Spatial Reasoning

[Milotic !!CNX1hQjddsn No.1903654]

For the purposes of this argument I'm assuming some things. If I have assumed wrong, I want to attribute it to my lack of education on the subject. This is all based on my own ideas.

So, people have trouble envisioning spaces.
The average person has trouble viewing things in three dimensions; sure, you can tell distance- but can you envision objects as existing from all angles? Can you, whilst paying attention to everything else, be aware of the fact that they exist as more than just the flat image you see?

People see stereoscopically; that is to say, that while things appear to be three dimensional, it's actually a trick caused by the combination of two side-by-side 2D images, one from each eye. This is most easily noticed by looking past an object at a further object- you can't have them both in focus at the same time. This is because vision is two dimensional. Depth exists, but perception of it is technically illusory.

This results in an instinctive preference for 2D media, which is what makes three-dimensional art difficult. The average brain simply isn't trained for three-dimensional imaging.

[Milotic !!CNX1hQjddsn No.1903659]

So imagine the difficulty of throwing a fourth dimension into the mix. It's difficult to even perceive.

But wait! There's a way! You see, if you hold a three dimensional object in front of a light, it casts a shadow. That shadow is purely two-dimensional, disregarding variations in the quality of the surface cast upon; the shadow has no depth, it cannot pool. In the z-axis, it exists at a pure zero mark.
This is how we are able to represent three dimensions in two- we observe depth as a shadow of sorts. The still images sensed by the brain are nothing more than the reflections of light from things- from instant to instant, depth does not exist. It's something like the argument about the arrow, wherein every instant the arrow is not moving but in real time it is moving swiftly.

It can be theorized, then, that a four dimensional object would cast a three-dimensional shadow. You wouldn't be able to manipulate it, per se, just as you cannot manipulate a 2D shadow except by moving the surface it is cast upon. It is possible that a 4D object could only cast a shadow upon the surface of another 4D object; I am unable to perceive whether I have any, and therefore cannot test my theory. However, the shadow can be made in three dimensional media.

[Milotic !!CNX1hQjddsn No.1903662]

My prevailing theory regarding 4D spaces follows this general line of thought.
Let's start with a 2D coordinate plane. We can add a third dimension by bending the plane; Let's say it's a window screen. Placing a rock in the center warps the screen, curving it downward. Now, looking at the way that the wires bend around the warping, you can see what the addition of depth does. Some of the holes between wires are stretched outwards; while we know obviously they have changed in area because we're working with a 3D media, were it 2D the surface area would have vastly increased while the circumference stayed the same.

Try and envision it now in three dimensions. The surface area is untouched, while the volume ramps up drastically. You could compare it to a bag of holding from D&D.

I can wrap my mind around it, sorta, but as soon as I try to figure out where in the 3D space your coordinates would be, I get a headache.

Am I full of shit?

[Anonymous No.1903670]

Yeah, I was looking at the tesseract simulations last night and I couldn't get my head round it at all.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.1903676]

It's gonna be fun trying to represent a hypercube with a hologram.

[Anonymous No.1903701]

Perceiving a fourth space dimension is, imo, impossible for a human being, due to the fact that everyone evolves in a (supposedly) 3 dimensional space. We can only be familiar with spaces with 1, 2 or 3 dimensions.

For instance, we can know, thanks to maths, what the projection of a tesseract in a 3D space would be : it's the object such as we imagine with your first pic (I say this because your pic is actually a projection on a 2D space of the projection of the tesseract itself). But, if you had in your very hands a 3D projection of a tesseract, and if you tried to mentally bend it into a fourth dimension, your mind would become full of wtf, because this 4th dimension doesn't fit with your perception of reality. There is no direction in the space that is not a combination of x y and z.

I don't know if what I said was very clear, but it's kind of hard to express what you mean about something you can not really perceive...

