4th dimensional philosophy dog

[IndustryStandard]

yoooooooo

Unrelated to anything but have any of you looked into(ha!) The 4th dimension? I watched a youtube video called 4D toys which was basically just an ad for a VR app, but it piqued my interest.

For those who don't know, the 4th dimension can mean many things, but basically it is represented mathmematically as an extra axis on a graph: 2D has x and y, 3D has x y z, and 4d has x y z w. As beings who primarily inhabit the 3rd dimension, we exist on a single point on the w axis.

It's hard to go into more details without visual aids, so here's the videos i watched that helped me understand:

Little to no math, pure visual demonstration:

https://youtu.be/S-yRYmdsnGs

Mathematical explanation:

P1) https://youtu.be/4TI1onWI_IM

P2) https://youtu.be/4URVJ3D8e8k

The reason i bring it up is i wanted to ask the community, given what we know of how 4D objects appear when cross-sectioned with our 3D perspective, how would we find out which objects in our daily lives have a 4th dimensional component? My theory is that the 4th dimension is sort of a schroedinger dimension, both existing and not existing until observed and defined. What's your take?

[ChiralAnomaly]

At 5/10/20 02:51 AM, IndustryStandard wrote: My theory is that the 4th dimension is sort of a schroedinger dimension, both existing and not existing until observed and defined. What's your take?

It is a fundamental knowledge that quantum mechanics is described by Hilbert Space (which is a normed infinite dimensional vector space that is square-integrable) and you are a bit high.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/10/20 03:46 AM, Sobolev wrote:

At 5/10/20 02:51 AM, IndustryStandard wrote: My theory is that the 4th dimension is sort of a schroedinger dimension, both existing and not existing until observed and defined. What's your take?

It is a fundamental knowledge that quantum mechanics is described by Hilbert Space (which is a normed infinite dimensional vector space that is square-integrable) and you are a bit high.

Fundamental as in something everyone knows? Because you're pretty clearly wrong on that one as i've never heard of hilbert space, though if you feel like explaining it i'd love to continue discussing. Or if you want to keep your "i am smarter than you" attitude you can fuck off and i'll just google it.

Sadly, i ran out of weed a few days ago. You would otherwise be pretty on the money ;p

Edit: i googled it. There were some terms i only vaguely understood, but i dont think that just mentioning hilbert space answered my question. I was talking about a matter of perspective, not measurable mathematics. Like if the keyboard you were typing on extended into a hilbert space, how would we perceive that? On the subject of schroedinger, do these extra dimensions - hilbert space in general - only exist BECAUSE we've searched for it?

[DamnedByFate]

At 5/10/20 03:46 AM, Sobolev wrote: It is a fundamental knowledge that … you are a bit high.

[IndustryStandard]

To find enlightenment, we all gotta pull our heads outta our asses and stick em up our hilbert holes!

[ChiralAnomaly]

At 5/11/20 03:06 AM, IndustryStandard wrote: hilbert holes!

It is a complete metric space. Hilbert Space are complete in the sense that a Cauchy sequence of 'nice' functions in that space converges to a 'nice' function.

There are no holes.

Once again you are high.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/11/20 07:05 AM, Sobolev wrote:

At 5/11/20 03:06 AM, IndustryStandard wrote: hilbert holes!

It is a complete metric space. Hilbert Space are complete in the sense that a Cauchy sequence of 'nice' functions in that space converges to a 'nice' function.

There are no holes.

Once again you are high.

No imagination or senses of humor either, apparently.

[Edeshye]

Have you ever had an itch some place in your body that simply does not exist? Like, it's kinda in your arm, then you go there and realize it wasn't there, maybe more to the hand. Then nope, not there either. Then you go to your elbow and NOTHING! You know it's somewhere there but it's not within your reach. That's because it's in the fourth dimention.

