harryk

I doubt if existence in "cyberspace" like in the movies is possible. It is not possible as of now, and for a very long time to come, for us to take apart an object, let alone a person down to a subatomic level and translate that information into data. Even if that were possible, simulating that object down to it's smallest details is difficult. To simulate a human brain in a computer would be impossible for centuries at least. Even if you did manage to do all of this, "transforming" a person into data isn't what you would be doing. It would just be creating a copy. For the sake of an example, say we took apart Stephen Hawkings and recreated him on a computer. The real Stephen Hawkings would die in the taking-apart process, and what you would have is an identical copy of him, that believes he is the real Hawkings.

It seems you don't understand what it is you are compiling. It is a GBA emulator for Nintendo DS/DSi/3DS The program requires any of the above devices, a micro SD and a "supercard DSTWO", which is some sort of an add-on or mod you can add to DS. The compiling procedure is given at the bottom of the github page, although I think precompiled binaries are available. To compile you will need the SDK from http://eng.supercard.sc/manual/dstwo/ds2sdk.htm After obtaining the binaries or compiling the source, you need to go to supercard.sc and download supercard's OS and copy the os (the _dstwo folder) into a microSD. Then, copy the binaries of tempGBA into the _dstwo folder, insert the micro SD into the dstwo, and plug the dstwo into a DS/DSi/3DS to run GBA games on it. At least that's what I understand from 15 minutes of googling. Most of this info can be read on and deduced from the web.

There is already such a game. Google '4 dimensional Rubik's cube'. Though not as real-world-ish as a house, it gibes us quite a good idea on how the human brain can process 2d images of 3d projections of 4d objects and, from that understanding, analyze and solve the puzzle. Judging from the comments on the android app of the game, only a handful can solve it. Whether it is because they can understand the concept of four dimensions better, or simply because not enough people have put enough effort into solving it is unclear.

In a way, don't we exist in all dimensions simultaneously. The only difference is, we have a measurable quantity along three spatial dimensions, but when considering the others, such as time, for instance, we exist on a .... Uh... Thing that .... What I mean to say is, if we consider a plane parallel to the xy plane within which two (spatial) dimensional objects exist, and time as the z axis, then as the plane moves along the time axis, there is only one value for z, and not a range of values anywhere on the plane. However, any object in the spatial plane may have a length and breadth. Our universe is quite similar, except it has three spatial dimensions, within which an object could have a range of values. It seems difficult to convey ideas through words efficiently. What I'd give for a neutral interface right now.

SplitInfinity I think you misunderstood my Griffin example. I did not say the universe has the spatial and one temporal dimension, rather Griffin does(I know I'm quoting fiction excessively, so if anyone knows something that physically exists in three spatial, one temporal and a dimension that extends through alternate timelines, feel free to correct me). That is similar to saying, just because we exist in three spatial dimensions, it doesn't mean the universe has only that many. Also, to perceive doesn't always mean to see, or to detect reflected photons. Neutrinos can't be detected by conventional methods, but that doesn't mean their existence is impossible. Imatfaal Yes, but I started reading the book very recently. After reading the first few pages, it occurred to me that my preconceptions about the perception of universes with lesser or more dimensions were not entirely correct. Much like how we see pseudo-3d images of our surroundings(being unable to see the backside of an opaque object) the square from flatland is unable to see 2d shapes in the detail we can see. As for Griffin, (again, pardon the fiction) he would still be able to see objects in pseudo 3d, in addition to different points in time along his current line of sight, and the alternate timelines from his current spatial perspective.

So, in a manner of speaking the warp bubble would be creating a region of space separate from it's surroundings, inside and outside of which the laws of physics are separately valid. As for the grains of dust, think 'forward deflector array'

I didn't mention that the universe had only four dimensions, did I? If I may have implied so, it was unintentional. About the fictional 2 dimensional life forms, there is no way as of now for us to conclusively prove or disprove the possibility of existence of a universe consisting of two spatial dimensions. It is possible for such a universe with a different set of laws of physics that provide for it's existence to exist. It might even exist as a plane within our universe, although it seems unlikely. Whether it would have intelligent life is unrelated to the topic. I quoted the segment from star trek just to paint a mental picture.

This is a series of thoughts that came to my mind after watching too much star trek, especially the episode about the two-dimensional beings in TNG. Please read and share your opinions. We exist in a universe that has three spatial dimensions. Because of this, we are able to perceive that portion of any object that occupy the same spatial dimensions that we occupy. An example would be the four dimensional Rubik's cube. The "cube" has a total of four axes, with two (for the need of a better word) faces on each, such that every face has a different color. It's easier to Google it. Explaining it in words isn't to easy. In any given position, a maximum of Seven faces are visible. This means that the remainder of the cube has a different position on the fourth spatial axis than us. Another interesting example is Griffin from MIB 3. According to the movie, he is a five dimensional being (I know the movie says 'fifth' dimensional, which is wrong) who exists in three spatial, one temporal and one idontknowwhattocall dimension that passes through all the possible branches of the timeline. While three dimensional beings see the part of his body that exists in our spatial dimensions, he might be able to see different versions of the timeline, at different points of time. Finally, what would our world look like, when viewed from a 2 dimensional perspective? I think the answer is obvious. If the fictional 2d beings from star trek existed in two of the three spatial dimensions we occupy, surely we could see them, but they could only see the portions of our universe that intersect their plane. Please share your thoughts and opinions.