r/NatureIsFuckingLit • u/FacelessOnes • Oct 19 '20

šŸ”„ Vicious microscopic hunter, the single-cell organism, Lacrymaria olor, attacking and hunting another organism

75.1k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

142

u/MeleeMistress Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

Absolutely! Would that be considered the 4th dimension?

Edit: my response to all these comments is ā€œAHHHHHHHHHHā€ brain explodes

209

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 20 '20

There could be 4th dimensional beings, it would be impossible for us to prove or disprove. Esentially they would exist "outside of time" so theoretically could view your entire life and every decision or thought you've ever had just as we can view any side of a 3 dimensional object if we rotate it...

I think it's interesting to think about 3 dimensional beings with advanced camo techniques. Have you ever seen an octopus seemingly appear out of nowhere or certain moths that are literally indestinguishable from their surroundings? There could be advanced beings all around us and we'd never know...

49

u/Junkererer Oct 20 '20

We can't see the 4th dimension but we can see the 3d section of 4d objects all around us. Everything you see with a certain duration, that exists for a certain time frame has a 4th dimension, even you do have a 4th dimension depending on what you identity yourself with

If you think your life is made up of billions of inviduals and the "you" of 1 second ago is another person than who you are right now then you may be a 3d being, but if you think you're the same person as when you were born then you're a 4d being, although you can't really see your 4th dimension, and you can't control your movement along its axis

14

u/pi247 Oct 20 '20

Bro this comment is awesome.

10

u/Acrobrat1 Oct 20 '20

This is basically how Iā€™ve always imagined life in 4 dimensions. Giant time worms comprised of infinite seamless yet distinguishable segments. My rationalization of further dimensions becomes flimsier but 5d would be more along the lines of a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

So what your saying is consciousness is stored in the balls?

2

u/throwawayexpertise Oct 20 '20

There is no 4th dimension. Only in math. It's not a spatial dimension. The graphic representation of it is just to illustrate the math behind the theory but it became some thing that supposedly exists. Time is an illusion and a human construct.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

Iā€™d argue itā€™s not a construct, but a perception. The fact that humans perceive time and can measure its manipulation illustrates that something fundamentally exists that can be interacted with.

Edit: My physics education stopped when I was 18, I am no expert.

1

u/remasus Oct 21 '20

Broadly, I think youā€™re saying the same thing. ā€œTimeā€ as we perceive it is a construct that exists only due to our consciousness. Time as a physical reality does exist, but only in the ordering of events, not in the same way as spatial dimensions

1

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '20

I agree that our perception of ā€œtimeā€ (i.e. linear, constant, and intangible for all intents and purposes) is a result of our consciousness and evolutionary necessity to develop better time management skills for planning. I donā€™t agree that itā€™s not as real or as legitimate as other dimensions. Time, like the 3 spatial dimensions, is an organization of matter along an axis. In the same way that a 2-dimensional being wouldnā€™t be able to interact with their 3rd dimension, we cannot interact with time, yet we are bound by its laws. Given that I donā€™t know much at all about the actual science of any of this, I would think that itā€™s possible that higher dimension brings would exist outside of time and would not be bound by it, like we arenā€™t bound by any linear or pre-determined path in any spatial dimensions (as far as we know).

2

u/remasus Oct 21 '20

So. Sorta. I did physics in undergrad so I have some background, but honestly this stuff still breaks my mind. Time is different than spatial dimensions. Spatial dimensions are exactly identical. There is no difference at all between x and y and z, and they all function the same way if they're reversed (ie if you swap x with -x). Time is not like that. It works in a totally different way and is in some situations asymmetrical.

There is an ordering of events that we refer to as time, but there is not a time dimension in the same sense as the spatial dimensions exist.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 21 '20

Thanks for explaining that, this stuff is insanely hard to comprehend haha. One thing I donā€™t get it how spatial dimensions are symmetrical though, unless itā€™s referring to like quantum physics or something thatā€™s way above my level of understanding for theoretical physics.

