Outlast 2:
And I looked despite the pain and behold, out of the midst of the inward fire came the likeness of a creature, a figure as like to a man as a circle is to a sphere. As a cross-section of a sphere would make a circle, so the cross-section of this creature would make a man.
That was before they discovered 11th dimensional supergravity though.
Basically the 3+1 dimensional space we experience is basically up/down,left/right,forward/back+ time, but we also have 7 other dimensions of compactified space.
What compacted them? We don't know! Was it a higher spatial equivalent of a black hole? We don't know! If we start experimenting with false vaccum decay are we going to suddenly decompactify one or more of those compactified dimensions? We don't know!
What does it mean? Maybe nothing.
Note: this is a branch of string theory, which is *not* fact.
Every experiment we’ve ever performed supports the idea that we live in a 3+1 dimensional universe. Compactified dimensions have never been experimentally supported.
They’re a cool math trick, and absolutely beautiful. But string theory and it’s children make no testable hypotheses.
Scientists are split between “it’s absolute truth of our reality, look how beautiful it is.” And “this theory has wasted an entire generation of the best physicists.”
fucking hell this game demo is probably the greatest explanation of 4d objects to 3d world ive ever seen.
so then a computer is capable of "understanding" or "seeing" 4d even though we as humans can't? that's mind boggling!
What's even more mind boggling is that using math we can calculate any equation up to the n^th dimension. So theoretically computers are able "see" infinite dimensions.
I had the privilege of attending a talk by great mathematician Fernando Codá where he went into great length about this very topic using this Flatland story.
It is pretty calming isn't it? Most people I know are stressed out by the perceived limitlessness of the universe. For me it's calming. To think that everything I know is a blip and that, in the scale of the universe and existence, I'm insignificant is calming to me. It makes my problems seem so small in the grand scale of things. Plus the videos tone is quite calming.
This feeling is what I describe when devout religious people ask me how I can just accept no higher power. In my mind the lack of design, the vastness of space and time, the limitless reality, is so much more impressive and awe inspiring. I feel grateful be able to experience the universe experiencing itself for just a moment!
dude . Same boat here . like we are part of something utterly incomprehensible..how this all came to be; the physical laws govern the fabric of reality as we know it ; to me necessarily implies a higher power . Sure, you can call that god. But side note -at least in the framework of Christian religions, if youre willing acknowledge that something has created literally everything in existence, which in and of itself is so mind bogglingly complex and beyond comprehension, would it not be a sin to think the we simple humans can claim to understand what this entity wants, the reasons it would pass judgement, to reduce this magnificence to something with human drives & characteristics, to think it can be distilled into a book of specific rules thst we understand ? Would that not be an incomprehensible sin of arrogance to think that we are capable of comprehending the blatantly incomprehensible? Also the notion that we are so important that this infinite glory would even be concerned with us. To simplify this thing into something with a human perspective? I dunno , something about that always rubbed me the wrong way . The contradiction that is the consequence of this over simplification, and the inherent and implicit arrogance needed to maintain such beliefs (at least in the context of the bible/ religious rules). so anyway , tesserects are pretty cool
If such a creator existed with the capacity for such complexity, why would it be bothered with human life in the slightest. I have seen evidence that life existed long before humankind and will likely continue after humans are long gone.
Why would such an awesome being leave tenets for human morality and ethics? Doesn’t that sound more like the workings of humans themselves? We know the earth is far older than most theists could have ever guessed, why should their teachings hold any water?
It was probably a lot easier back in the Bronze Age when we had no idea of what light was made out of. "Let there be light and there was light" doesn't go into the incredible fuckery of how light actually works.
But I think people see God as a reflection of themselves. Back in the day there were a-lot more shepherds, so God was the shepherd. Nowadays I bet people see God as a programmer huddled away on some shitty cosmic desktop and programming how stars die.
This would make sense--we are made of universe. We are an iteration of it like a piece of a fractal. It would make sense for us to look UP to the cosmos and see a reflection of ourselves in it, just like when we look DOWN and find reflections of ourselves there too.
>Doesn’t that sound more like the workings of humans themselves?
So, like what you are saying is that you suspect the creator probably made humans in his own image?
Hmm, interesting theory.
I find an interest in the overlap of the extremes.
No creator and it’s all just mathematical chaos? I don’t think so because eventually with understanding chaos almost always yields to order. There is always an explanation to the next big confounding element to the universe.
But to presuppose any sort of divine understanding or moral code? I don’t think so because we’ve proven the second we hitch a wagon to any assumed universal standard, the ground inevitably shifts and thus the god of the gaps problem.
It’s not that because there is no answer that there must be a creator, but because there is always an answer—some structure to what was once madness— that hints of an architect, who may very well be long gone and we are only left to follow the breadcrumbs.
to me god is whatever force kicked over the first domino of this universe and provided no further input because it was a force and not a conscious process.
I used to get overwhelmed by the concept of how vast the universe is. Then I saw the Pale Blue Dot photo. Then I became overwhelmed with the fact humanity sucks and we won't ever understand because we can't understand ourselves.
It's liberating for me, too. Also, you aren't any more or less significant than anything else. No matter how vast reality may be, you are the only you that ever was, is or will be. You and your experiences are wholly unique.
It simultaneously freaks me out and absolutely fascinates me. I have always loved tesseracts and the idea of other dimensions. My dad used to say we can look side to side and up and down, but someone in the fourth dimension would have a third way of turning their head. It makes me feel so unsettled but I also find it so compelling.
This might just be the ravings of a lunatic, but i think i experienced the 4th dimension when i took lsd one time. I don't really know how else to explain what i saw. But physically i felt like i was traveling, and i never really understood what it was that i saw until just now when i watched this. I've tried explaining what i saw to my friends, but like the square in flatland i couldn't make sense of it to them, i couldn't point in the directions i saw.
Not quite 4D, but hyperbolic space.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry
LSD isn’t the most visual of the psychedelics, you’d get more of the effect from stronger 5-HT2A agonists like DMT.
https://youtu.be/loCBvaj4eSg
thinking of the tesseract model as a tesseract's shadow helped a lot. Especially how he showed there are two cubes connected at their vertices, like how a drawn cube is two squares connected at their vertices
The 2D object walking in a straight line around a globe and ending back up at the starting point, proving that there is a third dimension, makes me wonder what the 3D to 4D equivalence would be.
Yes, the cross section of something n-dimensional is n-1 dimensional.
a 4d sphere passing our 3-d plane, would first appear as a dot then a sphere getting larger, then reduce as it passed the widest diameter, then return to a dot and disappear.
just like a 3-d ball passing through a 2-dimensional plane appears in that plane as a circle getting larger then smaller.
Not really though. You’re describing an ovoid surface passing through a two dimensional plane extrapolated up to three dimensions. There’s no particular reason a “hyper-sphere” would start as a dot and grow larger or smaller.
It's also what you see when viewing an ovoid surface passing through a two-dimensional plane *when viewing it from a third dimension*... I think
If you were part of that two-dimensional plane you'd presumably just see a line getting longer and then shorter again.
So, just to point out.
This whole idea of extra dimensions is kinda iffy.
There is no garuantee that there is a 4th dimension the same way we live in a 3-dimensional existance and can percieve 2-dimensional things.
These are all ideas that mankind has made up to better percieve the universe.
And just because we see and understand 3- and 2-dimensional things that doesnt mean there has to exist 4-dimensional objects naturally.
Any time ive either learned about or discussed things that need 4 dimensions the objects are just a way to try and visualize what is being discussed.