[Anonymous No.1903753]

surface areas are only in the imagination

[Anonymous No.1903771]

>>1903670
Thinking less about whole dimensions and more about just distances makes it easier for me.
Due to all the projecting (your eyes are effectively curved surfaces) and shit, you can only see 2 dimensions. 3rd dimension can be perceived by looking at proportions - a smaller ball is probably further away.
Same for 4rd dimension. You can only perceive it by comparing distances. When one surface covers another one, you know the first one is closer.
Once you get this, it becomes easier to visualize 4 dimensional space projections.

[not op No.1903808]

I guess you can percive a 4D structure as a human. Its just too abstract for our minds. Of course we can see tesseract in 2d or 3d but 4d wont be ever able for us too see as we are trapped in 3d world.
I take universe as a 3d world which is flat in 4d and bent to a sphere (same as a hmm Möbius strip with 1 dimension more) - that would explain universe expanding.

[Anonymous No.1903814]

>>1903771
>When one surface covers another one, you know the first one is closer.
>Once you get this, it becomes easier to visualize 4 dimensional space projections.

OK, so the further away surface has greater 3-dimensional depth relative to you (the observer). So, how do I visualise a surface that has more 4-dimensional "depth" relative to another surface?

If the 3rd dimension is illuminated by comparing 2-dimensional surfaces relative positions in the "Z" plane, then isn't the 4th dimension illuminated by comparing 3-dimensional object's relative positions in the "W" plane?
(see image)

0-dimensional "point",
1-dimensional "line",
2-dimensional "surface",
3-dimensional "object",
4-dimensional "?????".

[Anonymous No.1903819]

>>1903771
>When one surface covers another one, you know the first one is closer.
>Once you get this, it becomes easier to visualize 4 dimensional space projections.

OK, so the further away surface has greater 3-dimensional depth relative to you (the observer). So, how do I visualise a surface that has more 4-dimensional "depth" relative to another surface?

If the 3rd dimension is illuminated by comparing 2-dimensional surfaces relative positions in the "Z" plane, then isn't the 4th dimension illuminated by comparing 3-dimensional object's relative positions in the "W" plane?
(see image)

0-dimensional "point",
1-dimensional "line",
2-dimensional "surface",
3-dimensional "object",
4-dimensional "?????".

[Anonymous No.1903821]

>>1903808
>Its just too abstract for our minds.
Neurons can do all this shit.
We see things in 2 dimensions. Not 3, but 2. We just have "2 points of view", which make the depth perception thing easier for us.
I'm pretty sure anyone hooked up to virtual 3d camera (connecting it to a human brain would take some time and technology, but we already have the technology part) and playing some 4d games for a week could easily visualize and understand 4d space.

[Anonymous No.1903823]

>>1903821
I wonder how long it would take from this technology being invented, to it being used for porn.

Not very long...

[not op No.1903824]

>>1903819
indeed it is like this. However the W vector should be at right angle with respect to X Y and Z which cant simply happen in 3d world.

[Anonymous No.1903829]

>>1903819
>2-dimensional "surface",
>3-dimensional "object",
>4-dimensional "?????"
2: area
3: volume
4: presence

Think of the presence of an 'object' which appears and then disappears in a matter of mircoseconds (0.000001 seconds). How then do you perceive it?

[not op No.1903831]

>>1903821
what do you understand as 4d games ?

[Anonymous No.1903832]

>>1903823
4 dimensional porn...

Holy shit.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.1903835]

>>1903832
What the fuck, how would anything 4 dimensional even be attractive?

[Anonymous No.1903837]

>>1903831
Dunno, that Miegakure game?

[Anonymous No.1903843]

>>1903835
How can anything with tentacles be attractive? Because humans are fucking weird, that's how.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.1903846]

>>1903843
How the fuck could you even comprehend 4 dimensional porn?

[Anonymous No.1903849]

>Think of the presence of an 'object' which appears and then disappears in a matter of mircoseconds (0.000001 seconds). How then do you perceive it?