[AcidX]

The big picture is four dimensional

and higher

[IndustryStandard]

I think there might be some connection between 3d space and the "six senses". Ive heard we actually have over a hundred unique senses(incl. Inner ear, internal temperature, etc), but what we used to think of as all the senses -- sight, sound, touch, taste, smell -- i think, are simply the most obvious ones we use to perceive 3-dimensional space. It could be argued that they all are just different levels of touch -- photons touching the rods and cones in your eyes, pressure waves against your ears, they all involve contact between yourself and another energy or matter. The "sixth sense" was actually one or more of these 100+ other senses, but all defined under one blanket definition -- all stored in the same mental hilbert space. Each sense has an infinite depth of understanding, like you could theoretically feel each molecule of an object you were holding if you focussed hard enough -- theoretically. The senses in our hilbert space each have an infinite depth of understanding as well -- an infinite space can hold an infinite number of infinite quantities without filling up -- the only thing that separates them from one "sixth sense" into multiple detailed senses such as the inner-ear is our exploration of that sense's nuance and the details of what it actually reports to us about the universe around us. Biology plays a part as well of course, but discovering the bone that transmits a sense to us is an answer to how we do something rather than how to define something we do. A definite part of the "big picture" but not the part i'm looking at right now.

Final thought: is this mental hilbert space connected between all of us -- like does that explain the connection between the "sixth sense" and supposedly being able to feel when you're being watched or when someone is behind you, etc.

[Swag-in-a-Bag]

Ahhh complex concepts

My maths teacher once described 'The 4th dimension' as our reality being a mirror of itself something like in this photo. Also where do these aforementioned axis even exist but only in our minds? This is why "dimensions" will always be a hard concept to grasp.

I'm having trouble enough in this 3D realm, and one time i got reeaaally high and everything became 2D. Dont think we are ready for 4D and beyond.

[Boss]

In 2012 i got michio kakku’s book. In 2015 i read half of it. To this day, the tenth dimension is a mystery to me

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/12/20 09:18 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Ahhh complex concepts

My maths teacher once described 'The 4th dimension' as our reality being a mirror of itself something like in this photo. Also where do these aforementioned axis even exist but only in our minds? This is why "dimensions" will always be a hard concept to grasp.

I'm having trouble enough in this 3D realm, and one time i got reeaaally high and everything became 2D. Dont think we are ready for 4D and beyond.

Perhaps you were perceiving your typical 3d reality from a 4d perspective, causing all you know to appear less. If you were to experience reality from a 2d perspective everything would seem to grow according to the flatlanders example, since you would be trying to perceive the same amount of stuff with one fewer perspectives. Or at least that's how i understood it.

[phenorax]

There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.

Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.

You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.

If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.

Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.

You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.

This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.

Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.

Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

[Loozar]

I like to think that time is the 4th dimension

But that's one hell of a faggot answer

[communistdog]

do u have of picture of dog u speak of

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/12/20 05:05 PM, Loozar wrote: I like to think that time is the 4th dimension

Time is indeed a 4th dimension, but don't think of it as THE 4th dimension. There's no official order to these things, it's just the order in which we perceive them as linear beings. Time is a dimension either represented linearly on the w axis, or represented as motion over time through the x, y, and z axis.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/12/20 05:08 PM, communistdog wrote: do u have of picture of dog u speak of

As a dog, I cannot selfie. I did attempt a self-portrait though: https://www.newgrounds.com/art/view/industrystandard/good-boy

[phenorax]

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

[phenorax]

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/13/20 06:35 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

Right, but if you were including physics and/or motion in there it wouldn't be 3d because those are both extra dimensions. Also yes, we are not capable of rendering things we are not aware of but this entire thread is framed under an individuals perspective. It is entirely possible - and has been done - to recreate the universe as we see it.

A 1:1 simulated reality engine does seem like too a big of a concept to conquer, but with the advent of quantum computing who knows? Maybe we'll see the precursor to such a thing our lifetime -- if we stop disregarding the idea as pointless and impossible, anyway.

[phenorax]

At 5/13/20 07:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:35 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

Right, but if you were including physics and/or motion in there it wouldn't be 3d because those are both extra dimensions. Also yes, we are not capable of rendering things we are not aware of but this entire thread is framed under an individuals perspective. It is entirely possible - and has been done - to recreate the universe as we see it.

A 1:1 simulated reality engine does seem like too a big of a concept to conquer, but with the advent of quantum computing who knows? Maybe we'll see the precursor to such a thing our lifetime -- if we stop disregarding the idea as pointless and impossible, anyway.

