# A question to all of you

## Recommended Posts

hang on though, doesnt that mean that allthough the object is 2D we are seeing it as 3D? rather than the object actually beeing 3D?

• Replies 66
• Created

#### Popular Days

Im not sure if I understand correctly what You mean (my English is not good enough). Object is not 3D itself. Its a shade of 2D object, this is how 2D object would like if it be 3D. You can't see 2D circle, but reflection of 2D circle in 4D space. I dont know how to explain it better so i hope You get what i mean

##### Share on other sites

I think what your trying to say is that in 2d a circle would look like this ____ what ever angle you looked at it from. Feel free to unleash the flame if I'm wrong.

Close, but it wont be a _______ couse it has width. Zero width cannot be seen as you can't see anything what is super-flat. Add one more dimention and see how it's look like from 4D univers.

Superthin piece of paper can be see when You turn it by 90 degrees. it's like a jump from 2 (zero angle, nothing to see) to 4D (more than zero)

##### Share on other sites

I would say that nothing could be seen in a 2d world because even with width and depth, no height would mean no surface. Allowing for that I thought the only way to express the circle in 2d would be on the same plane as you existed. Basicaly if you draw a circle and then view it from the edge of the paper as though you are on the same plane as the circle, you would see the circle as a line (allowing for some kind of perception without a surface).

##### Share on other sites

I don't believe in warping time (thats for another thread), but given that QM identifies that time and length can be dilated, wouldn't the further dimensions revolve around dilation, a reference frame, and frame of reference for the 4D event.

##### Share on other sites

any image that you draw is 2d(3 including time)
I think it's more like there are no true 2D objects in our world, because even when you draw a seemingly 2D circle on a piece of paper, the pencil line has a very miniscule but measureable height, in addition to width and length. And of course there was the time it took to draw it. 3 spatial, 1 temporal dimension.
##### Share on other sites

I was pondering to myself the other day' date=' and it started to make me wonder.

What the heck is the 5th dimension?

I'm assuming it goes from:

Length

Width

Height

Time

???

In that order. Is it possible to have more than 4 dimensions? Am I out of my league? What about airline food? What's up with THAT!!![/quote']

I think you've all missed the important part of this post - and i'll admit it was subtly put. -

Supposedly, your taste buds are dulled at high altitude and the cabin pressure in jets, so food seems to have less flavor. Added the fact that it is all stored and reheated rapidly the ensuing meal will most likely be sub standard.

The redeeming feature of airline food is that it is only optional.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

There is no such thing as existence in 2d.

How do you know that? I see how it is easy to think that, but we don't know that to be true. We exist in only four dimensions, but scientists think there are many more. If we can exist in less than all of the dimensions, other things could too, but exist in only two dimensions. Assuming their is life on the higher dimensions, they probably wouldn't think it was possible to live in only four dimensions.

##### Share on other sites

How do you know that? I see how it is easy to think that, but we don't know that to be true. We exist in only four dimensions, but scientists think there are many more.

I guess that I know it only as certainly as you know how you can say that we exist in only 4 dimensions.

I think that dimensions are not where things exist. I think that everything exists in all dimensions. How many dimensions are there? Who knows. Our species is aware of a few. Is that all? Who really knows? If there are more, then I think that everything that exists exists in all of them. We do not exist in 4 dimensions if the universe exists in 10 or more, whatever that might mean.

However, 2 dimensions is not a place where things live. 2 dimensions is a partial description of our reality. It is incomplete. I believe that it is meaningless to suggest that something can exist in 0 dimensions, or in 1, 2, or even 3 dimensions. Nothing cannot exist without time as well.

In math, we can claim to draw a 2 dimensional circle. This is a fabrication, however, as what we have drawn is only a representation of a 2 dimensional circle.

The dimensions are descriptions of aspects of our awareness. Each alone is incomplete to describe existence. Everything that exists exists in all dimensions of which we are aware.

Do you disagree?

##### Share on other sites

Generally, when discussing geometric dimensionality, we discard any notion of a temporal dimension.

##### Share on other sites

If we can exist in less than all of the dimensions, other things could too, but exist in only two dimensions.

How do you know that we live in only 4 dimensions? Is it because we are only aware of 4 dimensions that there can be no more for us? Are you suggesting that we might live in less that the total number of dimensions that exist? If so, then we disagree. We can discuss this if you would like.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

Are you suggesting that we might live in less that the total number of dimensions that exist?

Yes, I am. I think the current idea is that there are 11 dimensions, but we only live in 4 dimensions, so yes we can live in less than the total number of dimensions that exist.

Is it because we are only aware of 4 dimensions that there can be no more for us?

Yes. I don't see how you could be in a dimension without being aware of it. If we were not aware of the dimension of height, and it had no effect on us, would you consider us a part of that dimension, even though we don't know it exists?

##### Share on other sites

I think the current idea is that there are 11 dimensions, but we only live in 4 dimensions, so yes we can live in less than the total number of dimensions that exist.
You suggest that we can only live in 4 dimensions because we are only aware of 4 dimensions. How might you know that this is true? Perhaps you only believe so, just as others of us might belive differently.

