[ 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: 414 KB, 735x1000, 1302989780460.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213035 No.3213035 [Reply] [Original]

What's the evolutionary benefit to being 3 dimensional?

If we evolved in a vaccuum would we not be two dimensional creatures?

TL;DR we're only 3 dimensional because of our environment.

>> No.3213040

>TL;DR we're only 3 dimensional because of our environment.
Yes, both because the enviroment is 3D and it's impossible to be 2D
Sage

>> No.3213050

Being a 2 dimensional, 4 dimensional, or even a one dimensional creatures is certainly possible

>> No.3213059

>>3213050
no it isnt

>> No.3213065

evolution can't occur in a 2 dimensional space.

What pressures would be put on them?

None of them could eat the others, because digestion tracts aren't possible with only 2 dimensions.

>> No.3213076

not even remotely possible in this universe! why would a vacuum matter? if you had a 2d creature it would not be made of atoms. maybe a 4d creature, but it would have to incorporate a presently hidden dimension of molecular construction in its being.

a 2d or n-D creature is completely hypothetical and not possible within the parameters of the known universe.

>> No.3213077

>>3213065

evolution already occurs in a 2 dimensional space
l2 biological algorithms

srs, where do you learn your shit?

>> No.3213081

atoms are required to form in 3dimensions...

>> No.3213088

I decided to be 4d this one time, felt good man.

>> No.3213099
File: 18 KB, 200x242, 1307429295733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213099

>>3213077

>> No.3213103

>If we evolved in a vaccuum would we not be two dimensional creatures?

no

>>3213035
>we're only 3 dimensional because of our environment

We're only 3D because there are no 2D atoms in the physical universe.

>> No.3213116

>>3213103
Ok faggot then explain why we experience the fourth dimension if it wasn't needed for evolution?

Just as we need the third dimension because it is beneficial for evolution

>> No.3213130

>>3213116
obvious troll, but

>>beneficial
biased towards survival
>>we experience the fourth dimension
whattheffuckareyousmoking.jpg.dll.png.gif

time is not the fucking fourth dimension
there is no evidence that suggests that we can take the value of 4 directions that all form at right angles to each other

>> No.3213135
File: 399 KB, 5000x4989, 20101015-202701.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213135

Herpaderping thread full of stupid speculations and devoid of facts?
Herpaderping thread full of stupid speculations and devoid of facts!
>my face when I could answer those questions, but won't, because my post would get ignored and buried under tons of ignorance

>> No.3213136
File: 30 KB, 465x446, 13-are-you-serious-face.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213136

This universe only has three gross spatial dimensions that are stable and large enough to contain stable matter and energy.

You have no idea what the fuck you are talking about OP. I bet you think the fourth dimension is where the spirits and ghosts are, you moron.

>> No.3213133

Well, I don't know about two dimensional, but I know a lot of one dimensional people.

Oh, boy, I crack myself up!

>> No.3213151

>>3213136

Prove that our evolution wouldn't be different based on how many dimensions our environment was.

>> No.3213161

>>3213136
>I bet you think the fourth dimension is where the spirits and ghosts are
No, it's always
>4th dimension is time, moron

>> No.3213165

"evolving in vacuum"
The idea itself is so retarded that my CPU worked like a 386 for a couple of seconds

>> No.3213169
File: 68 KB, 600x446, 17IgvSd7o9WFLB8xWQJFKQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213169

>>3213161

Spatial dimensions you smeghead.

>>3213151

What the fuck are you talking about? No shit it would be different. But there's only three dimensions that the matter that makes us can exist in in this universe.

I don't know who's trolling anymore.

>> No.3213179

OP...what

we exist in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, hence we must be 3 dimensional. when you say 'can we exist as 4d creatures', i don't think you know what you're talking about. there are only 3 spatial dimensions. unless you mean something like being able to move freely through the 4th dimension, which is something else entirely.

>> No.3213200

>>3213169
Really faggot?

So the shadow of a box is 3 dimensional? Really now? Go fuck yourself and choke on a burning bag of dicks

>> No.3213206

>>3213200

Where did I imply otherwise?

How did you even infer that?

>> No.3213215

>>3213206

> But there's only three dimensions that the matter that makes us can exist in in this universe.

What dimension is a shadow in faggot? It is two dimensional, it has length and width. It has no depth. It has depth based upon the depth of the surface it is extended upon.

Therefore it is a two dimensional object on a three dimensional surface. Whereas we are three dimensional objects on a four dimensional surface.

Take for example: if we evolved as two dimensional creatures on a three dimensional surface, how would our evolution be different than it is today?

seriously, are you all fucking buttflustered and confined to thinking what CNN and /popsci weekly/ tells you? did you ever learn creative thinking in your institutions of the establishment?

>> No.3213229
File: 25 KB, 160x160, 1305585373845.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213229

>>3213215

Uh no. A shadow isn't an object. It's an area where less or no light is bouncing back to your eyes due to something blocking said light from getting there and then, as said, to your eyes.

>> No.3213235

>>3213035
any nudes on this bitch?

