One could visualize the first position as a perceived 3d toy block, sitting on a table in front of you, representing your 3d "cube" view of the room and universe that you are in. Position 2 involves rotating the block along the vertical axis 90 degrees clockwise. Position 3 is 90 degrees clockwise from there (this is also 180 degrees clockwise from position 1). Position 4 is 90 degrees clockwise from there (or 90 degrees counter-clockwise from position 1).

Each view can be accessed from any other view, by either a 90 degree clockwise or counter-clockwise flip, or a 180 degree flip.

Now, there is a question as to where to put the 4 blocks in a diagram that shows all four views together. Different possibilities include putting four individual blocks with their individual spaces not containing each other, but only beside one another. (Think of drawing a square on the table in front of you, then drawing a cross inside it, then placing the four cubes in each corner with the inside faces touching each other.) Another possibility is to draw four different cubes all within the same space.

The thing about each view is that you know it is still you within each view, yet the space around you seems like it is in a new space. So you know all the spaces coexist, yet you feel that they are individualistic in nature.

Moonlord, or an astronaut might be able to explain how the 24 possible views all fit together. I think it would be an extension of what the 4 cube possibilities are, as I mentioned above.

There is a site that shows 3d cubes folding up into a 4d hypercube that I've often thought about: http://www.math.union.edu/~dpvc/math/4D/folding/welcome.html

There is another site that shows at the bottom some cube flipping animations within the hypercube: http://www.mathematische-basteleien.de/hypercube.htm

It is interesting to try to visualize how our 3d cube view of the universe would possibly be capable of flipping around in hyperspace, and these sites show what I think are some possibilities.

[moonlord]

I don't think I made myself quite very well understood. I don't think I understood VRI's as you (and others) call them.

The conscious 'movements', as I call them, are exercises of imagination. I can imagine I float around, rotate and even see 360 degrees. For some seconds, I can 'by-pass' my vision, meaning I 'see' what I was imaging. When I return to reality, the world 'shifts' again in place, and I once fell from the impresion everything rotated around.

I managed to do a vertical 180 degrees rotation only once. This was like suddenly realising I'm on the ceiling and falling. I really had the impresion of falling for an instant, although I was laying on my bed. The flips, as in 'image seen mirrored', are something I haven't managed to do yet.

So, the conscious VRI's are, for me, the ability to truly believing that what you think is what you see. On the other hand, the inconscious VRI's sound like 'plain old confusion' to me (as someone said in the beginning of the thread).

I think 90 and 180 degrees 'movements' are preffered because almost all things are parallel or perpendicular in the man-made world. I believe that, if all rooms were hexagonal (regular) and the streets were crossing at 60 degrees, the 'movements' were performed especially at 60 or 120 degrees. I'd like to be in a circular room .

[Hugh]

It seems that what you've experienced is different than the VRI.

So, the conscious VRI's are, for me, the ability to truly believing that what you think is what you see. On the other hand, the inconscious VRI's sound like 'plain old confusion' to me (as someone said in the beginning of the thread).

VRIs for me result in the same thing whether they are consciously or involuntarily produced. The world view gets flipped around exactly the same.

I think 90 and 180 degrees 'movements' are preffered because almost all things are parallel or perpendicular in the man-made world. I believe that, if all rooms were hexagonal (regular) and the streets were crossing at 60 degrees, the 'movements' were performed especially at 60 or 120 degrees.

This is possible. I wonder if there has been any research on this aspect of VRIs. I've only ever experienced VRIs at 90 or 180 degrees though myself, and have only ever read or heard about those degrees of flips.

I'd like to be in a circular room .

How about a perceived spherical room, with no identifying markings, in a weightless state?

[moonlord]

In this case, you really might need to do some drawings for me and thigle and perhaps others to understand...

[thigle]

yeah hugh come on ! it can be simpler to draw than you think, as well as really simply and fully effective in communicating this issue.

before i say what i wanna say, let me distinct between object-oriented & viewer oriented(aka observer-centered) transforms.
first case would be that you as observer orient in relation to what is observed, for ex. observing a house, you can re-orient/re-position yourself in relation to it by walking around, while it stays still.
observer-centered would be you standing at the sam place, and the environment that surrounds you would change: for exemple, you're within a room, and you look around.

then, from your last post, i started to think that it is like this:

the distance to the object at which you focus (let's say it's a starship you float around like an astronaut in outer space) is the radius of the flip.

you state

...rotating the block...

.

does it mean that VRI's are object-centered ? in our exemple with spaceship, rotating it around itself, let's say 90 deg CW, is equivalent to rotating the viewer (you - the astronaut) around it 90 de CCW.

so is it correct to state that what you experience (VRI) is object-centered transform(rotation) with your distance to/from it as radius ?


( or is it not, and the whole space undergoes inversion ? or no inversions, just rotations ? i cannot understand clearly the ralation/co-presence of consciousness/feeling of VReorientationI with your embodiment, the place of your actual body-sense and consequently the place-sense. if observer moves, than the body-sense is ignored for the time of VRI ? is it just relocated to new viewing position and the 'old' body-sense is left behind until regained by re-orienting back? )

[Hugh]

Just think of you inside the center of a block, facing forward. Now pick up the block and rotate it 90 degrees clockwise and put it back down again. That's what it feels and looks like, only the rotation is instant. It's still the same you but facing in a different direction. The wall that you were looking at in a "forward" direction is now being faced in a "right" direction relative to where it was. North has become east relatively speaking, but from the perspective of you inside the room, you're still looking north because everything has flipped around with you.

so is it correct to state that what you experience (VRI) is object-centered transform(rotation) with your distance to/from it as radius ?

I feel that the rotation is centered at the point of my brain's vision center.

( or is it not, and the whole space undergoes inversion ? or no inversions, just rotations ?

For me, I don't end up inverted or mirror image, just rotated around. Think of it this way. Build a room that is sitting on a pivot point underneath it at the center. Go inside the room and stand in the center, and face a wall, marked "#1". Have someone turn the room 90 degrees clockwise (if looking at the cube from directly from above). Now, you're still facing wall #1, but you're looking at it from the direction that was previously on your right. With the VRI, not only the room you are in but the entire universe has rotated around with you, and it has occured instantly. With four rotations possible, you can see the room, and universe from four different perspectives. Each one has its own feel and you know which one you're in once you see it from different ways.

i cannot understand clearly the ralation/co-presence of consciousness/feeling of VReorientationI with your embodiment, the place of your actual body-sense and consequently the place-sense. if observer moves, than the body-sense is ignored for the time of VRI ? is it just relocated to new viewing position and the 'old' body-sense is left behind until regained by re-orienting back? )

You still sense and know that it is you, but your directional sense has been turned around. You have memories from within each of the four different views though, that are directly linked to that view, and that view only.
The necker cube reorientation is closely related to the VRI. Here is a site that shows it: http://www.healthyeyes.org.uk/index.php?id=145
Let's say you're inside that 3d cube view facing the beige wall and it is facing "away" from the direction you are looking at it on your computer screen - its the far wall. Now do the necker cube flip and that beige wall is now the "close" wall to you looking at the computer screen. But you'll see that from the point of view of someone in the cube, it has done a 180 degree flip!

Picture yourself being within a necker cube universe .