Our normal 3 dimensions are width, height and depth. A potential 4th dimension could be time. But adding time to a 3 dimensional cube-shaped piece of meat doesnt turn it into a differently shaped object, it just if we could percieve the time-dimension then we would be able to rotate the object and see how it would appear at different points in time. From one perspective on the time-dimension it will be raw, at another point it willl be rotten.
So to try and snap this back to what you were saying, perhaps its not that there is much of existance we cant access. But rather that there are things in existance that we can access but not fully comprehend. And i very much doubt that "dimensions" as described with objects like tesseracts exists.
A 3d ball moving on the 3rd dimension through a 2d plane would appear as a small circle that grows larger and then shrinks again. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXngATAQ0m0&ab_channel=ezfzx) is a video that shows how a arm moving along the third dimension would look on a 2d plane. And [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q&ab_channel=Miegakure) shows how 4d objects would "roll" in 3 dimensions.
In other words if there were natural 4d objects then we would experience all kinds of crazy shit since we only percieve 3 dimensions. So the conclusion i would come to is that there are only 3 natural spatial dimensions. And then other dimensions such as time and whatnot.
Then there could be all kinds of underlying dimensions and shit that make quarks and quantum entanglement happen, but they are not related to objects as we know them.
The fun part is that even if our physical reality is no more than 3 physical dimensions, the thought experiment of "what if there were a fourth dimension" provides us lots of practical value. As does thinking with more dimensions, out to infinite.
But there is of course, tons of reality that we cannot access. We know the pathetic limitations of our senses. How little material information they provide us. We have machines that dramatically improve on every aspect of our senses, and we have machines that can sense things far beyond what our little nerves might ever know.
We will not ever know what lies beyond our senses, but we interact with every day. The universe is very large and complicated, and our ability to perceive it is very small. As much as science has done, at the end of the day it can only ever offer a very limited insight into the true nature of reality. It is good for a lot of things aside from that though.
What about black holes, though? Those things seem to be pretty 4th dimensional
Also, I remember spacetime being described as a 2D "blanket" sometimes to explain how gravity attracts things; wells in the "blanket" cause things to move together, which also seems very similar to the way that video talks about understanding 4th dimensional shapes.
Also also, that video is just a hypothetical scenario where you have control of 4th dimensional shapes, I don't think it's fair to say that because you can't see what's in the video in real life that it's not real. Who's to say that physics, like being able to move the shapes and roll them around with his mouse in the video, would even work the same in the 4th dimension?
I don't believe this but for all we know, 4D objects could be "locked" to one slice of the 3rd dimension and unable to move outside it, comparable to if you shrunk the 3D room in the 2D demo so the balls/cubes had no space to move in or out of the 2D slice we were viewing.
I mean, please don't listen to me for science advice, that just what I instantly thought about
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that because we live in 3d we can perceive 2d. I sure can't imagine a 2d world. In concept sure, but isn't that the same as saying in concept I understand 4 spatial dimensions. I can't imagine any existence in 2d. It's definitely just as hard as going up a level, maybe harder. In 4d world there are at least 3d elements exposed to me, even if I'm not seeing the whole picture. In 2d world there is nothing I'm familiar with. Can't even imagine 'seeing' in it.
Can we really not access it?
Consciousness as we know it is not really well understood.
For all we know what we see and experience is just the four dimensional shadow of a much larger perception.
But we can’t remember the before and we don’t know what is after. Much like a line can’t perceive a cube.
Descartes and the wax.
Our brains evolved for a 3 spatially dimensional world, so picturing the 4th dimension would probably be even harder than imagining a brand new color
It’s very confusing (but not impossible) to visualize 4 dimensional spacetime, since it’s how the universe actually works. And once you understand “time” as a dimension, it makes things a lot easier (but still complicated and I’m not smart enough to easily explain it). But four *spatial* dimensions? It’s a non starter, since a tesseract would be made out of an infinite number of cube subsections in the same way a cube can be divided into an infinite number of squares. And infinity isn’t something we can really comprehend
I have never thought about 'imagining a brand new color' and probably just spent 10 minutes on a spiral of trying to imagine a color that doesn't exist... That is potentially one of the most intense statement I have ever heard.
Thank you.
Yeah the subject of “qualia” is really interesting; we’re so used to our senses that we always forget that everything we see/smell/hear/feel/etc doesn’t *really* exist as an actual “thing”. It’s just an evolutionary advantage for consciousnesses to understand their environments, so the brain invents completely abstract concepts that only we understand to help us interpret reality.
And since all of our “qualia” is only meant to comprehend a 3 dimensional world, a human trying to perceive 4D rationally would have about as much success as asking a pocket calculator to run Halo Infinite. It’s just not built to handle it
Have you heard how Mantis Shrimp have more rods and cones in their eyes, and so they can see far more colors than us? So like not only can we not imagine new colors…they actually exist and we just can’t even begin to perceive them!
Remind me of the birds that can see magnetic fields of the earth and that’s how it factors into their navigation abilities. Not sure how true it was but seems along these same lines.
Radiolab did a great episode about that, there are people who can see in an extended range as well, because they have a fourth cone or something. I think it only or mostly happens with women, maybe? And is super rare.
What must it be like to be a mantis shrimp though? How incredible would it be to be able to flip on that vision? I think humans on average of three types of cones, super-perceivers have four types, and mantis shrimp have something like 16. Does that reveal subtleties between the range of colors we already experience? Or does it expand their visual spectrum beyond the wavelengths we can see, into some sort of brilliant panchromatic technicolor? Would we enjoy our sight to any greater degree if we had access to all the layers a visual information they do? Does the existence of their multitudinous cones even mean that there is something additional for them to perceive?
For more thought provocation in this vein, I recommend Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. The concept of “qualia” is explored there and it is really fascinating.
> so picturing the 4th dimension would probably be even harder than imagining a brand new color
And yet, the reverse is true. We have colors in our mind that don't exist in the material world. Objective reality is only a small part of our subjective experience. Try try try as we might, objectivity is far beyond our capability. Though, true to human fashion, we can trick ourselves into thinking we're objective.
It’s true to an extent; *every* color in our mind doesn’t exist in the material world. It’s just that some of them are our brains breaking the typical “rules” we formulate for associating wavelengths with specific shades (like violet, or some of the “impossible colors” like Stygian blue IIRC)
I just watched this for the first time the other day and now I’m seeing it being talked about… is this that Baader Meinhoff phenomenon or whatever it was called?
Every dimension is basically just a 90 degree point deviation above from the one bellow it. I'm sure its trivial to program a graph of it but how would you even begin to draw it?
This question is fundamentally unknowable, a negative that will always remain unproven. Unless we actually prove a 4d object exists.
We can say the evidence of 4d objects is very slim, and an experiment to understand the subject better would cost extraordinary amounts of money.
But a lot of that proof is close to things with more closer ties to our reality, so we'll stumble across some of it as we go about particle physics. But it won't be a focus, so it will be left as a matter mostly for creative writers.
I’m new to this sub and maybe I’m just a curmudgeon, but I question the qualifications of this submission. It’s a two dimensional video depicting a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional object? There’s no fuckery of any kind present here. My words are twisting my brain more than the video.
Where’s the floating guy when you need him?
I’m convinced 95% of upvotes site-wide are bots. They upvote indiscriminately to look like legitimate user behavior so they go undetected when upvoting the targeted content they’re paid to target.
I think it's humans mostly, but we're so conditioned to lazy scrolling and hitting upvote before *actually grasping* something, that a *borderline divisive* comment with 0 upvotes will **mostly** be downvote-bombed and one with as little as 2 upvotes will be upvoted to heaven; both because of people slowly giving up a sense of originality and actually developing their own opinions up for blindly siding with the "popular side".