As a 3-dimensional flash?

[Anonymous No.1903850]

>>1903823
Inventing it isn't the difficult part. Making it widespread is.
Some guys hooked up a camera to a guy's TONGUE. It worked. After a while the tongue camera guy could interpret the signals as visual. Even his brain considered it to be visual data - parts of his brain responsible for processing images fired up.
Generating the signal isn't hard. If a fucking tongue can process the visual signal, it means neurons can adapt enough to "translate" things.
3d (viewed all at once) porn is therefore easy. High-quality 3d porn... Analog, raster 3d graphics take exponentially more "space" than 2d ones.
If someone managed to do it, science would have a great new source of cash, though.

[Anonymous No.1903852]

>>1903831
Let's say... 4d maze. 4d tetris (actually 3d, but viewed all at once, without rotations). 4d FPS (HOLY SHIT, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME AS FUCKING FUCK).
There's a 4d space game shooter (open source) somewhere on the Internet. Due to limitations of current graphics, it's not too "realistic" (geometry works, but the interface is clunky), but it's there.

[Milotic !!CNX1hQjddsn No.1903858]

Goddammit, guys, why does my crazy weed idea devolve into sex ;-;

[Anonymous No.1903863]

>>1903846
Just like 3d porn.
Once you learn how to perceive 4d, you can just add porn to it.
The problem is:
How can you get aroused by 4d things without having a very strange fetish?

[Anonymous No.1903866]

Can there be a 3D channel on television that has a program on the television that is in 2D? Like say it was a program about redecorating and they placed a TV down and it was on a Three's Company rerun...

how would that work?-------------------------------------------------------------------

You say Taylor Swift, I say Korn
You say Lady Gaga,I say Paramore
You say Miley Cyrus,I say $lipknot
You say T-Paine,I say Red Hot Chili Peppers
You say Emanem,I say Linkin Park
You say Justin Beiber, I say System of a Down

98% of teens have turned to main stream music.If you are part of the 4% that still listens to real music, copy and paste this message to your sig. DONT LET ROCK "N" ROLL DIE !

[Anonymous No.1903867]

>>1903858
Rule 34 : the tesseract is not an exception.

[Anonymous No.1903874]

>>1903866
>If you are part of the 4% that don't know math, copy and paste this message to your sig.
fag

[Milotic !!CNX1hQjddsn No.1903877]

>>1903866
PARAMORE IS NOT ROCK AND ROLL
/trolled

[Anonymous No.1903921]

>There's a 4d space game shooter (open source) somewhere on the Internet.

http://libregamewiki.org/Adanaxis

[Anonymous No.1903937]

>>1903850
Never have I wanted a source cited so badly.

[Anonymous No.1903967]

Speaking of alternate dimensions, how did sex work in flatland?

[sage No.1903981]

>>1903937

I know what he's talking about regarding the tongue camera. It was a show on the Discovery or History Channel. It's incredibly annoying that I can't remember the name of it, but it's something like "The Amazing Plasticity of the Brain".

Anyway, I found this:
http://tonguevision.blogspot.com/

[Anonymous No.1903983]

is that tesseract gif in op's first post meant to be 4d? i remember a thread on this which had gifs in 5d, 6d and so on iirc. was mindfucking.

[Anonymous No.1904014]

Rules of fightclub:

OP is a faggot.

>art difficult

God damn you must have majored in something retarded. Art perhaps? OP when you pick up a 3d object, even with one fucking eye open do you simply attempt to grasp the 2-d plane in on each side or do you firmly wrap your hand around it?

Holy fucking fuck fuck you are stupid.

[Anonymous No.1904120]

>>1903967
Matter as we know it is not possible in 2 or 4 dimensions. There's a mathematical proof for it (for 4 dimensions at least).
Maybe there could be some "2-matter" and "4-matter", but it would have its own set of laws, which would be like ours only on the most basic level.