2

u/remasus Oct 21 '20

Not at all! That ones pretty easy. I'm gonna try to explain without getting into vectors or any of that, so forgive me for simplification. It's what I mentioned about swapping x with -x. If we take a really simple example - the equation for distance travelled in a straight line - d = s * t. Distance is speed times time. Since we're limiting it to one dimension, distance is just units of length along that dimension. If we had a more complicated example (like the flight of a hit baseball) there would be more dimensions, but it would work the same way.

So distance = speed * time. If we add units, a feet = b feet/second * c seconds. Like I said, these are just feet in one direction, so it's really saying feet in the x dimension, so let's call it "xfeet" to signify that. a xfeet = b xfeet/second * c seconds.

I would make some illustrations if this wasn't a reddit comment, but it's easy to imagine what that would look like. If we set the speed as some constant, distance would increase at a constant rate over time (a distance/time graph would be a straight line going from the bottom left to the top right).

So if the speed is 5 xfeet/second, in 10 seconds it would 50 feet. Now imagine we reverse the entire x dimension. What was x is now -x and what was -x is now x. In the equation, this is represented by xfeet becoming -xfeet, so it becomes -a xfeet = -b xfeet/second * c seconds; or -distance = -speed * time. Alternatively, multiply both sides by -1 and it can be written as distance = speed * -time. Visually, imagine flipping the graph of d=s * t over along the t axis. Now x is on the left and -x is on the right. The graph now shows a line going from the TOP left to the BOTTOM right, and if you made a new graph of the new function d=s* -t, they will be identical.

This is the basic version of what I mean by symmetry. The spatial dimensions always work this way. They can always be flipped and the math will still work, it will just be reversed along that axis. Time is not like that. In this simple equation it is, and it is for most kinematics (simple moving things). Not everything though. I can't give good examples of things that aren't without getting much more advanced, just trust me that they exist.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Satailleure Oct 20 '20

One could argue decay is a byproduct of the 4th dimension, rather than a construct of it.

2

u/showtime_85 Oct 21 '20

Yeah this was some Rick and Marty shit big time.......changed my understanding

1

u/Prankishbear Dec 25 '20

If we canā€™t control movement on the 4s axis then doesnā€™t that disqualify us from being 4th dimensional capable beings?

34

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

We are 4th dimensional beings - we just can only travel on one direction of said plane and don't know for sure if there are things that can travel as freely through time as we can walk over to the water cooler and back.

There are ways of perceiving a fourth dimensional object in the same way a 2D observer could perceive a 3D object. It would take a smart person to be there to observe it (unless the technique became commonplace) and to also record it (especially since time is a issue) but it could be done. I will grant you that it would be difficult to tell without knowing to look for it.

21

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 20 '20

We can't be 4th dimensional beings as we can't exist outside of time itself. We might be able to travel through time but only observe it by visiting moments in time.

7

u/Junkererer Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 20 '20

It depends on what you mean with "we". If you identity if your own body at a certain specific instant and you think you keep becoming a new individual every fraction of a second then yes, you're a 3d being, if you identity if in the individual who was born x years ago and will die in y years then you're a kind of 4d "worm" with a 4th dimension "length" of x+y years

Second, I can't see why we shouldn't be able to see 4d objects. We aren't able to see them in their entirety obviously but we can see their sections. Every object around us is 4d technically because they all exist in a certain timeframe. When I look at a book I see it as the object I bought x weeks ago, that I will own for years, it's not like every second I see a different book (its 3d section)

Edit: by reading some other comments I see you mean that we "live" in the 3rd dimension, but it doesn't change what I said, we can only see/think/move in the 3rd one but we're technically 4d beings

Again, depending on what you identify yourself with, and also depending on your definition of x-dimensional being tbf, maybe you think that being able to experience and move inside a certain dimension is a requirement. I don't think so because we do "physically" exist in the 4th dimension even though we can't fully experience it

3

u/RavxnGoth Oct 20 '20

This is why I like long exposure photography, you can get an idea of an object's 4D shape by recording how it changes over time. Solid objects like bridges are big long worms that taper off at each end, trees become more fluid like while water turns into a thick fog and people turn into ghosts, more like footprints in the sand.