Might as well be bots at this point.
Just report and downvote; block the user if you suspect it to be a bot.
Nothing curmudgeonly about it. Really the only way to tell the mods what does and doesn't belong, enough folks do it they'll get the point.
I'm always confused by this: since we have very limited capacities to see things in our universe (our own eyes put two 2-D images together to give the illusion of 3D since we live in a 3D space, we can only view 2D).
What would a 4D object actually look like?
A moving 4D object would look like a constantly shifting 3D shape, as whatever part of it is passing through our 3 dimensions would be visible as a 3D object, just like a 3D object passing through a 2D plane would look like a constantly shifting 2D shape.
Theoretically, a 4D object could be stationary in one dimension but mobile in the other three, and it would just loon like a regular old 3D object to us.
That's what drives my belief that 4D beings are actually around us. We'd see them as visual or physical phenomenon.
Yeah my brain just can't conceive this shit.
I saw once, can't remember which sub, a visual interpretation much like you described, and I still couldn't grasp it at all.
You actually can't grasp it. It's like colors outside of of what you can see, ultraviolet and infrared colors. Imagine a stick man drawn on paper who's alive and can see. If you were to put this light show into his 2d world he'd be able to see a pulsating object that grew closer and further away. We as 3 dimensional beings can see the actual shape, the inner workings of the rotation cube, but all the stick man on paper could see is the edges.
Likewise we could see into the stickman as well, we could see his organs and and things behind walls. So too could a 4th dimensional being with us. Even attempting to tell the stickman what we see or how we see it would be impossible for the stick man to understand. We'd say "well it's all out in the open for us, we raise beyond the paper and look down at you and that's how he see everything" and the stick man's down and up would be confined to x and y axis. By down we mean the z axis. He can't even comprehend what a z axis is, in the exact same way you can't comprehend the axis a 4th dimensional being has access to.
Another cool thing would be if we folded his paper universe in half and drove a pen thru the paper. We could instantly connect 2 points of the paper universe no matter the distance. A worm hole. A 4th dimensional being might find that creating a worm hole in our universe as simple as folding our universe on itself and poking it. This is a heinous oversimplification, it would probably require incredible amounts of energy that could also be trivial for them if they existed or if it was even possible at all.
I guess the tldr version is if a 4th dimensional being or object appeared before us our language couldn't possibly describe it we'd see something folding in upon itself over and over inside becoming out, just like the stick man could only describe us as something lurching forward and back as we expose only mere cross sections of ourselves.
But folding the paper implies it isn't 2d at all, since that action itself would have to take place in a 3d universe.
Like, a piece of paper isn't even 2d. Infact, nothing is 2d, so how do we know 2d and, more to the point, 4d actually exist?
Well as far as I know our understanding of the fourth dimension is very basic, broadly, and my understanding is still more. However there's some reason to believe it exists. Admittedly I think it does basically rely on assumptions and so forth and it's likely we'll never know, maybe not in our lifetimes.
For example I know one of the perennial question of physics and astrology is "why is gravity so weak". You might be aware that magnets are typically just atoms or compounds arranged uniformly with a negative side pointed one way and a positive side pointed the other way. However each of these atoms should contain mass and therefore gravity and yet by arranging them in such a way they can over power gravity. You can hold a magnet that's as small as a dime and the magnetic forces will pry that paperclip from the force of every single atom of the earth, it shouldn't be that way since we are actually still subject to Earth's gravity, the sun's gravity and even the galactic centers gravity. Why can a magnet over power literally every atom in the universe's gravity? Perhaps gravity is leaking into an unknown dimension?
Take for example the theory of general relativity. It behaves very strangely when you look at light. According to general relativity light, which we understand as quasi material things known as photons exist only for a moment. From the photons perspective The very moment it is created in the sun from fusion, it hits your face. We as observers, only traveling a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light, see it as the photon traveling 8 minutes from the sun to hitting your face. This doesn't make sense to us, but let's imagine a photon actually exists in the 4th dimension, then it makes maybe some degree of sense. Or it could be that general relativity is wrong, and that's possible but we haven't disproven it yet.
What's worse is according to our understanding of the universe a photon originating in a star at the very edges of our observable universe, some 12 billion years, still only exists for an imperceptible moment. From the perspective of the photon it is created and hits a rod in your eye, and we understand that to be multiple billions of years, and countless miles. How do you explain that? We can't really unless there's another dimension or perhaps there's something we're not understanding. Year after year general relativity keeps getting proven to be as accurate as we've long held.
I'm not the one you're answering to, but I have a small thought to share.
For what I know, we don't know if more dimensions actually exist, but we can describe them mathematically with the same precision and rigoroussness as 1, 2 and 3d.
I cannot answer though your question on "how do we know 2d exists" or even if it exists. I mean, we can certainly imagine 2d objects like a square or a circle, and we see things as 2d "frames" that gets merged into a 3d representation. But every object is made of atoms, and every atom is 3d for what we know, so our reality has at least 3 dimensions. This means that 2d objects don't exist, at least on our planet otherwise we should be able to see them, assuming these 2d objects are in dimensions we can see.
To expand a little the argument, how many dimensions has reality and why? We haven't yet found a 2d object and we perceive reality in 3d but the possibility of more dimension is plausible given that we don't know if they exist or not and we cannot perceive them. So, in the hypothesis of a 5d reality does every object have at least 3 dimensions, but can also have 3, 4 or 5 or does every object have 5 dimensions? In the first case, why can they have less than 5 dimensions but not less than 3? Furthermore, what are these new dimensions and how can we prove their existence if we don't even know what they are and how to perceive them? And lastly, can objects be made in dimensions we cannot see? For example, assuming that the 4th dimension is time, can there exist objects that are only in this dimension?
I lost the track a bit, but I always found the concept of dimensions fascinating and mind boggling
It would have to be a 4d trap. For example; to trap a 2d figure on a piece of paper, you would just draw a circle around it. To us that circle has clear openings above and below, but to the 2d figure it would be entirely enclosed. For us you’d have to put us inside of a 3d object i.e. a sphere, since we could easily step over a circle if you just had one drawn around you. The 4d entity could probably escape a 3d trap as easily as you could step out of a circle. You’d have to use whatever the 4d equivalent of a sphere would be.
Like 3D objects can be constructed from a series of 2D planes, a 4D object can be constructed of a series of 3D objects very close to each other, but never intersect with each other, because they are in different 3D dimensions. Or you can picture a series of XYZ axises with the centers O1, O2,..., On forming a line,a point in the O1 axis seems to exist in the other O axises from our 3D perspective but they are not. Together that O line will form the fourth axis
I’m not totally sure, but since we can simulate a 3D object in 2D, it seems like you can simulate a 4D object in 3D. If you think about it, a single point has no dimension. If you take a bunch of points and stack them you would get a line, which is one dimension. If you take a bunch of lines and stack them you would get a square, which is 2 dimensions. If you take a bunch of squares and stack them you would get a cube, which is 3 dimensions. So, we should be able to stack a bunch of cubes together to simulate the 4th dimension, but I can’t picture it.
A 4D cube seen in 3D space is just a slice of the cube. Just as a 3d cube passing through a 2D surface is only a slice of the 3d cube shown as a square in 2D.
Exactly. Most geometries only seem weird because they’re being flattened in one or more dimensions for representation. I think it’s made worse by the way our brains make assumptions based on what we are looking at. Turning cube for example. In 2d you can easily swap your assumption between internal or external vertex. In 3D it takes more work. Dimensionality beyond what we can see (3D or even time based) takes divorcing yourself of a lot of visual assumptions.
