A discussion with my high school friend Tyler about multiple dimensions.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_dimension

the picture is the "cube" of fourth diension

tesseract

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

because

yeah

Tyler: that's how you learned

that's how you learned

learned

rolf

Joe: Yes.

Tyler: rolf

rofl

Joe: But do we really infer four?

Tyler: yes

and many more

See what I did there?

Joe: The rhyme?

Tyler: Yeahp

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

"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.

Tyler: exacttly

Joe: That's what doesn't make sense.

Hold on.

Tyler: Okay well

first off

I mean

Let me start off with there are two "types" of dimensionality

There's the mathematical dimensions

and there's like

"applied" dimensions

like time

and stuff

Joe: Yes.

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.

Tyler: Like

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.

Tyler: Yeah

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.

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.

Yes,

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

being

planar

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

Joe: Ok.

Repetition is just good for me because I'm often not correct the first time.

Tyler: lol

Yeah, we see in two dimensions

that's why we have two eyes

Joe: hahahahah

logic fail.

Tyler: oh

lol

Is it, though?

Joe: Yes.

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: Nah.

Tyler: yah

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.

Tyler: Hmm.

Joe: It has to do with the dimensionality of your body.

OR

Rather!

Tyler: They wouldn't need more than one instance, though

Joe: The dimensionality of your eye!

Tyler: What

lo

LOL, RATHER

Joe: ha

Yes,

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.

Dimension.

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

Joe: Ah.

Good point.

They couldn't exist.

Well, they could.

It's just that they would have no height.

Tyler: yeah

so it wouldn't make much sense

Joe: They would be perfectly flat.

Yeah.

Tyler: they would have like

infinite speed

because they would have no air resistance moving in the direction that they're flat in

Anyway

Joe: That's true.

They would have no mass.

They could travel at light speed.

Tyler: faster, even!

Joe: Perhaps.

Tyler: THAT'S THE KEY TO TIME TRAVEL!

Not really.

Joe: haha

Tyler: rofl

Anyway

Joe: Yeah.

Let's see.

If you had a two dimensional being with infinite eyes affixed to its perimeter.

By two dimensional standards.

It would be all seeing.

Tyler: Yeah

I don't know what I was thinking

because there are like

spiders

with like

900000000000000000000 eyes

but I don't think there is anything natural with one eye

Joe: Yeah.

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.

Fuck.

A sphere with infinite eyes on its circumference.

Is there a different word for three dimensional...

wow.

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.

But still.

It would not see beyond some objects.

That's stange.

*strange.

I don't think time is a dimension.

Tyler: What the fuck are you babbling about?

Joe: Dude.

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.

Tyler: We move in the forth dimension

otherwise we would just be like

hitting ourselves

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

g

Joe: We don't move then.

Time does.

We don't move through it, it moves through us.

It extends.

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.

Tyler: yeah

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

Joe: Fuck.

Tyler: I'm playing Shitty Ops now

Joe: Damn dude.

so yeah

Joe: There's nobody at my school that's even capable of having this conversation.

Tyler: lol

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?

Maybe.

No.

We may only feel a surface.

We infer three from feeling two.

Tyler: Joe

calm down

lose the boner over dimensnions

Joe: I can't.

It's.

It's

It's just too powerful.

I'm going to keep talking to you, but there's not reason to answer.

It just helps me.

Tyler: lol

k

Joe: Jesus christ it's hard to imagine what you're feeling.

Because you make inferences.

All right.

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.

Maybe.

I don't think it is.

I mean, the first, second, and third dimension certainly have time.

They evolve.

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

Joe: Yeah.

Still working on it.

16 minutes

Joe: If all of these dimensions perceive time.

Then time can not be the fourth dimension.

I think.

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.

Maybe three.

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.

Or rather, all dimensions pervade through time.

No.

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.

spacetime.

Perhaps.

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

Forward.

Backward.

Left.

Right.

Up.

Down.

Through?