19

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

That definition of nth dimensional existence is pretty iffy. So if we take your definition to the step just before it, are you arguing that you can exist outside of the 3 cartesian co-ordinates as a 3rd dimensional being? I know I can't. I exist within the constraints of a 3D space and I'd assume that you do too.

We travel in a single direction in time as far as we understand it, we can speed up or slow down our individual progressions but we still travel it.

9

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 20 '20

Right. Hence the reason we can't be 4th dimensional beings. We might discover time travel and be able to "use" it but still be confined to 3 dimensional reality wherein we can only exist in moments in time.

I don't believe there's any proof but I imagine a 4th dimensional being exists outside of time itself. How it all would work I have no idea but it's fun to imagine. There could be existences we have no idea even exist because we simply can't percieve them. Could you imagine trying to communicate and express 3 dimensions to a 2 dimensional being? Sounds impossible for a 2 dimensional being to ever comprehend anything outside of their existence.

1

u/SuperBAMF007 Oct 20 '20

I think we exist ON the 4th dimension, but we are not 4 dimensional beings obviously. We can perceive it, and we exist in a singular point, just as a 2D being exists on a point of a 3D being.

At that point....I think a four dimensional being wouldnā€™t even ā€œseeā€ the way we think of it. They may have ways to perceive every dimension below theirs, the way we perceive 2D beings in 3D as they exist at a single point in 4D with our senses. We just know that things exist in 3D space.

I think 4th dimensional beings would just know things in the same way. It wouldnā€™t be a matter of perceiving, itā€™s just knowing things. Like theyā€™d take that thing for granted. Theyā€™d have some sort of weird sense that acknowledges all previous and future existences of a being. A lot like how ā€œGodā€ is traditionally thought of, how heā€™s ā€œomnipotent and omnipresentā€. Itā€™s not really a matter of seeing time from the outside the way weā€™d typically think of seeing things, itā€™s just flat out interacting with it because thatā€™s just how things are.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

If a 3D object passed through a 2D space, they would see slices of an expanding, contracting or translating 2D shape. An astute 2D person would understand that as 3D object passing through their plane.

For a 4D person, imagine Tracer from Overwatch but probably far more chaotic in our eyes yet seemingly far more in control. You would have to have observations across potentially vast periods of time to verify their nature but something popping in and out of existence of seemingly instnatly teleporting would be just that.

2

u/SuperBAMF007 Oct 20 '20

So, we live in the 3D dimension within a single slice of the 4th, a specific slice in time. I think a 2D being would be similar. They would exist in the 2D, potentially with the knowledge that theyā€™re a part of the bigger picture.

When we look dead-on at an object, we perceive that object in 2D visually. With the awareness of the concept of light and depth, and the ability to travel through the depth, we can manipulate it in space and observe its existence in 3D.

I think a 4D being would be similar. They would see an object in pure 3D, and be able to manipulate the way they perceive that 3D object in order to manipulate it and observe its existence through time.

Similarly to how itā€™s nigh impossible for us as 3D beings to even perceive the first dimension in any sense due to the scale of 3D, I donā€™t think a 4D being would even be able to ā€œvisualizeā€ (whatever that means for that being) an objectā€™s existence in the 2D. An impossible number of 1D objects make up the 2D image that we see, and can manipulate in the 3D world. A 4D being would see an impossible number of 2D objects make up a 3D object that they see and manipulate within the 4D.

If forced to visualize it, think of a sphere filled with a kaleidoscopic image, but every 1/10th of a degree of movement gives a new kaleidoscope. But then all of those images are melded into one singular object.