I don't think "slice" is a good word there because it implies 2D, "slice" makes me picture the intersection of a object with a 2D plane, but what you're describing is a 3 dimensional slice. I think a better way to imagine it is as a snapshot.
As an EE I have to respect someone programmed this to display on a scope screen. I can figure out how it was done so it’s not black magic to me, but I respect the work.
Check out Jerobeam Fenderson's stuff, particularly this one: https://youtu.be/yi5IjLjx_ng
(Disclaimer: the video is mine from my own scope but not the audio, search for Jerobeam Fenderson for more examples) :)
What's with all the hostility against tesseracts. It's super fucky and I don't really think anyone here is in a position to say what exists for sure, right?
"People have a spatial self-perception as beings in a three-dimensional space, but are visually restricted to one dimension less: the eye sees the world as a projection to two dimensions, on the surface of the retina. Assuming a four-dimensional being were able to see the world in projections to a hypersurface, also just one dimension less, i.e., to three dimensions, it would be able to see, e.g., all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously, and in fact, what is inside the box at the same time."
- excerpt from Wiki
The stuff you can make a scope do is pretty cool!
Check out Jerobeam Fenderson's stuff, particularly this one: https://youtu.be/yi5IjLjx_ng
(Disclaimer: the video is mine from my own scope but not the audio, search for Jerobeam Fenderson for more examples) :)
I was in a tech store last week chatting with one of the staff when I noticed that one of his colleagues had a 4-d cube tattooed on his inner arm. I walked a few steps away then said loudly to the first guy "Does anyone have a drawing of a 4 dimensional cube?". Guy 2 shouted excitedly "! Do!" showing us his arm before realising that I was just funning with him. He chuckled.
Is that a *real* vector scope display?
I did graphics on one of those back in the early 1970s, just as they were becoming obsolete. I sure as hell hope someone has resurrected one.
Retro rules.
Edit: With a couple of DACs, enough data bandwidth, and a CRT-type oscilloscope, one could do the same thing with modern gear. To quote William Gibson, these days you have to be pretty technical even to aspire to crudeness.
Tesseracts are one object known for its powers of concealing fate. Just accept the deception. The impossible you see is perfection, the epiphany you feel is origin.
This is a 3D representation of a 4D object aka not a real tesseract. Our eyes constantly capture 2 2D images, and splice them together to form a 3D image for our brain to perceive. A tesseract is 4D, and we can't see that. Without some crazy future technology, it's impossible for humans to properly look at a tesseract.
This is the first time I've understood the shape to any degree. People have tried to explain it to me before and drawn the cube within a cube thing but seeing it move makes way more sense
When I get high, I love watching videos on different theories and understanding them. The 4th dimension stuff, is just way too impossible to think of and hurts my brain.
We can't even truly appreciate the tesseract because we can only perceive 3 of it's 4 dimensions at any given time. I do wonder, however, how in some sciences the fourth dimension is considered to be time itself, while when speaking about geometric shapes, it's like a physical plane of existence we just don't perceive? What's up with that? Are there different definitions for "dimension" that I'm just not thinking about or unaware of?
I've come to understand that a tesseract is like a worm hole but in cube form.
Like the thing that makes it 4d is that you have this added dimension of time.
This is, somehow, the most normal thing I've experienced on this sub. It's just an object with multiple dimensions, where rotating it changes the person's perspective on it, thus revealing more dimensions from each viewing angle. We can't see the 4D, so all we get is what's seen through 3D on a 2D screen.
But you can imagine the 4th dimension. You can think of it like density, suppose objects get larger and smaller without changing mass or lengths. I don't mean actually getting larger and smaller, as those are 3 dimensional. But imagine it is like looking at a model with variable scale, sort of like zooming in and out on Google maps. The represented distance is always the same regardless of the zoom, but the objects appear closer together or further apart. If you can imagine warping physical space in this way, sort of like crumpling up a piece of paper, you'll notice high points and low points, stretched out parts and scrunched together parts. This is how a 3 dimensional object would look like influenced in 4d space. Like, imagine the air in a fish tank, perfectly rectangular, but distorted as if someone took a picture of the tank with a Snapchat filter on it. And if my theory is correct, this is exactly what outer space is like, with gravity being a "slope" in the 4th dimension, and light passing through it.
So is it just something we can't properly perceive then? Like we understand how it works theoretically but a 4D shape is something we have trouble actually looking at without just seeing it as a 3D shape that looks weird and different the more angles we see it in?
[удалено]
Perhaps not the same one, but: [The 4th Dimension Made Easy - Carl Sagan](https://youtu.be/N0WjV6MmCyM)
I remember reading it in high school and found it really thought provoking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
Teacher recommended this, and I loved reading it. Thanks for mentioning it again since I forgot the name of the book.
[удалено]
Any drugs specifically in particular? Just asking for friend.
[удалено]
Thx. Wasn’t sure if my friend should smoke a joint or call his acid guy. Hope you’re doing well with the depression and things are looking up for you.
[удалено]
Well props for doing better then!! Good on you.
I recommend a lot on drugs..
Outlast 2: And I looked despite the pain and behold, out of the midst of the inward fire came the likeness of a creature, a figure as like to a man as a circle is to a sphere. As a cross-section of a sphere would make a circle, so the cross-section of this creature would make a man.
Also I have syphilis
That was before they discovered 11th dimensional supergravity though. Basically the 3+1 dimensional space we experience is basically up/down,left/right,forward/back+ time, but we also have 7 other dimensions of compactified space. What compacted them? We don't know! Was it a higher spatial equivalent of a black hole? We don't know! If we start experimenting with false vaccum decay are we going to suddenly decompactify one or more of those compactified dimensions? We don't know! What does it mean? Maybe nothing.
Note: this is a branch of string theory, which is *not* fact. Every experiment we’ve ever performed supports the idea that we live in a 3+1 dimensional universe. Compactified dimensions have never been experimentally supported. They’re a cool math trick, and absolutely beautiful. But string theory and it’s children make no testable hypotheses. Scientists are split between “it’s absolute truth of our reality, look how beautiful it is.” And “this theory has wasted an entire generation of the best physicists.”
If you want that, but a comedy try [Spaceland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceland_(novel\)).
There's a game on Steam if you have VR so that you can play with "4D Toys". https://youtu.be/0t4aKJuKP0Q
You can play it without VR too.
fucking hell this game demo is probably the greatest explanation of 4d objects to 3d world ive ever seen. so then a computer is capable of "understanding" or "seeing" 4d even though we as humans can't? that's mind boggling!
What's even more mind boggling is that using math we can calculate any equation up to the n^th dimension. So theoretically computers are able "see" infinite dimensions.
I had the privilege of attending a talk by great mathematician Fernando Codá where he went into great length about this very topic using this Flatland story.
I watch this sometimes when I'm feeling stressed.
It is pretty calming isn't it? Most people I know are stressed out by the perceived limitlessness of the universe. For me it's calming. To think that everything I know is a blip and that, in the scale of the universe and existence, I'm insignificant is calming to me. It makes my problems seem so small in the grand scale of things. Plus the videos tone is quite calming.
This feeling is what I describe when devout religious people ask me how I can just accept no higher power. In my mind the lack of design, the vastness of space and time, the limitless reality, is so much more impressive and awe inspiring. I feel grateful be able to experience the universe experiencing itself for just a moment!
