/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10801277
but time IS the 4th dimension, so your question is fucking retarded and makes no sense!

>>10801277
We can only perceive 2D images. Imagining the 3rd dimension is just a result of experience. I know a tree is 3D because I can move around it, and view it as various 2D images. In order to understand 4D you would first need the ability to perceive in 3D

>>10801294
wouldn't that be true if the eye was a flat surface? I'm pretty sure we percieve things in 3D

>>10801305
We don’t, though. We perceive reality as two dimensional. The only reason we know it’s 3D is because of experience. If you lived your whole life seeing the same image of a tree in a meadow, and you never moved your perspective, you wouldn’t understand what the 3rd dimension is. A 4D being sees everything in 3D, sees all 2D images of an object at once, just as when we look at 2D images, we see all the 1D images

>>10801321
I guess that makes sense but you have to account we have two eyes each with slighlty different perspective
if I looked at a tree and could close one of my eyes I would also knew it's 3D

>>10801336
It doesn’t matter how far apart your eyes are, you still see a 2D image

>>10801351
http://scecinfo.usc.edu/geowall/stereohow.html
shit you're right anon

>>10801294
Adding on, we have a complete understanding of the 3rd dimension when we se all 2D images, so a 4D being will have a complete understanding of the 4th dimension when it sees all 3D images. But what can this mean? If it can view a tree from all angles at once, then what other angles are there? How else can it view the tree? I can only imagine that time is the crucial component, that allows the being to see all 3D images across time, just as we use time and 2D images to form a view of the 3rd dimension.

>>10801362
Also, since, in our world, 2D images are blocked due to the 3rd dimension, a 4D being should be able to view all objects in our universe, or at least a very large area, all at once, from every 2D angle. It could see through walls

>>10801277
Yes.

Its fucking trivial. Literally.
https://www.quora.com/In-an-online-lecture-a-professor-mentioned-that-Einstein-could-draw-or-imagine-a-4-dimensional-figure-How-can-one-possibly-do-that

See Amit answer.

If you want to go further, and visualize 4th + dimension shapes as they intersect 3 dimensions, Etienne Ghys has some good ressources.

4th dimension is change

>>10801277
Dimensions aren't real.

>>10801294
I literally think in 3D objects/special layout of objects.
It’s probably the same way as with people thinking with images, I don’t talk to myself internally too.

>>10801565
only acceptable anwser itt

I can easily imagine a 4d object rotating, with me standing at its center, in my mind. The 3rd axis kinda gets warped/projected into/onto the "background" of the mental image and wraps around through the mental camera.

I can not, however, imagine the object itself.

>>10801305
the retina is pretty flat my dude

>>10801749
For me I can barely imagine moving in a straight line in a 4d object (experiencing it in 3d)

>>10801277
I can imagine the 4th dimension in a mathematical context. I can imagine "forms" in which lower dimensional inputs map to 4th dimensional "forms", but it is not a true visualisation like it is with 3 dimensions or lower. If that doesn't make sense it's because t's impossible to really describe with words.

>>10801277
You can't imagine something that doesn't fucking exist.

i depends on how you visualize it. Easy way is just take time as the 4th dimension. The computer in front of you, is no longer the computer it was a moment ago. It might not have moved in 3 dimensions but it did in the 4th.

>>10802543
it's really the same as imagining 3 dimensions (or however may) as sliders with different values for each 'point'. The cubes flipping inside out animations are bullshit you use to confuse people and make them feel dumber than you. Presenting any amount of dimensions in a different dimension system is all up to how ever you want to present it. A sheet of paper is a 3d object, a drawing on it is just a representation of something 2d~

ub

>>10802433
you have some shit imagination

>>10801277
/sci/ is all philosophy majors, they can all answer to these questions but none can help with any math problem proposed.

>>10801277
Everyone can!
You just need some LSD

>>10801277
If the 4th dimension exists at all it is impossible to perceive with our mere human minds. However one theory I've discussed a few times is whether black holes are 4D beings, or at least 4D objects.
Imagine you are a 2D organism and a 3D organism puts their hand into your cross section of existence, you wouldn't be able to logically explain it let alone identify it, as all you wouls see is nothingness. Now bring that experiment up to 3D. Black holes *absorb* all light and matter unlike anything else we know of in the universe and what does a black hole look like? Nothingness.
Something to think about

>>10804444
nice quads

Everything is 3D and only 3D. Even the example people give of 2D, being a drawing on a piece of paper. Albeit thin, the sheet of paper is three dimensional and if you were to examine under magnification, the ink from the pen you drew it with sits on to of the paper, thus being 3 dimensional.

>>10802433
That statement is a two edged sword, with which I will cleave this planet in twain.

>>10801277
yes, imagining 4-dimensional euclidan space is quite trivial; it is simply a "movie" of 3-dimensional slices

it is also possible to visualize more complicated 4-dimensional spaces; an example is given in the link below, with a more comprehensive treatment given in the book by gompf and stipsicz

https://homepages.math.uic.edu/~kauffman/MKirbyCalculus.pdf

>>10801277
My soviet linear algebra professor can visualize up to n dimensions.

>>10801293
No it's not, fucktard

>>10801277
yes in the same way a 4d array is possible in a computer, you can imagine 4dimensions of freedom.
idk about 4d of space

>>10801277
Unfortunately, we humans can't imagine more dimensions that the 3D that we live in, and the forward time dimension of course. So it's just a mathematical trick.

>>10804785
>trivial
Fuck off

>>10801534
>Its fucking trivial.
if you have a spatial IQ of like 160, maybe.
>>10801277
It's just one of those things that sets the bleeding edge apart from the rest of us. You will never be able to do this, I will never be able to do this, but inevitably some genetically gifted faggot will always be going around telling you how easy it is just to gloat.

>>10805216
keep seething brainlet

>>10801277
Thurston, who is maybe the best visual thinker of all time, mentioned that he learned to think in higher dimension by training

No, it would be impossible to imagine a 4th spacial dimension for us humans who can only perceive in 2D and understand 3D.
4D "images" are just a two-dimensional way to represent four dimensions three-dimensionally

I can easily imagine higher dimension, even something such as 18th or insert arbitrary #. I have to work backwards to 4D though. So to imagine 8D I have to build up from 4D to 5D to 6D and so on.

>>10801294
most of us actually have more than one eye

>>10801294
>close eyes
>hold coffee mug
>somehow this retard percieves the coffee mug as flat

>>10807285
Visually, you are correct. Phenomenologically? Not so.

>>10802433
It can, perhaps we just can't perceive it.

>>10801293
>but time IS the 4th dimension
What's with all these retards who can't understand the concept of more than one definition for a term?
A dimension can be any measure you want. In OP's case he's clearly talking about a 4th spatial dimension, not about time.
It just means instead of having a box that's 3 X 6 X 1 you have a box that's 3 X 6 X 1 X 2. It's one additional number in a coordinate system.

>>10804451
Wouldnt we see a 3 dimensional cross section of the 4th dimensional being? If you stuck your hand into a 2 dimensional space an organism living there would just see skin