>> No.3213239

>>3213229

Therefore a section of light whereas the light meets your eyes is also not an object.

Shit we have some dumb motherfuckers in here.

See: Proof by contradiction

>> No.3213241

>>3213200
>implying a shadow is an object, rather than the lack of light on a 3d object
>idiots these days

>> No.3213245

>>3213200
shadow of a box is not a thing. It's just place where less light drops.

>> No.3213249

>>3213241

light = form of energy

OK? still with me massive retard?

you're saying a shadow (Lower energy levels) is not an object

YOU'RE SAYING, still with me faggot?
that energy is not an object
therefore by inheritence everything in this universe is not an object

tl;dr you're a massive fucking retarded faggot who should choke on a massive bag of burning dicks

>> No.3213260
File: 74 KB, 549x585, 1275526625817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213260

>>3213239

How is it not an object?

A shadow is a lack of light. The information that's returned to you from a lack of certain visual stimulus is viewed as a blackness. How could something like that be an object?

And you're using 'object' too broadly. An object is a physical thing that has presence in the physical universe. Concepts and ideas and qualia are not objects but do exist.

And say it's raining. Is the space inside your house where there isn't rain an object in the fact that there is no rain there? No it's not, it's a space with other objects in it. And yet, the rain itself is still an object.

>> No.3213271
File: 57 KB, 582x768, 1305593584065.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213271

>>3213249

A shadow is not a physical opposite or complement to light. It is an area where there is less light, there is not an entity that "is" the shadow.

>> No.3213275

>>3213260

If that space where there is no rain is created when there is rain not in that place, then rain being there creates that object by default.

>> No.3213282

>>3213249
this is quite possibly one of the dumbest posts i've ever seen on /sci/. thanks for the laughs.

i said the lack of light is not an object, not that light isn't an object.

if i show you a vacuum in empty space, you'd say there was nothing there, right? by your stupid logic, i could say "HERP DERP R U SAYING THAT MATTER IS NOTHING U SO DUM LOL".

>> No.3213284
File: 9 KB, 185x210, 1305692208191.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213284

>>3213275

Define, by your logistical understanding of the word, what 'object' means.

>> No.3213287

>>3213249
lack of energy != energy.

>> No.3213288

mfw the biggest troll of the night gets so many serious responses

>> No.3213295

>>3213275
mymindisfulloffuck.jpg

just think about what you're saying for a second. the lack of an object does not make a new object. it just makes the lack of an object. a vacuum is not an object.

i don't even know why i have to explain some of these things.

>> No.3213302

>>3213284

an object is something that has a set reference given to its origin and can be described with attributes that are relative to any other object's origin

>> No.3213307
File: 90 KB, 700x467, 1305788556135.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3213307

>>3213288

Not at one point did I take this thread seriously, I'm simply using this as a troll training ground to hone my counter-crank trolling abilities.

>> No.3213314

Let's assume a creature can exist as a 2D lattice of atoms. All a predator has to do is pop into the third dimension to grab it, and the creature can't possible see it coming. A predator working in 3 dimensions has a massive advantage, and to defend itself from such a predator, a creature also has to move in 3 dimensions.

The same would be the case with 4D I guess, and seeing as we aren't dead yet, either my reasoning is faulty, or one can't exist in 4 dimensions.

>> No.3213315

first time on /sci/
why the fuck are people responding to this seriously

>> No.3213330

>>3213314

Or the 3 dimensional creatures haven't needed the 4th dimension for survival, therefore not evolving that trait "yet"

>> No.3213367

>>3213330
True. There's also the factor that a creature can only provide a quantity of food as big as itself, meaning that a 2D creature provides x*y atoms, and a 3D creature x*y*z.

This means that it might not be viable for a creature in a certain dimension to forage for food in the lower dimensions, as they're significantly smaller (a 2D creature would be only 1 atom deep, while a 3D create billions of atoms).

>> No.3213377

>>3213035
love fapping in /sci/ threads

>> No.3213398

>>3213367
>>3213367
a 2d creature could not be one atom deep, idiot. atoms are 3 dimensional. what do you propose this 2d creature is made of? can't be anything we've ever seen in OUR universe, as every single piece of matter in our universe is 3 dimensional.

THERE ARE NO 2D ATOMS. THERE ARE NO 4D ATOMS. ONLY 3D ATOMS. THEREFORE YOU CANNOT EXIST IN 2D OR 4D.

they should seriously make a captcha for this board that involves simple logic problems to weed out you people.

>> No.3213414

>>3213398

I feel bad for you.
Continue on assuming everything is as is and nothing will ever change. Be accepted into society.

Ideas change and collaborations look towards new directions. We're only hypothesizing and to rule out any possibility of this is extremely harmful.

Because after all, the world is flat and god is real amirite nothing can change?

>> No.3213418

>>3213414
So by your argument, your not right or wrong, and at the moment his situation is right until proven wrong because that is our current understanding.
So stop arguing your stupid shit, it does not make sense, come back with some data which will actually help you, or kill yourself

>> No.3213422

>>3213418
you disgust me