A discussion with my high school friend Tyler about multiple dimensions.read more
Tyler: we live in more than three dimensions
"time" passes in the fourth
so if there were some universe with fourth dimensional beings
their "time" would pass in the fifth
and they would see in the third dimension
I did a project on dimensions for Math Modeling
Joe: We "live" in as many dimensions as there are.
Tyler: That's a less specific sentence than the one that I stated
Joe: Yes, because yours wasn't accurate.
We are three dimensional.
We see in only two.
We infer three.
Tyler: No, we infer more than three
Joe: Then show me.
Which way is time?
Tyler: If we were just three dimensional
we wouldn't be moving
time is in the direction that we move
the picture is the "cube" of fourth diension
Joe: We can't see a tesseract
Tyler: Similar to how a line is a bunch of points
and a square is a bunch of lines
a tesseract is a bunch of cubes
Joe: I know.
And a cube is a bunch of squares.
Tyler: We infer at least four because time is passing
we are moving
Joe: That's true.
But I'm not sure.
Tyler: You'll just have to go research it yourself
Joe: I've read flatland.
Tyler: that's how you learned
that's how you learned
Joe: But do we really infer four?
and many more
See what I did there?
Joe: The rhyme?
Joe: But two dimensional creatures don't infer three.
They infer the dimension in which they reside.
Tyler: Actually, they do
otherwise they wouldn't be moving
You know how fractals can be like
"in between" dimensions
It's somewhat similar to that
Joe: I don't see that.
Tyler: because you're calculating something that's incalculable
you're eventually just rounding
Joe: That's true.
But what's fucked is...
Nature doesn't round.
Joe: That's what doesn't make sense.
Tyler: Okay well
Let me start off with there are two "types" of dimensionality
There's the mathematical dimensions
and there's like
Tyler: to make it easier to understand the mathematical dimensionsa
becuase a cube with cubes on the faces of the cubes that are all having common faces is hard to visualize
Joe: To understand a dimension, I think you have to be at least in one higher than it.
We are three dimensional.
one instance of us is three dimensional
Joe: Length, Width, Height.
Tyler: but we live in the fourth, fifth, sixth, etc
Joe: Yes, of course.
Joe: As I said, we live in as many dimensions as are extant.
We infer the third dimension of other objects using shades, feeling, etc.
Tyler: I see what you mean
Yeah, I see what you mean.
Joe: It's like this.
I knock you out with a drug.
Tyler: Because we don't see in three dimensions
Joe: And you can't move anything.
Not even blink.
Tyler: we just infer that we're three dimensional
Joe: And I align your body in such a way that coincides with a picture that I paste onto your eyes.
The highest resolution picture.
You wouldn't think anything was wrong.
Tyler: actually it just depends on DPI which depends on how good somebody's eyesight is
Joe: Other than being unable to move, of course.
Tyler: but that's digression
Joe: Of course there is a limit to the pixel density the human eye can discriminate.
A point where an increase won't make a difference.
But yes, that doesn't matter.
Would seeing in three dimensions allow you to see the entirety of an object?
Front, back, under, above, simultaneously?
In our two dimensional visual perception of the world, we only see a plane of the nearest objects.
Tyler: and we infer three dimensionality because they converge into a point
instead of just like
you could make some illusion where it gets bigger or whatever,
but that would make it seem like a short rectangle that's on a wall or that it's just getting bigger
Joe: If you were to pixilate the entire visual experience of someone, each pixel would only be shaded by the reflected light of the nearest object.
Tyler: What do you mean
Joe: It's proof that we see in two dimensions.
Tyler: I know we see in two dimensions
Repetition is just good for me because I'm often not correct the first time.
Yeah, we see in two dimensions
that's why we have two eyes
Is it, though?
Tyler: somebody in the second dimension might only need one eye
becuase they only see in one dimension
Joe: The number of eyes is not causally linked to the perceived dimensions.
Tyler: Is it, though?
because you need numbers of eyes that can infer the number of dimensions that you live in
two eyes would only infer three dimensions
Joe: Tyler, cover one of your eyes.
Tyler: a four-dimensional being can't use two eyes because that only infers three dimensions
that's because I've been living with two eyes my whole life
so I know from experience what things look like with one
Joe: This is fallacious.
It can't be as simple as eyes.
Tyler: Your eyes don't look forward when you look at stuff
Joe: Imagine a two dimensional figure with two eyes.
Tyler: They both converge on a single point where what you're looking at is
and so when I cover one of my eyes, my eyes are still looking at that point of convergence
Joe: It would see two instances, (assuming their field of vision didn't intersect) two different instances of a one dimensional world.
Joe: It has to do with the dimensionality of your body.
Tyler: They wouldn't need more than one instance, though
Joe: The dimensionality of your eye!