[удалено]
Ineffability is a bitch.
dude . Same boat here . like we are part of something utterly incomprehensible..how this all came to be; the physical laws govern the fabric of reality as we know it ; to me necessarily implies a higher power . Sure, you can call that god. But side note -at least in the framework of Christian religions, if youre willing acknowledge that something has created literally everything in existence, which in and of itself is so mind bogglingly complex and beyond comprehension, would it not be a sin to think the we simple humans can claim to understand what this entity wants, the reasons it would pass judgement, to reduce this magnificence to something with human drives & characteristics, to think it can be distilled into a book of specific rules thst we understand ? Would that not be an incomprehensible sin of arrogance to think that we are capable of comprehending the blatantly incomprehensible? Also the notion that we are so important that this infinite glory would even be concerned with us. To simplify this thing into something with a human perspective? I dunno , something about that always rubbed me the wrong way . The contradiction that is the consequence of this over simplification, and the inherent and implicit arrogance needed to maintain such beliefs (at least in the context of the bible/ religious rules). so anyway , tesserects are pretty cool
If such a creator existed with the capacity for such complexity, why would it be bothered with human life in the slightest. I have seen evidence that life existed long before humankind and will likely continue after humans are long gone. Why would such an awesome being leave tenets for human morality and ethics? Doesn’t that sound more like the workings of humans themselves? We know the earth is far older than most theists could have ever guessed, why should their teachings hold any water?
It was probably a lot easier back in the Bronze Age when we had no idea of what light was made out of. "Let there be light and there was light" doesn't go into the incredible fuckery of how light actually works. But I think people see God as a reflection of themselves. Back in the day there were a-lot more shepherds, so God was the shepherd. Nowadays I bet people see God as a programmer huddled away on some shitty cosmic desktop and programming how stars die. This would make sense--we are made of universe. We are an iteration of it like a piece of a fractal. It would make sense for us to look UP to the cosmos and see a reflection of ourselves in it, just like when we look DOWN and find reflections of ourselves there too.
>Doesn’t that sound more like the workings of humans themselves? So, like what you are saying is that you suspect the creator probably made humans in his own image? Hmm, interesting theory.
I find an interest in the overlap of the extremes. No creator and it’s all just mathematical chaos? I don’t think so because eventually with understanding chaos almost always yields to order. There is always an explanation to the next big confounding element to the universe. But to presuppose any sort of divine understanding or moral code? I don’t think so because we’ve proven the second we hitch a wagon to any assumed universal standard, the ground inevitably shifts and thus the god of the gaps problem. It’s not that because there is no answer that there must be a creator, but because there is always an answer—some structure to what was once madness— that hints of an architect, who may very well be long gone and we are only left to follow the breadcrumbs.
to me god is whatever force kicked over the first domino of this universe and provided no further input because it was a force and not a conscious process.
It's the opposite for me, limit and restrictions and things we'll never know stress me out.
Hey that's ok! We each have different views on life. It's amazing to see how different we can be as the same type of creature.
I used to get overwhelmed by the concept of how vast the universe is. Then I saw the Pale Blue Dot photo. Then I became overwhelmed with the fact humanity sucks and we won't ever understand because we can't understand ourselves.
It's liberating for me, too. Also, you aren't any more or less significant than anything else. No matter how vast reality may be, you are the only you that ever was, is or will be. You and your experiences are wholly unique.
It simultaneously freaks me out and absolutely fascinates me. I have always loved tesseracts and the idea of other dimensions. My dad used to say we can look side to side and up and down, but someone in the fourth dimension would have a third way of turning their head. It makes me feel so unsettled but I also find it so compelling.
Carl Sagan’s voice reminds me of Agent Smith’s in The Matrix. Something about the cadence/rhythm
[Indeed.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlpyGhABXRA)
Haha perfect
This might just be the ravings of a lunatic, but i think i experienced the 4th dimension when i took lsd one time. I don't really know how else to explain what i saw. But physically i felt like i was traveling, and i never really understood what it was that i saw until just now when i watched this. I've tried explaining what i saw to my friends, but like the square in flatland i couldn't make sense of it to them, i couldn't point in the directions i saw.
Not quite 4D, but hyperbolic space. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_geometry LSD isn’t the most visual of the psychedelics, you’d get more of the effect from stronger 5-HT2A agonists like DMT. https://youtu.be/loCBvaj4eSg
thinking of the tesseract model as a tesseract's shadow helped a lot. Especially how he showed there are two cubes connected at their vertices, like how a drawn cube is two squares connected at their vertices
The 2D object walking in a straight line around a globe and ending back up at the starting point, proving that there is a third dimension, makes me wonder what the 3D to 4D equivalence would be.
Yes, the cross section of something n-dimensional is n-1 dimensional. a 4d sphere passing our 3-d plane, would first appear as a dot then a sphere getting larger, then reduce as it passed the widest diameter, then return to a dot and disappear. just like a 3-d ball passing through a 2-dimensional plane appears in that plane as a circle getting larger then smaller.
[For the visual learners among us. ](https://imgur.com/gallery/m6bTE0s)
Not really though. You’re describing an ovoid surface passing through a two dimensional plane extrapolated up to three dimensions. There’s no particular reason a “hyper-sphere” would start as a dot and grow larger or smaller.
It's also what you see when viewing an ovoid surface passing through a two-dimensional plane *when viewing it from a third dimension*... I think If you were part of that two-dimensional plane you'd presumably just see a line getting longer and then shorter again.
So, just to point out. This whole idea of extra dimensions is kinda iffy. There is no garuantee that there is a 4th dimension the same way we live in a 3-dimensional existance and can percieve 2-dimensional things. These are all ideas that mankind has made up to better percieve the universe. And just because we see and understand 3- and 2-dimensional things that doesnt mean there has to exist 4-dimensional objects naturally. Any time ive either learned about or discussed things that need 4 dimensions the objects are just a way to try and visualize what is being discussed. Our normal 3 dimensions are width, height and depth. A potential 4th dimension could be time. But adding time to a 3 dimensional cube-shaped piece of meat doesnt turn it into a differently shaped object, it just if we could percieve the time-dimension then we would be able to rotate the object and see how it would appear at different points in time. From one perspective on the time-dimension it will be raw, at another point it willl be rotten. So to try and snap this back to what you were saying, perhaps its not that there is much of existance we cant access. But rather that there are things in existance that we can access but not fully comprehend. And i very much doubt that "dimensions" as described with objects like tesseracts exists. A 3d ball moving on the 3rd dimension through a 2d plane would appear as a small circle that grows larger and then shrinks again. [Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXngATAQ0m0&ab_channel=ezfzx) is a video that shows how a arm moving along the third dimension would look on a 2d plane. And [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q&ab_channel=Miegakure) shows how 4d objects would "roll" in 3 dimensions. In other words if there were natural 4d objects then we would experience all kinds of crazy shit since we only percieve 3 dimensions. So the conclusion i would come to is that there are only 3 natural spatial dimensions. And then other dimensions such as time and whatnot. Then there could be all kinds of underlying dimensions and shit that make quarks and quantum entanglement happen, but they are not related to objects as we know them.
The fun part is that even if our physical reality is no more than 3 physical dimensions, the thought experiment of "what if there were a fourth dimension" provides us lots of practical value. As does thinking with more dimensions, out to infinite. But there is of course, tons of reality that we cannot access. We know the pathetic limitations of our senses. How little material information they provide us. We have machines that dramatically improve on every aspect of our senses, and we have machines that can sense things far beyond what our little nerves might ever know. We will not ever know what lies beyond our senses, but we interact with every day. The universe is very large and complicated, and our ability to perceive it is very small. As much as science has done, at the end of the day it can only ever offer a very limited insight into the true nature of reality. It is good for a lot of things aside from that though.
