/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7095726
Yes, it makes sense. And the answer is no to your other questions.

Close one eye. Things look the same except you have a more narrow field of view.

Also, we don't 'see' 3 dimensions, we're actually viewing 2 dimensions and shading lets us understand things in 3d

So no

>>7095740
>Also, we don't 'see' 3 dimensions, we're actually viewing 2 dimensions and shading lets us understand things in 3d

We do see 3 dimensions though, the distance between our 2 eyes lets us perceive depth, the 3rd dimension. Shading helps us perceive form, but it's not entirely responsible for our perception of depth.

think about it like this: with one eye you see a 2D plane. with another eye that is displaced in the 3D dimension from the 1st eye you see 2 different 2D planes to make 3D out of it.
So i guess if your 3rd eye was displaced in the 4th dimension (i guess you could imagine it like the eye always seeing a second ahead) you can see in 4D (kinda). although i think you would have 2 extra eyes, not one, that are displaced in 4th dimension

If you had two sets of two eyes you could see two 3-d images at once so you might be able to, with the appropriate brain image stitching and content fill, be able to render moving objects a little while into the past for a sort of 4-d effect.

You don't see in 3d. You see two slightly different 2d images, and from that you infer things about 3d space. You would do exactly the same with three eyes - you would see in 2d and infer things about 3d space based on a comparison of 2d images.

>>7095980
technically we don't see images at all but only individual photons. using your reasoning, of course.

The fourth dimension is theoretical at best. In science, it is time. Those who try to emphasize on this say that the fourth dimension would appear as multiple happenings at once. What one may ask is, "is an eye an instrument with enough capacity to process this dimension?".

>>7095983

How is that my reasoning?

>>7095726
1 0D eye = 0D vision
2+ 0D eyes = 1D vision
1 1D eye = 1D vision
2+ 1D eyes = 2D vision
1 2D eye = 2D vision
2+ 2D eyes = 3D vision

1 nD eye = nD vision
2+ nD eyes = (n+1)D vision

no amount of 2-dimensional eyes is enough: to be able to see another dimension (implying it exists) we would need a 4-dimensional eye or two 3-dimensional eyes

>the 4th dimension

>>7095726
You need 4D eyes to see 4D.

Our eyes see in 2D and use shading and lightning to detect 3D.If our eyes could see in 3D then that means we could see behind corners and see the front,sides and back of every object we are looking at simultaneously that is true 3D vision.

>>7096188

>You need 4D eyes to see 4D.
not necessarily, two 3D eyes are enough

>Our eyes see in 2D and use shading and lightning to detect 3D.
nope, our mind produces 3D combining two 2D images

>If our eyes could see in 3D then that means we could see behind corners and see the front,sides and back of every object we are looking at simultaneously that is true 3D vision.
it just doesn't work like that

>>7095971
That makes more sense theoretically, although I don't see how it would work, since we can't see into the future. We could however say that the third eye looks in the past, our memories. This probably has some applications in decision-making

And with 0 eyes we would see in 1 dimensions, right?

This theory completely falls apart when you consider flies and other insects with a large number of eyes.

our eyes can actually perceive up to six dimensions: the three physical ones plus the three dimensions of color space

>flies cursed to perpetually gaze into the infinite
>time is merely a concept to flies
>flies see all that is, and ever will be
>'flies' is a misnomer, there is only one fly
>one fly strewn across existence
>the fly transcends that which is comprehensible
>the fly watches its own death many times
>this does not phase the fly

>>7096414
well it wasn't supposed to make actual sense. OPs question is just a theoretical question anyways

>>7096533
HAHAHA!!
>underrated post

>>7096533
This

>>7095726
define the 4th dimension

wait, actually, it doesn't matter. because of course a third eye wouldn't allow us to see the 4th dimension.

>>7096533

>>7095740
>>7095749
Parallax isn't truly seeing in 3 dimensions, it does allow us to perceive distance. Because of time we can actually move around an object and perceive it in full 3 dimensions though.

In order to see in 3 dimensions you need to see from every angle.
4th dimension might be x-ray from all dimension.
5th dimension would be I don't know yet.

>>7098256
Exactly and we can do this, not at any singular point in time, but over the course of time we can.

>>7096533
dat filename