4th dimension onto 3rd is like 3rd onto 2nd

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by cheezyness, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Ok, so don't expect any basis or reasoning behind this idea/thought, but here goes.

    So lets assume that we live in the 3rd dimension. Makes sense right? length, depth, height
    Also, lets assume that we are only feeling the effects of the 4th dimension, time.

    Now lets look at a 2d world.

    Imaging a plane with no existence on it. Now lets move a 3 dimensional object through this 2d plane. Lets think of this object as a universe.

    From the 2d plane's frame of reference, existence came out of no where (lets call this the "small bang") and as this "universe" moves through the plane, the existence of the 2nd dimension changes. So existence in this 2D universe is simply 2D, BUT it it changes as it feels the effects of the 3rd dimension of the the object passing through the plane.

    Now back to our 3d world, it'd be impossible for us to visually imagine the same idea, but lets try to think about it anyway. Perhaps what we perceive as our universe is just a 4 dimensional object moving though the 3d (plane? or whatever it'd be called) in which we are located. Much like how the 2d universe changes as the 3d object moves through the plane, our 3d universe changes as this 4d object moves though the 3d plane(?).

    This can explain why our universe seemed to have appeared out of nowhere. Our big band is much like the "small bang" of the 2d universe. Perhaps this 4d object is something like a time "cone", explaining why existence started as a "point" and seemingly expands.

    What does this mean though? It could mean that this universe's entire existence from the beginning of time to the end of time is simply a singular 4d object. As such, everything including what happened and what will happen in our universe is already defined in this 4d object.

    annywhoo. I know that all of this can be debunked with quantum mechanics, and has many plot holes like trying to explain black holes and such, but I thought this idea was interesting, so i'm posting it, OKAY? Okay.
     
  2. very interesting...


    fucking MINDBLOWING
     
  3. carl sagans explanations/books are the shit especially when stoned

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0]YouTube - Cosmos - Carl Sagan - 4th Dimension[/ame]
     
  4. Kudos. Very nicely put. Could you say that fish kinda live in a 2d universe per say and us as humans in 3d effect their 2d universe
     

  5. nah dont think you could, i dont think your looking at it the right way
     
  6. That was a pretty interesting video, but I kinda got a bone to pick with it...

    I think this guy is confusing the 4th dimension in physics and math, with the idea of the 4th dimension as time.

    I pretty sure the tesseract is a prediction or calculation of how a physical forth dimensional object would appear projected onto our 3rd dimensional plane (? someone please tell me the correct term here lol). At least in the way that we observe "physical" objects.

    I'm pretty sure the tesseract is a mathematical "invention" as a way of describing 4 dimensional mathematical values. It doesn't have anything to do with time as the forth dimension.

    I could be wrong about this thought.

    If you mean a real live physical fish, then no, I don't mean that. Ah, maybe I should have labeled this theoretical physics rather than philosophy, but I don't think there's a section on this forum for that...

    Anyway, when I say 2D, I mean another dimension. A fish in our world lives in this 3rd dimension.

    But when I say existence in 2D, I also don't mean what we perceive as 2D. We can draw a square and say it's 2D, but it's (most likely) impossible for us to imaging existence in a 2 dimensional plane (by existence, I don't mean "life forms", I mean existence of the 2 dimensional universe). Our minds would probably go to "visually, how would it look like", but I don't think that fully describes the 2nd dimension at all. We're just thinking of how the 2nd dimension looks like from our point of view.

    That leads me to believe that while we can conceive of the 2nd dimension (understand many of its properties), we cannot fully imagine the 2nd dimension in its entirety either. Leading to another thought that if we cannot observe existence in the 2nd dimension, then that probably means that if there is some sort of "life form" living in the 4th dimension (of course this life form would be completely different from how we describe life form in our dimension), "they" most likely will be able to conceive of some properties of the third dimension, but (like us with the 2nd dimension) won't be able to imagine existence in the 3rd dimension. "They're" most likely clueless to our existence.

    To those thinking "pfft" to life forms in the 4th dimension, what makes our dimension so special to be the only one with life forms living in it? Maybe there's even life forms living in the 2nd dimension. We might never know.
     