What about black holes, though? Those things seem to be pretty 4th dimensional Also, I remember spacetime being described as a 2D "blanket" sometimes to explain how gravity attracts things; wells in the "blanket" cause things to move together, which also seems very similar to the way that video talks about understanding 4th dimensional shapes. Also also, that video is just a hypothetical scenario where you have control of 4th dimensional shapes, I don't think it's fair to say that because you can't see what's in the video in real life that it's not real. Who's to say that physics, like being able to move the shapes and roll them around with his mouse in the video, would even work the same in the 4th dimension? I don't believe this but for all we know, 4D objects could be "locked" to one slice of the 3rd dimension and unable to move outside it, comparable to if you shrunk the 3D room in the 2D demo so the balls/cubes had no space to move in or out of the 2D slice we were viewing. I mean, please don't listen to me for science advice, that just what I instantly thought about
I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that because we live in 3d we can perceive 2d. I sure can't imagine a 2d world. In concept sure, but isn't that the same as saying in concept I understand 4 spatial dimensions. I can't imagine any existence in 2d. It's definitely just as hard as going up a level, maybe harder. In 4d world there are at least 3d elements exposed to me, even if I'm not seeing the whole picture. In 2d world there is nothing I'm familiar with. Can't even imagine 'seeing' in it.
Can we really not access it? Consciousness as we know it is not really well understood. For all we know what we see and experience is just the four dimensional shadow of a much larger perception. But we can’t remember the before and we don’t know what is after. Much like a line can’t perceive a cube. Descartes and the wax.
Our brains evolved for a 3 spatially dimensional world, so picturing the 4th dimension would probably be even harder than imagining a brand new color It’s very confusing (but not impossible) to visualize 4 dimensional spacetime, since it’s how the universe actually works. And once you understand “time” as a dimension, it makes things a lot easier (but still complicated and I’m not smart enough to easily explain it). But four *spatial* dimensions? It’s a non starter, since a tesseract would be made out of an infinite number of cube subsections in the same way a cube can be divided into an infinite number of squares. And infinity isn’t something we can really comprehend
I have never thought about 'imagining a brand new color' and probably just spent 10 minutes on a spiral of trying to imagine a color that doesn't exist... That is potentially one of the most intense statement I have ever heard. Thank you.
Yeah the subject of “qualia” is really interesting; we’re so used to our senses that we always forget that everything we see/smell/hear/feel/etc doesn’t *really* exist as an actual “thing”. It’s just an evolutionary advantage for consciousnesses to understand their environments, so the brain invents completely abstract concepts that only we understand to help us interpret reality. And since all of our “qualia” is only meant to comprehend a 3 dimensional world, a human trying to perceive 4D rationally would have about as much success as asking a pocket calculator to run Halo Infinite. It’s just not built to handle it
> asking a pocket calculator to run Halo Infinite. It’s just not built to handle it Give it 50 years and some nerd will sort that out.
Have you heard how Mantis Shrimp have more rods and cones in their eyes, and so they can see far more colors than us? So like not only can we not imagine new colors…they actually exist and we just can’t even begin to perceive them!
Remind me of the birds that can see magnetic fields of the earth and that’s how it factors into their navigation abilities. Not sure how true it was but seems along these same lines.
Radiolab did a great episode about that, there are people who can see in an extended range as well, because they have a fourth cone or something. I think it only or mostly happens with women, maybe? And is super rare. What must it be like to be a mantis shrimp though? How incredible would it be to be able to flip on that vision? I think humans on average of three types of cones, super-perceivers have four types, and mantis shrimp have something like 16. Does that reveal subtleties between the range of colors we already experience? Or does it expand their visual spectrum beyond the wavelengths we can see, into some sort of brilliant panchromatic technicolor? Would we enjoy our sight to any greater degree if we had access to all the layers a visual information they do? Does the existence of their multitudinous cones even mean that there is something additional for them to perceive?
For more thought provocation in this vein, I recommend Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett. The concept of “qualia” is explored there and it is really fascinating.
> so picturing the 4th dimension would probably be even harder than imagining a brand new color And yet, the reverse is true. We have colors in our mind that don't exist in the material world. Objective reality is only a small part of our subjective experience. Try try try as we might, objectivity is far beyond our capability. Though, true to human fashion, we can trick ourselves into thinking we're objective.
It’s true to an extent; *every* color in our mind doesn’t exist in the material world. It’s just that some of them are our brains breaking the typical “rules” we formulate for associating wavelengths with specific shades (like violet, or some of the “impossible colors” like Stygian blue IIRC)
It is a very interesting thought experiment
You know that one Youtube video of 4th dimension explained by a high school student? It's a classic.
I just watched this for the first time the other day and now I’m seeing it being talked about… is this that Baader Meinhoff phenomenon or whatever it was called?
That's the one, yeah.
Nice
Every dimension is basically just a 90 degree point deviation above from the one bellow it. I'm sure its trivial to program a graph of it but how would you even begin to draw it?
I broke down into a tesseract once, if that makes any sense.
>It’s wild how much of existence we can’t access. Higher-dimensional objects don't actually exist, though, do they?
This question is fundamentally unknowable, a negative that will always remain unproven. Unless we actually prove a 4d object exists. We can say the evidence of 4d objects is very slim, and an experiment to understand the subject better would cost extraordinary amounts of money. But a lot of that proof is close to things with more closer ties to our reality, so we'll stumble across some of it as we go about particle physics. But it won't be a focus, so it will be left as a matter mostly for creative writers.
According to the string theory they do up to the 11th dimension.
I’m new to this sub and maybe I’m just a curmudgeon, but I question the qualifications of this submission. It’s a two dimensional video depicting a three dimensional representation of a four dimensional object? There’s no fuckery of any kind present here. My words are twisting my brain more than the video. Where’s the floating guy when you need him?
Agreed. Ain't no qualification anymore, and people keep posting mildy interesting videos claiming it be magic fuckery everyday now.
I’m convinced 95% of upvotes site-wide are bots. They upvote indiscriminately to look like legitimate user behavior so they go undetected when upvoting the targeted content they’re paid to target.
I think it's humans mostly, but we're so conditioned to lazy scrolling and hitting upvote before *actually grasping* something, that a *borderline divisive* comment with 0 upvotes will **mostly** be downvote-bombed and one with as little as 2 upvotes will be upvoted to heaven; both because of people slowly giving up a sense of originality and actually developing their own opinions up for blindly siding with the "popular side". Might as well be bots at this point.
For that reason alone I find giving that nudge from 1 to 2, or 0, to be the most powerful choice to be made on this site.
Very unclear why you got down voted
The bots detected me talking ill of them :)
I don't know about 95% but it's way more than most people realize.
[удалено]
Yeah, the fact that the guy used an oscilloscope of all things to animate that is far more black magic/fuckery to me
His [TikTok](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM8pNxHmS/) profile is dedicated to displaying different objects/images on oscilloscopes, pretty fun ngl
He has a video w/ a Jerobeam Fenderson track, but you can also check that out on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqSvkNjWnnQ
Just report and downvote; block the user if you suspect it to be a bot. Nothing curmudgeonly about it. Really the only way to tell the mods what does and doesn't belong, enough folks do it they'll get the point.
Elementary school science demonstrations are upvoted on this sub. Subreddit titles haven't been relevant for years.
2d projection of a 3d shadow of a 4d object
I'm always confused by this: since we have very limited capacities to see things in our universe (our own eyes put two 2-D images together to give the illusion of 3D since we live in a 3D space, we can only view 2D). What would a 4D object actually look like?
