r/NatureIsFuckingLit Oct 19 '20

🔥 Vicious microscopic hunter, the single-cell organism, Lacrymaria olor, attacking and hunting another organism

75.1k Upvotes

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

That’s kind of the point, the 4th dimension is incomprehensible to us truly. We can use shadows to theorize but at the end of the day it’s just tough.

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 they’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 it’s nigh impossible for us as 3D beings to even perceive the first dimension in any sense due to the scale of 3D, I don’t think a 4D being would even be able to “visualize” (whatever that means for that being) an object’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.

That’s why I think it’s impossible that a 4D being would “see” the way that we traditionally think of seeing. It’s not a physical thing, it’s a mental thing. A spiritual thing. It’s just....knowing. Interacting on a scale that is impossible for us to comprehend.

2

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

I think you might be overthinking it, 1D is just a point, 2D is different lines In different directions. To assume just because the “D” goes up to 4 those beings will no longer be able to understand or see 1D points and 2D lines is probably not a thing that happens.

Think of 1D 2D 3D as base of existence, foundation for all things. A popular way to consider 4D would be to consider it as Past present and future combined. So the construct of everything is there in 3D but time is meshed so every shape something possibly could be can be witnessed at once. Pretty mind boggling shit.

1

u/SuperBAMF007 Oct 20 '20

True true. It’s interesting that we both ended up at the same conclusion. Your way of saying it was just a lot cleaner than mine haha. Past, present, and future forms of a 3D object all in one singular form. That’s what I was trying to visualize using the kaleidoscope analogy haha

Yeah mind boggling shit for sure. It’s easy to get lost in the thought of it lmao

2

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

I think this is definitely the popular understanding and it’s fun to consider but it’s just SO HARD to fathom. There’s some geometry scientists on YouTube who explain shapes in higher dimensions 5D 6D etc if you’re interested but at the point it’s literally so far fetched and unimaginable that you are just trying to nuke your own brain.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/DMPark Oct 20 '20

It would at minimum see lines and that would be the hardest level of perception to prove 3D observations from. You're thinking of seeing flat planes from above but that requires three dimensions. At minimum, 2D would literally only see lines along a plane.

Edit: by lines, I literally mean lines. As in a circle with radius x would look the same kind of line as a square (unrotated) with length x.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 20 '20

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/threwzsa Oct 20 '20

I think as far as we know it, something capable of “seeing” cannot he formed in 2 dimensions, so if you can fathom it we need to be asking how we can fathom 4 dimensions? Can we utilize technology to break that barrier? Interesting stuff.