[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 36 KB, 380x304, quantum-image1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2707724 No.2707724 [Reply] [Original]

Try to explain to me what a viewer of the 4th dimension would see.

inb4 indescribable/incomprehensible to a 3 dimensional being.

also, if a 4 dimensional being existed, it would be god to us.

>> No.2707738

>>2707724
>4 dimensional being
>God
NOPE.gif

>> No.2707750

>>2707738
why not. I would define a "god" as being omnipresent and omnipotent.

A 4dimensional being would most certainly be omnipresent, though maybe not omnipotent in the same way that traditional theists view god.

>> No.2707752

In simplest terms, we would look to them as 2D images look to us.

>> No.2707758

>>2707750
He wouldn't be omnipresent. We can trivially imagine 2d planes in which we 3d beings would not be omnipresent. Omnipotence is something far beyond what you gain by increasing your dimension once.

>> No.2707765

>>2707724

4 perpendicular vectors.

>>2707750

In that situation you would violate a lot of Quantum mechanical laws. I doubt you can have that.

>> No.2707770

>>2707750
If I'm looking at a painting, am I omniscient about the painting? No. If I can observe a room, I cannot know every detail about the room simultaneously. My field of vision is narrow, my senses are poor and prone to errors, and my memory is faulty as well. Simply allowing me to observe a room definitely does not make me all knowing about the room.

>> No.2707772

>>2707738
meant omniscient not omnipresent, though they would be both.
>>2707752
That is how they would see us, and I can comprehend that we would look like snapshots along the 4 d timeline, but we can see more than 2d, we can see in 3d, as we are living in the 3rd dimension,so what would the 4th dimension look like... not what would the 3rd dimension look like from someone in the 4th dimension.

>> No.2707785

>>2707772
The fuck?

Okay, we can see all aspects of a 2D image.
4D can see all aspects of 3D image.

We would be seen to them like 2D images are seen to us.

>> No.2707792

>>2707724

time travel and infinite speed

>> No.2707797

>>2707752

That's not true. Topologist student here.

>>2707772

Still suffer from the same problem. Imagine a very big 2D image, you can't see all of it. You aren't everywhere in the picture.

The only advantage you will have is being able to do stuff that normal 2D fags can't do like move in 3 dimensions.

On a related topic. Being a 3D being is actually good. 3D is the hardest dimension to think and do Maths in the field of topology.

>> No.2707815

Stephen Hawking talked briefly of 4D in his time travel episode of "Stephen Hawking's Universe".

>> No.2707829

>>2707770

The painting idea is kind of cool.

Imagine you were in the Louvre and walk up to the Mona Lisa. Also imagine that the Mona Lisa was a living being living in the 2D realm.

What would we, a 3D being, look like to her? Would we not seem omnipresent because we can see all of her at once? True enough that if she were the size of a planet we would not be able to see ALL of her. But I believe from her perspective we would be aware of everything.

>> No.2707860

>>2707829
this brings up a good point. Can being omnipotent and omniscient be relative?

Also, the 2 dimensional mona lisa would only see whatever the cross section is of whatever you put through the plane that is her 2 dimensional world. If you stay a certain distance ( depth) away from it and never cross the 2 d plane, she would see nothing.

>> No.2707868

>>2707829

She could only see a 2D cross section of our 3D bodies, when we moved through the same plane as her.

>> No.2707870

>>2707829
No. We would not seem omnipresent. If we were omnipresent, there would be nowhere for her to be. We must come into her 2d realm for her to see us, and she would just see a bounded cross-section of us that would not be at all omnipresent.

There's no reason we would suddenly gain omniscience from a better perspective. It's like saying I'm omniscient when it comes to chess when I look from above the board, and someone looking across it from the same level has some kind of limited knowledge.

>> No.2707871

>>2707860
As a 3d person you may APPEAR omniscient and omnipotent to a 2 dimensional being, but that doesnt make it relative. You simply are not omniscient or omnipotent. Appearing omniscient =/= being omniscient.

>> No.2707915

I hate to link this shit, but it's a pretty good intro to the concepts OP is asking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4

>> No.2707940

If you have time. Great series.

http://www.learner.org/courses/mathilluminated/units/5/?pop=yes&pid=2287#