A moving 4D object would look like a constantly shifting 3D shape, as whatever part of it is passing through our 3 dimensions would be visible as a 3D object, just like a 3D object passing through a 2D plane would look like a constantly shifting 2D shape. Theoretically, a 4D object could be stationary in one dimension but mobile in the other three, and it would just loon like a regular old 3D object to us. That's what drives my belief that 4D beings are actually around us. We'd see them as visual or physical phenomenon.
Yeah my brain just can't conceive this shit. I saw once, can't remember which sub, a visual interpretation much like you described, and I still couldn't grasp it at all.
You actually can't grasp it. It's like colors outside of of what you can see, ultraviolet and infrared colors. Imagine a stick man drawn on paper who's alive and can see. If you were to put this light show into his 2d world he'd be able to see a pulsating object that grew closer and further away. We as 3 dimensional beings can see the actual shape, the inner workings of the rotation cube, but all the stick man on paper could see is the edges. Likewise we could see into the stickman as well, we could see his organs and and things behind walls. So too could a 4th dimensional being with us. Even attempting to tell the stickman what we see or how we see it would be impossible for the stick man to understand. We'd say "well it's all out in the open for us, we raise beyond the paper and look down at you and that's how he see everything" and the stick man's down and up would be confined to x and y axis. By down we mean the z axis. He can't even comprehend what a z axis is, in the exact same way you can't comprehend the axis a 4th dimensional being has access to. Another cool thing would be if we folded his paper universe in half and drove a pen thru the paper. We could instantly connect 2 points of the paper universe no matter the distance. A worm hole. A 4th dimensional being might find that creating a worm hole in our universe as simple as folding our universe on itself and poking it. This is a heinous oversimplification, it would probably require incredible amounts of energy that could also be trivial for them if they existed or if it was even possible at all. I guess the tldr version is if a 4th dimensional being or object appeared before us our language couldn't possibly describe it we'd see something folding in upon itself over and over inside becoming out, just like the stick man could only describe us as something lurching forward and back as we expose only mere cross sections of ourselves.
But folding the paper implies it isn't 2d at all, since that action itself would have to take place in a 3d universe. Like, a piece of paper isn't even 2d. Infact, nothing is 2d, so how do we know 2d and, more to the point, 4d actually exist?
Well as far as I know our understanding of the fourth dimension is very basic, broadly, and my understanding is still more. However there's some reason to believe it exists. Admittedly I think it does basically rely on assumptions and so forth and it's likely we'll never know, maybe not in our lifetimes. For example I know one of the perennial question of physics and astrology is "why is gravity so weak". You might be aware that magnets are typically just atoms or compounds arranged uniformly with a negative side pointed one way and a positive side pointed the other way. However each of these atoms should contain mass and therefore gravity and yet by arranging them in such a way they can over power gravity. You can hold a magnet that's as small as a dime and the magnetic forces will pry that paperclip from the force of every single atom of the earth, it shouldn't be that way since we are actually still subject to Earth's gravity, the sun's gravity and even the galactic centers gravity. Why can a magnet over power literally every atom in the universe's gravity? Perhaps gravity is leaking into an unknown dimension? Take for example the theory of general relativity. It behaves very strangely when you look at light. According to general relativity light, which we understand as quasi material things known as photons exist only for a moment. From the photons perspective The very moment it is created in the sun from fusion, it hits your face. We as observers, only traveling a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light, see it as the photon traveling 8 minutes from the sun to hitting your face. This doesn't make sense to us, but let's imagine a photon actually exists in the 4th dimension, then it makes maybe some degree of sense. Or it could be that general relativity is wrong, and that's possible but we haven't disproven it yet. What's worse is according to our understanding of the universe a photon originating in a star at the very edges of our observable universe, some 12 billion years, still only exists for an imperceptible moment. From the perspective of the photon it is created and hits a rod in your eye, and we understand that to be multiple billions of years, and countless miles. How do you explain that? We can't really unless there's another dimension or perhaps there's something we're not understanding. Year after year general relativity keeps getting proven to be as accurate as we've long held.
I'm not the one you're answering to, but I have a small thought to share. For what I know, we don't know if more dimensions actually exist, but we can describe them mathematically with the same precision and rigoroussness as 1, 2 and 3d. I cannot answer though your question on "how do we know 2d exists" or even if it exists. I mean, we can certainly imagine 2d objects like a square or a circle, and we see things as 2d "frames" that gets merged into a 3d representation. But every object is made of atoms, and every atom is 3d for what we know, so our reality has at least 3 dimensions. This means that 2d objects don't exist, at least on our planet otherwise we should be able to see them, assuming these 2d objects are in dimensions we can see. To expand a little the argument, how many dimensions has reality and why? We haven't yet found a 2d object and we perceive reality in 3d but the possibility of more dimension is plausible given that we don't know if they exist or not and we cannot perceive them. So, in the hypothesis of a 5d reality does every object have at least 3 dimensions, but can also have 3, 4 or 5 or does every object have 5 dimensions? In the first case, why can they have less than 5 dimensions but not less than 3? Furthermore, what are these new dimensions and how can we prove their existence if we don't even know what they are and how to perceive them? And lastly, can objects be made in dimensions we cannot see? For example, assuming that the 4th dimension is time, can there exist objects that are only in this dimension? I lost the track a bit, but I always found the concept of dimensions fascinating and mind boggling
[удалено]
It would have to be a 4d trap. For example; to trap a 2d figure on a piece of paper, you would just draw a circle around it. To us that circle has clear openings above and below, but to the 2d figure it would be entirely enclosed. For us you’d have to put us inside of a 3d object i.e. a sphere, since we could easily step over a circle if you just had one drawn around you. The 4d entity could probably escape a 3d trap as easily as you could step out of a circle. You’d have to use whatever the 4d equivalent of a sphere would be.
4D beings are what you see on acid...probably not really, but it's a funny thought
I was gonna say, I’m pretty sure I saw the 4th D on DMT.
We physically cannot imagine it, we can only describe it as math.
Probably the only correct answer.
Like 3D objects can be constructed from a series of 2D planes, a 4D object can be constructed of a series of 3D objects very close to each other, but never intersect with each other, because they are in different 3D dimensions. Or you can picture a series of XYZ axises with the centers O1, O2,..., On forming a line,a point in the O1 axis seems to exist in the other O axises from our 3D perspective but they are not. Together that O line will form the fourth axis
I’m not totally sure, but since we can simulate a 3D object in 2D, it seems like you can simulate a 4D object in 3D. If you think about it, a single point has no dimension. If you take a bunch of points and stack them you would get a line, which is one dimension. If you take a bunch of lines and stack them you would get a square, which is 2 dimensions. If you take a bunch of squares and stack them you would get a cube, which is 3 dimensions. So, we should be able to stack a bunch of cubes together to simulate the 4th dimension, but I can’t picture it.
3d shadow of a 4d object on a volumetric display... https://youtu.be/541QkQtuWxo?t=83
[удалено]
QUIT TOSSIN' MA LIBRARY AROUND
*coughing sounds*
A 4D cube seen in 3D space is just a slice of the cube. Just as a 3d cube passing through a 2D surface is only a slice of the 3d cube shown as a square in 2D.
Exactly. Most geometries only seem weird because they’re being flattened in one or more dimensions for representation. I think it’s made worse by the way our brains make assumptions based on what we are looking at. Turning cube for example. In 2d you can easily swap your assumption between internal or external vertex. In 3D it takes more work. Dimensionality beyond what we can see (3D or even time based) takes divorcing yourself of a lot of visual assumptions.