It is not impossible but it will take so long to do it might as well be.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/13/20 08:12 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 07:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:35 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

Right, but if you were including physics and/or motion in there it wouldn't be 3d because those are both extra dimensions. Also yes, we are not capable of rendering things we are not aware of but this entire thread is framed under an individuals perspective. It is entirely possible - and has been done - to recreate the universe as we see it.

A 1:1 simulated reality engine does seem like too a big of a concept to conquer, but with the advent of quantum computing who knows? Maybe we'll see the precursor to such a thing our lifetime -- if we stop disregarding the idea as pointless and impossible, anyway.

It is not impossible but it will take so long to do it might as well be.

So Tesla never should have studied electricity since many of our greatest accomplishments with the stuff happened generations later?

[phenorax]

At 5/13/20 09:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 08:12 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 07:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:35 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

Right, but if you were including physics and/or motion in there it wouldn't be 3d because those are both extra dimensions. Also yes, we are not capable of rendering things we are not aware of but this entire thread is framed under an individuals perspective. It is entirely possible - and has been done - to recreate the universe as we see it.

A 1:1 simulated reality engine does seem like too a big of a concept to conquer, but with the advent of quantum computing who knows? Maybe we'll see the precursor to such a thing our lifetime -- if we stop disregarding the idea as pointless and impossible, anyway.

It is not impossible but it will take so long to do it might as well be.

So Tesla never should have studied electricity since many of our greatest accomplishments with the stuff happened generations later?

What the fuck are you even talking about?Dimensions and whatever you are thinking of are two different things completely.Some things just aren´t worth thinking about because they fall off so far into the vector of complexity and obscurity that trying to comprehend them is a wasted effort.Nikola Tesla was a genius and he was born like that and only managed to increase it through studying and experiments.He did mechanics and engieneering which are less complex than trying to figure out how reality works.If they want to go and try and unravel the mysteries of being and existing they can go and do it.But it will be a wasted effort.

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/13/20 10:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 09:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 08:12 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 07:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:35 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:26 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/13/20 06:04 AM, phenorax wrote:

At 5/13/20 01:52 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.
Kinda like asking a dyslexic guy with written words,because even tho he knows what they are,he cannot understand on a basic level of how to use those words to make an idea in his head.They all look like squigles to him.And that´s how Higher dimensions are to us.
You quite literally have to be on a higher mind state or higher plane of existence to be able to comprehend them.This is something even those megaminds at MENSA have trouble understanding.They only know a little bit more of how things work but not by much.
If you want to see it visually,draw a square and then draw another square but add one line to it,until it becomes a cube.Then keep adding lines,keep adding them until it is a mess of geometric lines that don´t go anywhere.Now to you,the process of a square to a cube is understandable,you can see and comprehend the process of how it goes from 2d to a 3d object.
Now try doing that to the cube and the thing you made.
You cannot understand it,but a being of a higher mind state could.Because just like the square to te cube thing he can understand how the cube slowly becomes the thing you just made,because to it the cube is the square and the the mess you made is the cube.Because he has the mechanics we lack to see and comprehend how the cube becomes the hypercube you just drawn.He can understand the square go from a cube to this because to it,it´s observable and understandable.
This is a heavy topic and it doesn´t have an easy explanation or answer to it.Plus we live in a 4d world brah not a 3d one.If it´s a 3d one then it would be able to perfectly reconstruct it digitally and i consider being able to do something like that to be fiction.
Some things you just can approach with faith,because some things are just incomprehensible and don´t have answers.You either get it or you don´t.
Trying to explain this is a pain in the ass.Next time try and ease us into topics like this by making some threads about concepts that are less complex yeah.

Did you see the videos I linked to in my original post? The discussion started out much more straightforward, specifically about a 4th spacial dimension, but I'm not trying to direct the conversation since it was about perspective in the first place.

Also I don't think that's an accurate depiction of dyslexia. I've known a couple dyslexic people and they were all perfectly capable of reading, it was just difficult because letters and words get switched around. Using that as an example for why we shouldn't even discuss stuff is kinda like saying dyslexics shouldn't read because it's hopeless for them to even try.

Faith I'd take as a completely different debate, though still related on the quantum level via belief and how we create things with our belief. The debate isn't about whether or not extraneous dimensions exist at all though, I personally believe they exist whether or not we're aware of them.