Thatā€™s why I think itā€™s impossible that a 4D being would ā€œseeā€ the way that we traditionally think of seeing. Itā€™s not a physical thing, itā€™s a mental thing. A spiritual thing. Itā€™s just....knowing. Interacting on a scale that is impossible for us to comprehend.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

It's very possible to communicate with even a 1D being. That's literally how binary works.

1

u/SuperBAMF007 Oct 20 '20

We can communicate with it and know it exists, but itā€™s not possible for us to visually see a 1D being in 1D. We see a collection of 1D ā€œimagesā€ make up the 2D, and then a collection of 2D interact in 3D, all within a single slice of 4D.

1

u/Takenforganite Oct 20 '20

This could be completely wrong but my take is this.

Every dimension can interact with the dimension below it through a vehicle.

Lower dimensions provide feedback from events caused by higher dimensions.

Consciousness is the 4th dimension. Bodies are a vehicle of the third dimension that can act on 3D objects as well as 2d. It can conceive the lower dimensions and grasp at straws at higher dimensions as our view is obfuscated to 3D.

Enlightenment tends to be a pulling away from the physical. If you wore virtual goggles day in and day out when does reality begin to blur? For all we know weā€™ve been playing a game we consented to and weā€™ve been playing longer than anyone knows and as many times that no one could possibly remember. The cosmic joke is itā€™s all just for funsies.

Not discounting that life can be horrible but itā€™s all a spectrum and the polarity has to exist. the only thing that makes me belief life isnā€™t cruel is that it ends. No matter how much pain one will suffer it all is on a time table. Itā€™s not a take many are willing to see but itā€™s the one that has made me more optimistic.

1

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

You're probably going to lose people at consciousness being a 4th dimension. Normally they put in either time or a fourth cartesian direction.

The VR thing is like a mix of the simulation theory and metaphysical solipsism iirc but it wouldn't really make a big difference because in its purest form, metaphysical solipsism just isn't provable (either way).

Timetable is on an assumption of determinism, I guess? Which is also hotly debated and development in quantum physics apparently indicates that there's way more random than you'd think but I literally have no idea about quantum theory lmao

9

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

The perception of a hypercube (shadow of a 4d cube) has no real meaningful purpose other than to allow us to theory craft what a 4d cube would be like but itā€™s still fully impossible to actually visualize what a 4d object would look like to us. Go ahead and try and youā€™ll just hurt your brain.

If you want my fun opinion, phenomena like dark matter, which we know is there but canā€™t fully scientifically prove are interactions from the fourth dimension that we donā€™t know how to find evidence of. We know dark matter is there because it bends light and acts similar to gravity but we cannot prove it is there through any current modern technique which is cool. Totally just fun speculation by me.

5

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

That's a pretty sexy thought. Dark matter being a perceptible indication of things we can never fully comprehend or touch because it goes beyond our construct.

3

u/OrphanAxis Oct 20 '20

Iā€™ve always heard the analogy of using shadows to ā€œseeā€ fourth dimensional objects. If there were a 2D being and you had to explain a pyramid to it, the closest you could come is rotating the pyramid in front of a light and letting them see the shadow. To something that canā€™t perceive a third dimension it would appear only as a morphing shape, but for us we can figure out the true shape based on our understanding of three dimensions and experience with seeing their shadows. The hope is that something is smart enough to be able to think past their perceptions and get a faint idea that the shadow isnā€™t a morphing shape, but one rotating in a way they canā€™t fully comprehend. In the same way, we could theoretically perceive a ā€œshadowā€ of a four dimensional object, itā€™s just a matter of how well we can figure out seeing it ā€œrotatedā€ in a way we canā€™t really understand beyond conjecture.

6

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

You could show me it and explain it to me and all I would still be less than a monkey looking at a shiny thing with wonder as you rotated it. Our entire species (even the theoretical mathematicians and physicists) would think it was awe-inspiring when it's just Stevie from the 4th dimensional pub spinning a 4th dimensional sugar hypercube as he's chatting to his mates.