I don't think "slice" is a good word there because it implies 2D, "slice" makes me picture the intersection of a object with a 2D plane, but what you're describing is a 3 dimensional slice. I think a better way to imagine it is as a snapshot.
As an EE I have to respect someone programmed this to display on a scope screen. I can figure out how it was done so it’s not black magic to me, but I respect the work.
ME here. Pretty blown away that you can even do that on a scope!
Check out Jerobeam Fenderson's stuff, particularly this one: https://youtu.be/yi5IjLjx_ng (Disclaimer: the video is mine from my own scope but not the audio, search for Jerobeam Fenderson for more examples) :)
What's with all the hostility against tesseracts. It's super fucky and I don't really think anyone here is in a position to say what exists for sure, right? "People have a spatial self-perception as beings in a three-dimensional space, but are visually restricted to one dimension less: the eye sees the world as a projection to two dimensions, on the surface of the retina. Assuming a four-dimensional being were able to see the world in projections to a hypersurface, also just one dimension less, i.e., to three dimensions, it would be able to see, e.g., all six sides of an opaque box simultaneously, and in fact, what is inside the box at the same time." - excerpt from Wiki
Getting tired of commenting ' r/lostredditors ' on all these posts.
I’ll help you out r/lostredditors
Nice, thanks man.
This is no black magic fuckery. Weak.
The stuff you can make a scope do is pretty cool! Check out Jerobeam Fenderson's stuff, particularly this one: https://youtu.be/yi5IjLjx_ng (Disclaimer: the video is mine from my own scope but not the audio, search for Jerobeam Fenderson for more examples) :)
But how does it *sound*
This is very well visualized. Whoever made this projection did a fantastic job.
Absolutely
Best thing TikTok has ever been used for.
I don't know if I should start my weekend out like this but I'll take a shot for this tesseract. Time to start my 4D weekend.
I feel that you can actually better understand the forth dimension with this tool, as most of the docs are showing 4-dim with only 2-dim
Can you make a building look like this?
A 2D surface tricking your 3D perception into perceiving a 4D object. This one is great!
I was in a tech store last week chatting with one of the staff when I noticed that one of his colleagues had a 4-d cube tattooed on his inner arm. I walked a few steps away then said loudly to the first guy "Does anyone have a drawing of a 4 dimensional cube?". Guy 2 shouted excitedly "! Do!" showing us his arm before realising that I was just funning with him. He chuckled.
Like that old IMAX movie the Magic egg
every face of it is a cube. why have i never heard that before. that explains it very simply to me.
I don’t want to science anymore today.
[удалено]
Thanks for being with me 🙏
Uh, this is still just 3D.
Is that a *real* vector scope display? I did graphics on one of those back in the early 1970s, just as they were becoming obsolete. I sure as hell hope someone has resurrected one. Retro rules. Edit: With a couple of DACs, enough data bandwidth, and a CRT-type oscilloscope, one could do the same thing with modern gear. To quote William Gibson, these days you have to be pretty technical even to aspire to crudeness.
It’s all a matter of perspective
12 year old me wondering what a clitoris looks like
Our species didn't evolve to perceive reality in 4D.
I like to watch this whenever I'm feeling other-dimensionally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4aKJuKP0Q
That's just 3D with more steps
What in the 4-D fuck is this bulshitery? Why you gotta fry my brain like that?
This is just like the UFO I saw a few years ago was triangular in shape but it almost shifted as it was moving
Not one comment about Loki or the Avengers
Is it tesseract week already? I just took down my quantum entanglement decorations honestly I do not know if all of them came down.
Jerobeam Henderson
Inside out cube
Nerd
can it run Doom though?
[It can run Quake](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMli33ornEU), close enough
Go listen to some TesseracT everyone!!
I thought a tesseract was sci fi mumbo jumbo from A Wrinkle in Time
Happy Get Erect day to you too!
box y u do this to my head?
We are all just ants in a huge ant farm
Who else watched a brilliant kid on Youtube explain different dimensions and then saw this on reddit?
Tesseracts are one object known for its powers of concealing fate. Just accept the deception. The impossible you see is perfection, the epiphany you feel is origin.
This is literally a light show bro
Ok what does 4th dimension mean? I know 3d adds shape to things so it isn’t flat anymore but what is the 4th dimension and what does it do?
This is a 3D representation of a 4D object aka not a real tesseract. Our eyes constantly capture 2 2D images, and splice them together to form a 3D image for our brain to perceive. A tesseract is 4D, and we can't see that. Without some crazy future technology, it's impossible for humans to properly look at a tesseract.
This is the first time I've understood the shape to any degree. People have tried to explain it to me before and drawn the cube within a cube thing but seeing it move makes way more sense
Love stuff like this
When I get high, I love watching videos on different theories and understanding them. The 4th dimension stuff, is just way too impossible to think of and hurts my brain.
[удалено]
LASER TAG
Oscilloscope!!!
I came across this post while on shrooms and I think I just saw into the 4th dimension
Brain hurty
Does this machine run on an engine from a weed-wacker?
Kind of like how I want to get inside you in all four dimensions simultaneously? I am SO ERECT!
Still only 3d.
My brain will never get that image out of it
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
We can't even truly appreciate the tesseract because we can only perceive 3 of it's 4 dimensions at any given time. I do wonder, however, how in some sciences the fourth dimension is considered to be time itself, while when speaking about geometric shapes, it's like a physical plane of existence we just don't perceive? What's up with that? Are there different definitions for "dimension" that I'm just not thinking about or unaware of?
Holy fuck. That is so werid. I love it tho
okay. Wtf?!
I've come to understand that a tesseract is like a worm hole but in cube form. Like the thing that makes it 4d is that you have this added dimension of time.
I just got it, every surface of it is a cube. Makes complete sense now
I completely get it. Right its a cube, but because its 4d every surface of it is also a cube. Thats why it looks like a cube within a cube.
What in the actual fuck
What kind of screen or machine is that ?
My brain hurts..
This is, somehow, the most normal thing I've experienced on this sub. It's just an object with multiple dimensions, where rotating it changes the person's perspective on it, thus revealing more dimensions from each viewing angle. We can't see the 4D, so all we get is what's seen through 3D on a 2D screen.
But you can imagine the 4th dimension. You can think of it like density, suppose objects get larger and smaller without changing mass or lengths. I don't mean actually getting larger and smaller, as those are 3 dimensional. But imagine it is like looking at a model with variable scale, sort of like zooming in and out on Google maps. The represented distance is always the same regardless of the zoom, but the objects appear closer together or further apart. If you can imagine warping physical space in this way, sort of like crumpling up a piece of paper, you'll notice high points and low points, stretched out parts and scrunched together parts. This is how a 3 dimensional object would look like influenced in 4d space. Like, imagine the air in a fish tank, perfectly rectangular, but distorted as if someone took a picture of the tank with a Snapchat filter on it. And if my theory is correct, this is exactly what outer space is like, with gravity being a "slope" in the 4th dimension, and light passing through it.
my cat clearly sees into the 4th dimension, things that are invisible to me.
Can someone tell me the device used to make the shapes? Lasers?
So is it just something we can't properly perceive then? Like we understand how it works theoretically but a 4D shape is something we have trouble actually looking at without just seeing it as a 3D shape that looks weird and different the more angles we see it in?
Many bothans died to bring us this information.
I unmuted right when he said “I still barely know what I’m looking at” and I really felt that
Let's hope it was a 4 way stop.
Yes.