this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
55 points (87.7% liked)

Showerthoughts

29612 readers
2024 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

If we knew how to create world simulation, and how to make it working 4D, then humans would be able to plug themselves in, and experience 4D space. Alternatively there could simulated 4D beings, whose sentience could be transferred to robot body in our real 3D space.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 41 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

There's nothing technically stopping us from simulating 4 spatial dimensions now. In fact, there are several games that utilize a 4th dimension in their gameplay. Here's 8 examples. The problem is that our brains evolved in 3 spatial dimensions and, even if we can conceive of, define the nature of, and to some degree even indirectly imagine a 4th spacial dimension, our brains are hardwired to think in 3 dimensions and our understanding of a 4th spatial dimension can only be in 3 dimensional terms. The software of our brains, and the hardware of our eyes are simply incapable of perceiving and processing a 4th spatial dimension as it truly is. It would always be filtered through the lens of 3 spatial dimensions, projected into a 3 dimensional form that we can understand.

For a good example of this limitation, we regularly show 3 dimensions in film, tv, animations, video games, etc. projected on 2 dimensional surfaces. We can interpret those 2 dimensional images into an understanding of the 3 dimensional spaces being projected, but A) we do not actually perceived them as 3d. We still only see height and width. Depth is imagined largely based on perceived scale and parallax oocclusion. and B) we are only able to see the 3 dimensional space in our minds because that is how our minds always perceive space. In order to make those 2 dimensional images seem actually 3 dimensional, we have to project different 2 dimensional images to each eye with precise focal lengths and angles to mimic our actual eyesight in 3 dimensional space. Only with that stereoscopic view do we actually see 3 dimensionality with actual depth. Now, with that understanding, that it takes 2 projections in 2d to trick our minds into seeing 3d, how would you trick our perception into seeing 4d? How to we make either our eyes or our brains see whatever the 4th dimensional direction is called? A 3rd eye? No, plenty of animals have more than 3 eyes or even compound eyes, and still only perceive 3d. We have to perceive a direction perpendicular to height, width, and depth that does not actually exist. How would you achieve that goal?

I don't think that is actually possible. I think, like those games in the link, even in a simulation we are stuck playing with the 4th dimension via its interaction with and projection onto 3 dimensions because our brains cannot truly process what a 4th spatial dimension would even be.

[–] ApollosArrow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I’ve always been fascinated by 4D, but a question just came to mind. Would we gain anything by being able to perceive that extra dimension living only in a 3D world? Is there anything we are currently not seeing that may exist in our world? Would we just have x-ray vision?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If there were a 4th spatial dimension and you could see in 4 dimensions, yes, you could see the inside of things that are enclosed in 3 dimensions. It wouldn't be like x-ray vision exactly though. Think about a sphere in 3d. It is enclosed. When you take 2d projections of the sphere by slicing cross-sections of the ball, from a 2d observer on that plane, they would also see an enclosed circular object. But from the 3rd dimensional observer looking down at that cross section they can see everything enclosed in the circle. From the 4th dimension, then it stands to reason they would have a similar view of a 3 dimensional objects innards. But rather than seeing through the object like in an x-ray, they just see the whole thing laid out in every detail at once like we see the insides of the 2d circle.

[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I think it would depend on how the shapes extend into the 4th dimension.

Where the 2D slice is two circles: if in 3D we have a sphere inside a sphere the inside is occluded, but if we have a ball inside a cylinder the inside is visible from two ends.

Likewise where the 3D objects are a ball inside a ball, they may be two 4D spheres or one might be more like a cylinder.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There’s no reason why a brain can’t interact with 4 dimensional space. You just have to feed accurate 4D data into the brain and it will learn.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Interact with, yes. Process and perceive it as it truly is? I don't believe so, no.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s what interact with means: navigate, orient, decide, etc.

There’s nothing about our neural architecture that has “3D” built into the information it can process.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I disagree. I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level. All else about higher and lower dimensions is learned experientially and/or academically, and it's near impossible not to understand it in terms that relate to 3 dimensions or math. I also think that thinking about 4 dimensions in relation to 3 dimensions makes it impossible to truly understand 4 dimensional space as a whole. We can describe every detail of it mathematically, but still not be able to visualize it in whole. Regardless, given the fact that there is no 4th spatial dimension, I doubt either of us will ever have a definitive answer.

[–] hedgehog@ttrpg.network 1 points 1 month ago

There’s nothing about our neural architecture that has “3D” built into the information it can process.

I think we are very much hardwired to innately understand 3d space in an intuitive level.

Is that just based off of something more concrete than what feels right to you? If a neural network on a computer can interact with four dimensional data, why wouldn’t we be able to?

It isn’t as automatic in three dimensions as you make it sound. Based off of the amount of learning and experimentation we do as infants, it seems reasonable to theorize that if a human were to be born in a fourth dimensional realm and to be implanted with some sort of sensory organ(s) that function in the fourth dimension, they would be able to gain an intuitive understanding of that world in the same way that they gain intuitive understandings of this one.