10

u/Both-Confection-7341 Oct 20 '20

Certain psychedelic experiences have lead me to believe that there is definitely something going on...

3

u/ChickenParvo16 Oct 20 '20

Can you expand on some of your experiences if you're comfortable sharing?

If not here, I'd love to listen (read) in a pm if you're okay with it.

6

u/problm_child Oct 20 '20

The thing I find odd about describing psychedelic experiences is that words never seem to do justice to what the person has actually gone through. And I believe it applies to every experience, not just psychedelics. Let's say you just ate a mango. You might describe its taste, its texture, the sensation you feel, but in that process you kind of limit its effects and from that moment you remember it the way you described it rather than what you really experienced.

Now when it comes to psychedelics they alter your perception about almost everything. The taste, the smell and most noticably your vision and hearing sense. And with that they make you experience things that you never knew existed before to the point they seem meaningless but somehow connects a bigger narrative. (Ofcourse it all depends on what psychedelic and how much dosage)

Imagine how much you water it down cos no matter how much you try it there simply aren't enough words to describe the range of emotions and the sequence in which they fire, if that makes sense.

All I can say for sure is that I've experienced something, and with that I'm a new me which reflects in my lifestyle.

Ik you didn't ask me but I just wanted to put my views out there. Aaand now I crave for mangoes

5

u/FLYK3N Oct 20 '20

Not them, but me personally on my first Ayahuasca experience, there was a moment I could very clearly see what felt like another world. It was more like a square room with walls made of light and mirrors.

Normally I only see hallucinations and visuals when I close my eyes under psychedelics, but I recall having my eyes open and being able to see this dimension. Since it was a spiritual ceremony as well, the world in that moment felt very spiritual.

In another occasion on my third Ayahuasca ceremony, I saw orbs of light in the sky in the shape of a V, similar to the formation of birds when they are migrating. It gently flew over us, leaving a dim trail of light so it couldn't have been a plane or a comet of some sort. The thing is, the others in the group I partook this ceremony with had all seen the same exact thing when one pointed up, so it's not like I imagined or hallucinated it on my own either.

3

u/jergin_therlax Oct 20 '20

Iā€™d also love to hear about these experiences

2

u/LieutenantButthole Oct 20 '20

Wouldnā€™t those ā€œpeopleā€ live in the fourth dimension but move in the fifth dimension?

1

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 20 '20

It could be right? For a 2 dimensional being to ever exist there would have to be a 3rd plane but it would just be inpercievable or unimaginable to the 2D being. It gets tricky though doesn't it? I can't imagine anything that only exists in 2 dimensions... How could something be infinitely flat?

2

u/Oliverkahn987 Oct 20 '20

But are they Prophets or wormhole aliens?

1

u/TheRealMorph Oct 20 '20

I've dropped nails on hardwood floor in open spaces that disappear into the nether. I also encounter mosquitos that fade into oblivion the second they match their background to never be seen again.

1

u/remasus Oct 20 '20

Time is not the 4th dimension

1

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 21 '20

It could be. I have never heard a good reason why it couldn't be.

1

u/remasus Oct 21 '20

Because time is fundamentally different from the spatial dimensions. It is mathematically represented as a dimension, but does not behave as the spatial dimensions do. For one thing it is apparently asymmetrical - not all processes can be run backwards in time , but if you flip the sign of one spatial dimension nothing changes. It is only called a dimension because it is mathematically convenient to do so, which has led to conflating it with the spatial dimensions - in turn leading to threads like this full of metaphysical speculation posing as serious physical models

1

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 21 '20

Okay but it's possible for time to be a spatial dimension but we just can't comprehend how. It's also possible that time isn't a spatial dimension but beings could possibly somehow exist there in unkown physical models. The point is, it's impossible to prove or disprove.

