Why do 4d shapes remind me of the star of david so much?

>>2958334
You can't even see 4d shapes. Only their shadows.

4d shapes do not exist and all visual representations of them are an elaborate fiction

Jewish physics

>>2959525
>only 3 dimensions exist
Has materialism gone too far?

>>2959531
Our senses allow us to perceive all objects exactly as they are.

>>2959546
You can't perceive 99.999% of the radiation in the EM spectrum
I guess that means it doesn't exist

>>2959577
Your words not mine. Just because we can't sense something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. We have been able to visualize it and measure it with other instruments and our senses are to be trusted when looking at the information revealed by those instruments

>>2959577
>>2959594
I think he meant they don't exist in our dimension

>>2959603
What?

>>2959608
4dimensional shapes can't exist in our dimension because our universe is only 3dimensional It's like saying that it would be possible to transfer your 3dimensional body to a 2dimensional space

>>2959594
You're essentially stating that tools that detect phenomena beyond the limits of our wetwork senses are extensions of our senses. Fine. I'll concede that.
However, natural phenomena too subtle to be detected by ANY physical instrument may exist, like phenomena happening at a level lower than Planck scale, and there are currently no known means to detect such phenomena, and we postulate that there is no such way to detect such phenomena.

Imagine you have constructed a machine which is monitoring the change in the depth of the water in a tank. It does so by comparing the current mass of the tank to its mass two seconds ago, with an accuracy of 1/10000th of a gram. If, during a period of two seconds, the mass of the tank changes by 1/10000th of a gram, up or down, it will report that the water level is increasing or decreasing.

Therefore, by adding in less than 1/10000th of a gram of water to the tank every two seconds, you can fool the machine into thinking the water level is not rising when in fact it is rising continuously. Eventually the tank will overflow.

Your ability to sense things is intrinsically linked to your ability to measure changes in the environment. It's why your brain can be easily fooled. It's why machines can be fooled. It's why the "true" nature of reality will never be fully known to anyone. One can reach a complete understanding of all relevant macroscopic phenomena, and I would say we as a species are close. But the world of very small and very fast eludes us in perpetuity.

This has nothing to do with history. Mods pls wake up

>>2959622
That whole part about trying to convince me that our senses and measurement instruments can be fooled was pointless because I already agree with that. However, I don't conclude as you do that this means we can't come to know true reality because measurement instruments will continue to be improved.

>However, natural phenomena too subtle to be detected by ANY physical instrument may exist.... and we postulate that there is no such way to detect such phenomena.

Most of the things we can measure now we were not able to measure one hundred years ago. For you to place the ultimate limit of what we can measure at our current limit is foolish because there is no evidence that any limits on measurement have ever been insurmountable.

>>2959632
>there is no evidence that any limits on measurement have ever been insurmountable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

There is a physical limit to how close two atoms can be in proximity to each other. This constitutes a hard limit. You can't assume that technology will improve indefinitely just because it has improved continuously in the past. You wouldn't assume that a well contains an infinite amount of water just because you have been drinking from it for a decade.

>>2959638
>This constitutes a hard limit.
No, that constitutes the current limit. You proclaim yourself to be against the assumption that we can continue to develop continuously but you firmly grasp the notion of us being continuously limited.

To put it in your words "You wouldn't assume that there is a physical limit to how close two atoms can be in proximity to each other just because you have been limited by that for decades".

>>2959643
Neutron stars are a testament to how close together two atoms can be. They've been limited by that for billions of years.

>You proclaim yourself to be against the assumption that we can continue to develop continuously but you firmly grasp the notion of us being continuously limited.
This would only constitute a paradox if I was fundamentally opposed to continuity. I am not. I am not enraptured by the exponential increase in human technology because it is that technology that allowed us to discover the limits of our technology. We went from splitting sticks to splitting atoms very quickly, but that's the end of physics as far as anyone should be concerned; there's nothing smaller to split. And if there was, we wouldn't be able to contain it in a device made of atoms.

A fire only burns until it runs out of fuel to consume, friend. We're a self-aware fire.

>>2959658
>They've been limited by that for billions of years.
You are being slimey. No one ever tried to overcome those limits for most of that time.

>>2959668
I don't think that considering some of the most energetic events in the universe as a "really really good try" is slimy.

>>2958334
>1438
Still doesn't recognise it as the Seal of Solomon