I don't see how you could be in a dimension without being aware of it. If we were not aware of the dimension of height, and it had no effect on us, would you consider us a part of that dimension, even though we don't know it exists?
I think that it is fair to say (at least in my opinion) that dogs and trees and rocks exist in as many dimensions as we do, although they are not aware of them. Our life form has attained a much greater degree of awareness of our environment that these others. However, I don't think that the only existence in the universe is necessarily limited to what our still evolving life form has already attained awareness of.
##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

You suggest that we can only live in 4 dimensions because we are only aware of 4 dimensions. How might you know that this is true?

However, I don't think that the only existence in the universe is necessarily limited to what our still evolving life form has already attained awareness of.

I agre with you there, and have never said otherwise; reread my posts, and you'll see that I never said that all existence was limited to four dimensions, just ours.

I think that it is fair to say (at least in my opinion) that dogs and trees and rocks exist in as many dimensions as we do, although they are not aware of them.

Even though they are not aware of them, it still has an affect on them, which all are aware of to a certain degree, excluding the rock. BTW, we could be in more dimensions than the rock, because it is possible that consiousness is a dimension.

##### Share on other sites

Even though they are not aware of them, it still has an affect on them, which all are aware of to a certain degree, excluding the rock. BTW, we could be in more dimensions than the rock, because it is possible[/i'] that consiousness is a dimension.

Do you think that rocks exist in the same 4 dimensions that people do? If so, then it is possible to exist in dimensions without awareness of such. If so, then humans might exist in more dimensions that the 4 that we are aware of. I take it that you do not agree with this. Please describe why not.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

If so, then humans might exist in more dimensions that the 4 that we are aware of.

We might. I believe it is possible, but until I see evidence showing that we exist in more than four dimensions, the idea that we could exist in more than four dimensions is just a what if; an interesting thought, but nothing more.
##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

Do you think that rocks exist in the same 4 dimensions that people do? If so, then it is possible to exist in dimensions without awareness of such.

You left out the other part of my post: I said that if the dimensions have an effect on it, then it is part of that dimension,and the four dimensions affect it, even though it has no awareness of it. You can't take one part of one argument, than try to defeat the whole argument based on that one part.

##### Share on other sites

You left out the other part of my post: I said that if the dimensions have an effect on it, then it is part of that dimension,and the four dimensions affect it, even though it has no awareness of it. You can't take one part of one argument, than try to defeat the whole argument based on that one [/i']part.

I am sorry but I don't understand what half of your post I left out, and I don't understand how your thinking differs from mine re my last post. Might you be more specific as to how my last post ignores half of your argument?

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

Might you be more specific as to how my last post ignores half of your argument?

What I have said is that for something to be part of a dimension, it has to be part of a dimension it either has to be aware of it, or somehow be affected by it. You have based your conclusion off of just one part of my argument.

I don't understand how your thinking differs from mine re my last post.

You think our existing in more than four dimensions is a scientific possibility, while I think it is more of a science fiction idea.

##### Share on other sites

You think our existing in more than four dimensions is a scientific possibility, while I think it is more of a science fiction idea.

I think that I understand your position now. This is certainly something that we can disagree on.

##### Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cadmus

I think that I understand your position now. This is certainly something that we can disagree on.

Good. It is hard to have a debate when neither person understands the other person's position. We aren't aware of the other dimensions, and they don't have an affect on us, so I don't see any use considering ourselves a part of it. If something was found that was caused by another dimension, I would consider ourselves a part of it, but that hasn't happened, so I believe we exist in only four dimensions.

##### Share on other sites

Do you think that rocks exist in the same 4 dimensions that people do? If so, then it is possible to exist in dimensions without awareness of such. If so, then humans might exist in more dimensions that the 4 that we are aware of. I take it that you do not agree with this. Please describe why not.

That's a false argument.

Rocks are not aware of dimensionality because they are not aware of anything (well, insofar as we know). The fact that they have no awareness explicitly requires that linking their awareness to anything is meaningless.

If we are the residents of dimensions beyond length, width and height, we are not aware of it because we lack the faculties required to perceive that state of affairs.

The two kinds of "unawareness" are not comparable. You can base an argument for a rock on the attributes of a rock, or base an argument for a human on the attributes of a human, but you can't cross them over willy-nilly.

Just to clarify, I can see what you're trying to say and don't really see anything wrong with it. It's the reasoning that is broken.

##### Share on other sites

What the heck is the 5th dimension?
(Or 4th spatial) To get back to the original question, I have a total guess which allows me to imagine what a dimension I can't access might be like. Start with one dimension and you can move back and forth along an axis. Add a second and you can move in any direction on a plane. Add a third dimension and you can move in any direction you want. Add a fourth spatial dimension and you might be able to move from any one point to any other point in the universe, without the tremendous expenditure of energy it would take in just 3 dimensions.

##### Share on other sites

as for the OP, maybe wormholes are the 5th (assuming there IS a 5th).

it seems to go beyond our understandings of 3D space and thus "against" Time (in light years) to our current understandings.

it`s only a guess

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

BTW does any one know the 11 dimensions? (Just interested)

I know that there are 10 space dmensions and 1 time dimension. Eventhough superstring says so .....wat's the proof of the existence of so many of em.

## Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

## Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account