  7. #7 Northern.Lights, Oct 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 21, 2009
    lol this guy

    btw... how do you know the 4th dimension is time?

    you dont

    carl sagan knows wayyyyyy more about dimensions than you
     
  8. Ah! And another stoner epiphany...

    Earlier, when I said that this idea gets debunked with quantum mechanics? I just realized that it probably doesn't conflict with it at all. Perhaps the effects we observe from quantum mechanics are just effects projected onto the 3rd dimension from an even higher dimension than the 4th. That could explain why all the calculations in quantum mechanics are so complex. Imagine a 2D being trying to explain the effects of the projection of the 4th dimension (time) onto theirs!

    In another analogy between the 3rd and the 2nd dimension, lets imagine a 2D plane again. Now imagine an observer from that dimension observing their physical world. By conducting experiments, the observer can probably formulate equations explaining how these objects will change. And these equations would obviously be functions of z (the z-axis; the 3rd dimension). Back to our dimension, we have the same idea. We observe our physical world by conducting experiments, and have formulated equations describing our physical world. These equations would be functions of t (time; the 4th dimension).

    The 2D observer from postion (x, y, z_initial) could probably calculate what a small part of their universe would be like at position (x, y, z_final), using a set of laws, but since they can't observe the 3rd dimension, they'll probably never be able to explain why these laws work. Now, looking into the 3rd dimension again, there are already formulas that explains what a small part of the universe from position (x, y, z t_initial) will be like at (x, y, z, t_final). These laws are Newton's Laws, and guess what? We still don't know why these laws work. Just like how the 2D observer is clueless as to why its laws work.

    Well, this would be all fine and dandy for the 2D observer until he realizes that his laws don't explain his entire universe. Why? this would be because of the projection of the 4th, 5th, 6th, etc. dimensions onto the 2nd. Think of time for a 2D observer. Every moment of time would essentially be a different universe for the 2D observer. The 2D observer cannot travel from one time period to another, and thus cannot observe it, and must create complicated equations using the little information they have to explain the 4th dimension.

    For us in the 3rd dimension, the 5th dimension is probably imaginable to us only as alternate universes, much like the 2nd dimension's observation of the 4th dimension.

    For a 2D observer, existing at all values of z (height) at once is unimaginable.
    But for a 3D observer, its normal.
    For a 3D observer, existing at all values of t (time) at once is also unimaginable.
    But for a 4D observer, this is also normal.

    So 2D observer explaining:
    2D -> decently easy
    3D -> fairly difficult
    4D -> extremely complicated

    And a 3D observer explaining:
    2D -> extremely easy (shapes)
    3D -> decently easy (polygons)
    4D -> fairly difficult (newton's laws)
    5D -> extremely complicated (quantum mechanics)

    You get where I'm going with this? Our entire existence, the existence of this entire dimension and universe, can be explained in one simple equation. But since this equation exists in a higher dimension, we'll never discover it.

    Theres some more crap running through my head, but it's really hard for me to explain things properly when I'm baked. Plus its freakin 6am and I'm tired. So yeah, I hope these last two posts don't ruin the awesomeness of my first post :cool:.
     
  9. #9 cheezyness, Oct 21, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2009
    lol, I actually don't know who carl sagan is.

    You're right, I don't know for sure that time is the forth dimension. I guess I just kind of came to the conclusion that everyone believed it was. Including the guy in the video. I didn't realize that he never mentioned time in his video, so my bad :confused_2:

    Still, my theory assumes that time is the 4th dimension, so humor me here will ya? :smoking:

    Edit:

    Yea, so I noticed there's a science section. Could a moderator possibly move this please? :)
     
  10. sup cheestastic... mr. riddler... query me this.

    The 3rd dimension can be represented on the 2nd i.e. drawing a cube on a piece of paper.

    And the 4rth can be represented on the 2nd, i.e. a flipbook.

    The 2nd may theorize the existence of a 3rd plane by the allusion to the linear dimension of depth.
    Similarly, the 3rd theorizes of the 4rth via the linear quality of time.

    The 2nd may theorize of the existence of the 4rth as a chronological synctium of frames, such as what you had described, existence in all moments simultaneously. (think back to the flipbook)
    Analogous to this, is the theory of parellel universes in the 4rth explaining the constancy of time in the 5th. (A three dimensional object existing at all times all at once)

    Here is the question...














    how much wood can a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could bone brittany?
     

Share This Page