Eye in this case represents your vision.
I mean look.
A two dimensional creature would see only a planar view of our three dimensional world.
If we moved it up and down.
Tyler: They would be living in a different universe
Joe: The plane would change.
Not really universe.
I think the universe encompasses all dimensions.
Tyler: Like, because otherwise the rules of the universe would be different and they could spontaneously combust or whatever
just for consistency
They couldn't exist.
Well, they could.
It's just that they would have no height.
so it wouldn't make much sense
Joe: They would be perfectly flat.
Tyler: they would have like
because they would have no air resistance moving in the direction that they're flat in
Joe: That's true.
They would have no mass.
They could travel at light speed.
Tyler: faster, even!
Tyler: THAT'S THE KEY TO TIME TRAVEL!
If you had a two dimensional being with infinite eyes affixed to its perimeter.
By two dimensional standards.
It would be all seeing.
I don't know what I was thinking
because there are like
but I don't think there is anything natural with one eye
But the dimensionality of the eye is interesting.
Tyler: So it's at least the number of dimensions minus one
becuase otherwise there wouldn't be enough perspective
Joe: On flatland, you could have a three dimensional being with a two dimensional eye.
It wouldn't be able to perceive its three dimensionality.
I think only one eye is needed.
Regardless of the dimension.
The number of eyes, or rather, the aggregate range of viewing of the eyes, only determines its awareness.
Its ability to see within its own dimension.
A sphere with infinite eyes on its circumference.
Is there a different word for three dimensional...
I'm a dumbass.
On its surface area.
It wouldn't see everything.
It'd have to be on the outside looking in.
Like it surrounds the universe and has infinite eyes on its inside.
It would not see beyond some objects.
I don't think time is a dimension.
Tyler: What the fuck are you babbling about?
Why is it that a two dimensional object perceives time?
Why is time the fourth dimension?
I'd describe time as a change in states of matter.
A change in position.
No change can occur without time.
Time pervades all dimensions.
Tyler: We move in the forth dimension
otherwise we would just be like
Joe: We'd be a slice.
I freeze frame.
Like a picture.
As would any other of the lower dimensions.
(In terms of number, by no means lesser).
What do you mean hitting ourselves?
Staying in the same place?
Tyler: becuase the "us" of the previous "time" would not have not been there
if we didn't move in the fourth dimension
Joe: What do you mean by move?
Tyler: time passin
Joe: We don't move then.
We don't move through it, it moves through us.
Tyler: Right, becuase we are more than three dimensional
Joe: That's getting too confusing for me.
All of the various creatures exist in all dimensions.
They are only capable of perceiving some.
Joe: This is dependent on what?
Not their dimensionality?
The dimensionality of what they use to perceive?
Tyler: it's dependent on how many times you jack off a day
Tyler: I'm playing Shitty Ops now
Joe: Damn dude.
Tyler: with Chad
Joe: There's nobody at my school that's even capable of having this conversation.
Joe: Fuck you guys leaving.
Tyler: I'm sitting in my room with my laptop like 2 feet from my FACE
Joe: That's nice.
We feel in three dimensions?
We may only feel a surface.
We infer three from feeling two.
lose the boner over dimensnions
Joe: I can't.
It's just too powerful.
I'm going to keep talking to you, but there's not reason to answer.
It just helps me.
Joe: Jesus christ it's hard to imagine what you're feeling.
Because you make inferences.
From the beginning.
Rather than just using mind experiments from the second and third dimensions.
It would be prudent to use others.
Preferably the first.
I'm not sure time is the fourth dimension.
I don't think it is.
I mean, the first, second, and third dimension certainly have time.
Yet, a one dimensional object is no better at perceiving the third dimension than a two dimensional one.
(one as in object).
They all infer time.
Based on changing states.
Tyler: cool story bro
Still working on it.
Joe: If all of these dimensions perceive time.
Then time can not be the fourth dimension.
Unless, we can infer a dimension higher than the one just above us.
Unless three dimensional perceivers can infer the fifth dimension.
Well, two above.
I think it's not true.
There's no jumping in inferring.
If you can't infer the second, you can't infer the third.
We infer time.
We don't have the capacity (humans, three dimensional creatures) to infer the fourth.
I don't think so.
Like I said before.
Time pervades through all dimensions.
Or rather, all dimensions pervade through time.
Time pervades through all dimensions.
At different points in time, different states exist.
But then, simultaneously, is it not true that for all points of space, different time existed?
Perhaps yielding the entanglement of space and time.
I'm not sure.
I don't believe we will ever perceive the fourth dimension.
It is impossible.
Lest we are visited and freed by our dimensional bounds by a higher dimensional being.
Like in flat land.
*freed from our