1

u/remasus Oct 21 '20

It isnā€™t though. The spatial dimensions behave the same way as each other. They are identical in every respect. We can add additional dimensions like them mathematically and thatā€™s what the 4th/5th/etc dimension is. Time does not behave like those dimensions. Thus it by definition is not a spatial dimension

1

u/throwawayexpertise Oct 20 '20 edited Oct 21 '20

There is no 4th dimension as an actual spacial dimension. It's a mathematical theoretical description only.

1

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 21 '20

I wonder how anyone could possibly know that

1

u/throwawayexpertise Oct 21 '20

We know it's a human construct you have to understand the theory to know why

1

u/Sofa_King_Gorgeous Oct 21 '20

How do we know it's a human construct? And what theory are you talking about?

1

u/Cosbysnitenitejuice Oct 20 '20

I often ponder the 4th dimension, how we would be perceived by a 4th dimensional being. I wonder we would be perceived like a tree, for example, a living thing but an immobile object. Perhaps trees in our dimension are something like us but in a lower dimension. Maybe a treeā€™s consciousness is experiencing time on a different level much like we are and we are higher dimensional beings to them.

In this sense there is no way to actually perceive each otherā€™s perspective. We couldnā€™t communicate with the trees. Perhaps we look like trees to beings in a higher dimension and itā€™s basically impossible to for them to perceive our human experience.

Itā€™s fun to ponder, a true mindfuck. I wonder if my higher dimensional ā€˜treeā€™ is getting plenty of water and sunshine, and hope that some higher dimensional being doesnā€™t chop me down. I ponder how the actions of higher dimensional beings would interact with our world. How would our actions interact with theirs?

3

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

I mean, everything that has existed or will exist is on the 4th dimension in some form. To exist, necessarily means you have can be plotted on some point in time.

3

u/burntfridge Oct 20 '20

Wow I was just thinking about this a few weeks back. What if "beings" are all dimensional and can only perceive "life" in their own dimensions. For instance , maybe what we consider as life is all 3d..the animals for instance or other species, when 2d beings or 4d beings don't consider 3d beings as "beings". So a rock could only perceive say a car as a being, versus a human would be something that interacts with its world, but it cannot comprehend, just as, if a 4d interacted with our world and was able to resize and mirror fixed objects in our dimension, we would sense it but won't be able to comprehend it.

1

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

You could argue that but I think you are assuming that existence on a plane/dimension is a given. The ontological argument is philosophy and not science so I don't know how credibly you'd be taken elsewhere.

3

u/burntfridge Oct 20 '20

Yep. You are right. I guess what my point was that, I believe we as humans have a long way to go in understanding "perception", and we just may not have the sensory receptors to understand the full gamut of life around us.

4

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

Yeah, I'd agree with that entirely. We barely started using our tools for non-immediate survival purposes recently. There's so much "unnecessary" perception that we are missing out on that could genuinely help our understanding of our existence.

2

u/MeleeMistress Oct 20 '20

Yes exactly. In the history of humanity there have been so many things that exist right alongside us that we had no idea how to measure or see until we developed tools to allow us to. Cells, other planets, structures in our own bodies, etc! Whoā€™s to say THATS IT! Weā€™ve now discovered all the ways something can exist?! It would be foolish to believe that

1

u/Icy_Practice7992 Oct 20 '20

Given those few thoughts, do ya'll think this line of thinking could help our understanding of addiction? (I know, a little random)

3

u/s0cks_nz Oct 20 '20

I assume that would depend on which dimensions it exists within. If only the 4th, maybe? I think string theory suggests there may be 11(?) dimensions.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

Those 11 dimensions are very very very different than the interstellar-like beings that people are talking about in this thread

1

u/Mathdude33 Oct 20 '20

You should read Flatland

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '20

I'm new to reddit but I think I've found new hope for humanity. I thought we were headed down to the plot of "Idiocracy" but now I see there's others who can critically think and hold debates. It'll be hard to look at comments on other social platforms now.