[ 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: 20 KB, 278x339, 1302160038957.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2926296 No.2926296 [Reply] [Original]

Hi /sci/. Outsider here.
Just wanted to ask you guys a question.
When talking about two-dimensional space in public science-discussions (YouTube, Sagan's Cosmos, FlatLand etc) they talk of two-dimensional beings, specutively of course, and how they would live their lives.

For instance in Cosmos Sagan gives an example of what it would like to be a flat square in flatland and what that square might see were it possible in two dimensional space. Now, what irks me is this:
If you were able to live and experience and see as a two-dimensional being, wouldn't everything appear as a line no matter where you looked? Say you were about to enter your flatland house, you wouldn't only see the house, but the land behind it and in front of it all at once, all merging into a line that stretched out to infinity in every direction.

Don't take this thread seriously, it's just something that has always kind of annoyed me...

>> No.2926327

yes, thats why they usualy assume that things look blurry or faded the farther away it is, that way you would see a line with varieng brightness and out of that you will be able to tell what you are looking at

>> No.2926355

>>2926327

But we're talking about a line so thin that colour, light and even visibility would be so limited there wouldn't be any point in seeing in the first place. (I think I'm starting to take this a bit seriously myself... sigh).

Ok how about this. If you're living in a dimension that is completely two-dimensional then how does vision begin to blur when there is no up or down to you. Varying brightness/fading implies an up and down.

>> No.2926368

>>2926355

>Varying brightness/fading implies an up and down

no. it doesn't

learn 2 optics

>> No.2926395

>>2926296
>>2926327
>>2926355
>>2926368

>Attempting to apply real-world physics to an abstract thought experiment.

Y'all are 'tards. The whole point is to demonstrate an idea. If you really insist on using logic on this, a "2D" creature wouldn't be able to see.

>> No.2926397

>>2926368
How exactly does something fade when you can only see a minute line of that object. You would be viewing light in a single stream as it moves towards you, pretty trippy but any blurring to occur would happen up or down, any blurring left or right wouldn't be visible due to being able to see an entire universe condensed (or split) into a single line.

>> No.2926476

>>2926397

you would still see in a cone of vision- a two dimensional creature would see a line of light, and would extract information from the colour and intensity of that line, as we extract information about three dimensional objects from a two dimensional plane of light.

Blurring is due to scattering of light, in a two dimensional universe the only possible way light could be scattered is in that two dimensional plane- i.e. 'up and down'
'left and right' from the point of the observer would be equivalent to a z axis which doesn't exist in this thought experiment, hence it doesn't happen.

>> No.2926487

Figure this: You've been watching at a 2-dimensional image your entire life...

>> No.2926496

>>2926476
Ah, I see where we're seeing things differently.
In the dimension I'm imagining I see something that is (from a third dimension) like a piece of paper lying on a table, where as I think you're seeing it more like looking down a glass window pane - vertically.
If I looked at your explanation from my point of view it would also not make sense because up and down would be my 'illegal' axis.

>> No.2926520

in 2D light intensity will behave like 1/r, just like in 3d its 1/r^2. so the farther it is the less intense. also, photons will be 2d and thus be able to be detected by the 2d organisms allowing them to see it

>> No.2926522

>>2926476
OP again,
I think I'm starting to understand where you're coming from.
I still feel like it wouldn't be that simple to differentiate foreground from background easily, perhaps if you looked at it from a higher dimensional being looking down on us and finding it incomprehensible that humans can only see what is in front of them but not through/through time.

>> No.2926532

>>2926520
Thanks, kinda makes sense to me. Would be pretty bizarre to experience. =D

>> No.2926545

OP by your logic everything appears to you as a flat image no matter where you look

so within this flat image you see, how can you tell apart a house from the land behind it? well however you do it, a flatlander would do it the same way

and yes, assuming 2D-photons can exist (which you have to for this though experiment), colour and blurryness can most certainly exist

do you want a picture to illustrate that...?

>> No.2926570

>>2926545
Well originally I just meant that you would be experiencing all the light from within that plane at once turning into something akin to what we see as the blackness of space (but of course different because there would actually be light coming toward you.)

>> No.2926577

>>2926545
And yes I do understand how colour and light would work now, thanks.

>> No.2926579
File: 4 KB, 800x175, flatlandview.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2926579

ah well you seem to have gotten the gist of it now but um...
well you're getting one anyway

>> No.2926593

>>2926522

you're basically answering your own question there

in terms of depth perception, stereoscopy would still work in 2d, and the optics of a two dimensional eye would still have a focal plane.

think about it this way- blurring from 'left to right' is as nonsensical to a 2d creature as blurring 'forward and backward' is to us.

A good book to read on this is "flatland" which is basically a cross between a thought experiment and a satire on Victorian social classes.

>> No.2926646

>>2926593
Yeah thanks, I actually ordered Flatland from amazon and received it a couple of days ago. Will be reading it in a few days.

>> No.2926956

You could see only what is directly in front of you, and assuming you have at least 2 eyes, you could see it's distance away. Wouldn't be too hard. You'd have to look all around an object to determine exactly what it is though...

>> No.2926969

The truth is, to see a line it would have to have more than one dimension.

>> No.2928574

Are there such beings?

>> No.2928593

The only 2d life that could exist would be weird ass self replicating cellular automata.

It would be interesting to develop an entire physical system based off a 2d world and then create life forms based on that physics.

>> No.2929588

>>2928593
>somehow i'm suppose to take a faggot seriously who takes evolutionary psychology seriously