4D shapes.

[Holiday20310401]

Why not? What difference is it to a qualia of a 4D experience than of a 3D experience, I mean yes there is definitely a big leap, but I'm sure cognitive processes would remain much the same, just more complex synapses. The best I've got so far is of 360 degree interpretation/peception.

I mean by thinking that way you can sort of get an idea of what it represents visually, so it can't be impossible.

[Zetetic11235]

No mathematical rule is empirically validated unless its proof is constructionist. A platonic solid exists as nothing but a set of rules which can be physically approximated.

Consider this: In order that a platonic solid that is dense in the mathematical sense, i.e. consisting of infitely many points, be empirically valid beyond its rule set, there must exist an object of infinite constituent parts,i.e. an object of infinite size. This object is still not mathematically dense, as it would have to have infinte mass and contain zero spatial gaps, i.e. not be made of subatomic particles (since they have substantial gaps). There is no such thing as a platonic solid outside of the set of rules which constitute it, only approximations by physical manipulation. This is where theoretical physics runs into trouble. The assertions it makes are based upon mathematical constructs that are not necessarily valid unless they haveall the constrictive data. Physics is an experimentally constrictive branch of mathematics. If the mathematics proveds a very close descriptive approximation of physical beharvior, it is adopted into the physical model.

The language of mathematics is tautological and consistent but incomplete, its relationship with physical reality is essentially equivalent to the relationship of ordinary language with physical experience, but it is more constrictive and limited at the benefit of being more exact.

[No0ne]

Originally Posted by edwardelrich

For an object to be 4D, you would have to percieve things at a 360 degree angle.
What makes an object 3D is from the view is see it in. So a 4D veiw would be like a whole other dimension literally.

To see the front, top, bottom, left side, and right side, and the back in one collective precieved picture.

Hence, all six dimension's of a single object would come togeather to make one single preceiveable dimension.

But they the depth of the side's portrayed with the other side's would make a conflicting image that are brain's cannot visulize, that's why you would have 6 diffrent t.v's that show each of the six side's...

The problem is the perception of depth....

And light is the key to preceiving... and are eye's take in light as if we where looking into a shoe box, hence we can see all five side's but four of those side's will be effected by perception of depth.

So to see all side's in one preceivable picuture in a single fram of time, you would have to see each side of 6 diffrent screen's, or on one screen with each of the 6 side's overlaped on each other with each side color coded with no depth to them.

So it's like your allway's looking at the bottom of a box, where all the side's in side of the box have fallen onto the bottom of the box and no longer have any preceivable depth to them.

(Also are brain's do not support that kind of visual format...no dose are eye's that take's in that light to make the picture that it is reflecting off of...)

So it is utterly impossable for somone to see an object from all 6 side's like how we see 1-5 side's( 1-5 side's with depth to them, Sky view of a person)

Light just dosnt function that way, nor dose the human body.

(Cube 2: hypercube also pointed this fact out about the depth perception of light from all side's of an object presented in one precievable frame of timel)

[Corax]

Originally Posted by socrato

In my opinion if there was such thing as 4D or other higher dimensions we as humans wouldn't be capable of perceiving it.

i think you are right, picture a line, then picture it turning into a square, then picture that turning into a cube, its impossible to visualise the next step.

imagine you are watching tv, in order for a real 3d object to exist on tv it would have to break through the glass of your tv screen. so in order for a 4d object to exist in our 3d world it would have to break it. you can have the illusion of 3 dimensions on tv with shadows and things like that, and also the illusion of a 4d object wich is the "hypercube"

[astrotheological]

I'm with socrato and corax here on this one. We live in a 3D universe as far as we no it. Besides if there was any sign of 4D objects in the world for example than wouldn't we be able to see them. Ofcourse not because we don't have that ability as humans to be able to picture it.

[Holiday20310401]

Astro, your view is a little narrowed on the belief that 4D perception mingles with 3D perception. Perhaps there is a state of awareness that is like a holy superposition of mixed relations with 3D and 4D but I doubt it syncs.

What if dimension is perceived by the mind, and there are no actual dimensions. Dimensions are an establishment of the mind to organize reality to give it potential. We could all of a sudden be living in a 4D reality but not changing the actuality of the environment, just significantly changing the potential it has.

We simply can't visualize 4Dness. There is no 4D "realm" unless you refer reality as the realm. Is there any evidence indicating that there are other dimensional realms? Now, if scientists can get a snapshot of a graviton just as it leaves the membrane we currently exist in, assuming there is a membrane (there's no evidence to prove this kind of theorizing right of wrong), then I will change my mind. But for now I'm working with what makes sense.

[astrotheological]

If suddenly our environment were to change to a 4D reality then we would not know it had happened because we cannot perceive it. What do you mean by my view of 4D is narrow. 4D perception does not mingle with 3D perception. We either exist in a 3D or some other dimension. Obviously its 3D because that is how we perceive it as.

What do you mean by gravitons and membranes?

[Holiday20310401]

Except that our memory would probably be able to interpret the difference we made in the altered perceptions. We can remember dreams as vague, not as vivid as the real world, and very young as nearly black and white.

Why not remember the 3D reality and then perceive 4D. Are you saying that 4D would overwrite the memory, as if experience shifts all aspects of information?

quote: Well don't we interpret a dream as being in the same dimension as reality anyways.

response: you obviously don't get what I mean. Its a waste for me to reply as a post just saying this.

[astrotheological]

Well don't we interpret a dream as being in the same dimension as reality anyways.