If you were following the conversation you'd realize we live in a Hilbert hole with an infinite number of dimensions lol. If I refer to "our world" as 3d, what I mean is what we can perceive at any given moment in time(time itself being an extraneous dimension, and therefore removed from the equation). That is indeed something that can be perfectly recreated, a digital 3d model of what we're aware of.

I dunno about that.We couldn´t recreate it perfectly as we see it though.

We couldn't make a perfect visual representation of our own perspective of the universe? Can you explain why?

Naw,we couldn´t create a perfect 1:1 represantation of our reality alongside all the galaxy and mathematics problems that come with it.It would legit be too big to succeed.

Right, but if you were including physics and/or motion in there it wouldn't be 3d because those are both extra dimensions. Also yes, we are not capable of rendering things we are not aware of but this entire thread is framed under an individuals perspective. It is entirely possible - and has been done - to recreate the universe as we see it.

A 1:1 simulated reality engine does seem like too a big of a concept to conquer, but with the advent of quantum computing who knows? Maybe we'll see the precursor to such a thing our lifetime -- if we stop disregarding the idea as pointless and impossible, anyway.

It is not impossible but it will take so long to do it might as well be.

So Tesla never should have studied electricity since many of our greatest accomplishments with the stuff happened generations later?

What the fuck are you even talking about?Dimensions and whatever you are thinking of are two different things completely.Some things just aren´t worth thinking about because they fall off so far into the vector of complexity and obscurity that trying to comprehend them is a wasted effort.Nikola Tesla was a genius and he was born like that and only managed to increase it through studying and experiments.He did mechanics and engieneering which are less complex than trying to figure out how reality works.If they want to go and try and unravel the mysteries of being and existing they can go and do it.But it will be a wasted effort.

What I meant was, if Tesla had the same attitude you seem to have he never would have studied anything -- it all would have seemed like a waste of time. New discoveries are only made by "wasting time" on things with unknown outcomes. You strike me as an Edison -- talking down to the "time wasters" until you think you can profit off of them.

Did you even read the first post? I already clarified exactly what I was talking about when I refer to dimensions. And if this is such a wasted effort, what are you doing here talking about it? You chose to come here, apparently just to try and end the discussion for some reason. I get it if you think this is a waste of time, but nobody made you participate in this discussion. We're all very impressed with how much smarter you are than everyone else, now either lean in or get out because "this is pointless" is not a contribution, it's a shutdown.

[Swag-in-a-Bag]

At 5/12/20 01:54 PM, IndustryStandard wrote:

Perhaps you were perceiving your typical 3d reality from a 4d perspective, causing all you know to appear less. If you were to experience reality from a 2d perspective everything would seem to grow according to the flatlanders example, since you would be trying to perceive the same amount of stuff with one fewer perspectives. Or at least that's how i understood it.

I don't know, anything is indeed; possible. Not sure about that particular example; but from what I recall everything through my spherical eyes did look like a 2D painting, and my sense of depth was greatly hindered.

At 5/12/20 04:31 PM, phenorax wrote: There´s no point (as far as i am aware)to even discuss higher dimensions than ours because even if we could make a rough visualisation of it or a concept image, we could never understand it you know.We could never see it completely we could only be able to understand bits and pieces of it but never the whole thing.

I agree, it would be kinda pointless to have/ be apart of anything higher than our current dimension. What would be its practical use other than knowing of its existence? What can we do in 4D that cant be accomplished in 3D?

Its good to know things though and expand on existing ideas

[IndustryStandard]

At 5/14/20 08:46 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Its good to know things though and expand on existing ideas

This is the whole reason I started this post, just to discuss and share our thoughts on the subject.

[Swag-in-a-Bag]

At 5/15/20 12:36 AM, IndustryStandard wrote:

At 5/14/20 08:46 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote: Its good to know things though and expand on existing ideas

This is the whole reason I started this post, just to discuss and share our thoughts on the subject.

Great, it seems you have accomplished this feat. So What do you think the future for '4D' will ensue? I can reaally only see this being visible through virtual reality; but even then I don't think its necessary nor practical when everything can be done in 3D. It just looks "cool" or unique in contrast to our current perspectives.