If you raised a child in a 4D simulation would they be able to

>>8421710
>Implying a 4D simulation will be possible.

If a 4th dimension does exist, raising a child in one probably wouldn't be a good idea.

>>8421722
If you could get a rudimentary simulation of 3D into 2D and 2D into 1D why couldn't you do a rudimentary simulation of 4D into 3D?

In essence you'd get a child that learns about its surrounding in 4D and his brain would "transcend" 3D when brought into our world which would be helpful for spacetime research

>>8421710
I think the human neurological machinery could probably handle 4D logic if exposed from birth. Soon I will attempt to figure if it can be learned as well.

File: 8227_c35bc9eaa4a930e006ab98bf3ef90408.png (61KB, 733x550px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 733x550px

>>8421710
A lot of people have trouble comprehending 3D even though they've lived in it all their lives.

>>8422035

[spoiler]XXXXXXXXXXXBXXXXXXXXX[/spoiler]

File: 14330099_1056163871165571_5790469859717304248_n.jpg (10KB, 412x412px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 412x412px

>>8422035
...B...?

You can only see in 4d if 4 spatial dimensions exist.

Since 4d doesnt, you cant.

>>8422084
Hence, "simulation".

>>8421758
Now you just need to find a girlfriend

>>8422035
>isometric perspective
>can't rotate objects or change viewing angle to investigate them
This puzzle says very little about people's ability to process 3D environments

>>8422088
Maybe you can be my girlfriend.

>>8422094
For tonight.

File: hentai=good.gif (858KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

858KB, 640x360px

>>8422092
It's quite solvable, but it's less about testing your 3d processing, and more about testing your ability to derive objects from two dimensional shapes while imaging 3d objects in your head.

It also does rather demonstrate a critical problem with 2d waifus.

>>8422035
No problem. Why don't you ask how do we comprehend 3d space?
[math]\pi: \mathbb{R^3} \to \mathbb{R}P^2 \times \mathbb{R}P^2[/math]

>>8422097
>>8421710

>>8421710
why don't we teach him math, and then set n=4?

Bravo Nolan

>>8421710
Everyone already lives in a "simulation" of 4D, jackass.

>>8421735
How would you simulate 4d?

>>8421710
Better question is what would life be like for a child raised in 4D simulation their whole childhood only to be released into the real world when they become an adult?

>>8422362
It would be like the opposite of getting out of the Matrix.

>>8421710
Well, we are already in a 4D reality
dunno what you are talking about

>>8421722
>If a 4th dimension does exist
What's time?

>>8422362
like anime made real

>>8422432
NIGHTMARE MADE FLESH

>>8421735
You can perceive lower dimension you can't higher perceive higher ones.

>if you can fit 2L in a 10L jug and a 4L jug why can't you fit it in a L jug.

Do you see how it's false reasoning?

>>8421710
The trick is to raise him on 2d so when he is a little older and suddenly becomes aware of higher dimensions, he'll be able to elevate to 4,5, or even 6 dimensions.

File: tmp_28617-14758132513201542202908.jpg (22KB, 500x646px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x646px

Uhh, brainlet here. Isn't the 4th dimension just time? Aren't we existing in the 4th dimension right now?

>>8422536
DELETE THIS

>>8422505
Sure we are but we still only exist as 3D beings. A 2D object (x,y) can exist in 3D space (x,y,z) but can never be liberated to the third dimension (i.e. it can't really comprehend moving about the z-axis)

>>8422505
Ur talking bout special 4d relativity. Dis niggas be talkin spacial 4d, nigga. There's a difference.

>>8422557
What would that even look like? I can't wrap my mind around the concept.

>>8422572
That's why op wants to simulate it to someone who has not lived in 3d.

>>8421710
>implying we aren't in 4D reality

>>8422591
How does an extra spacial dimension add to X,Y,Z? You can't just add another axis and call it good. Right?

>>8422542
>It got deleted
What.

>>8422051
>[spoiler][/spoiler]
here you go anon >>>/r9k/

>>8422609
You aren't thinking 4th dimensionally. Therein lies the problem. We perceive the universe in 3 dimensions, but a 4th dimensional being can perceive it in 4 dimensions. So it's hard to understand something you have never seen.

File: download (1).jpg (5KB, 200x192px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x192px

>>8422124
>>8422427
>>8422431
>>8422505
>>8422595

>HURR I'M GOING TO POINT OUT HOW TIME CAN BE CONSIDERED A 4TH DIMENSION EVEN THOUGH THE THREAD IS OBVIOUSLY ABOUT 4 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS

>>8423261
>he thinks a spatial dimension is different from a time dimension mathematically
They're the same.

>>8423302

>mathematically

It's obviously a thread about experimenting on spatial perception, which is definitetly different than temporal perception you brainlet. Go look up any 4D rubik's cube simulator online and tell me what meaning of 4D it's using.

>>8423340
It's using the same meaning as it is here, they're just dimensions, the only reason you have the effect on rubik's cubes in 4D is because they're allowed full freedom of movement in 4D space, while we're only allowed to move forward with some velocity.

If you want to think about it physically, it's like we have some momentum in time, and due to the conservation of momentum, we just keep going, since we can't change it.

>>8423302
Nigga what

Even the units don't work out for time as a spatial dimension which is why you see it multiplied by c

>>8423370
Anon, in natural units, c = 1.

But, yes, the appropriate term is ct.

>>8423358

Nobody "moves" along the temporal axis. All moments are part of a single motionless shape if you're looking at time as a 4th dimension. If you still have motion while looking at time as a 4th dimension then you would need a new version of time to explain why anything's moving or changing outside of normal time.

>>8423380
True enough, I completely forgot that.

>>8423380
>Nobody "moves" along the temporal axis
>what is consciousness
if our consciousness isnt "moving" along time axis, then why do we experience a "now"?

>>8423407

>consciousness

Come back when you have a question about a non-meme topic.

>>8423407

>why do we experience a "now"?

Every person-moment thinks its 'now' is the real one. It doesn't mean there actually is one real 'now'. It's the same idea as everyone thinking their own 'here' is the center of the universe. Also 'experience' isn't a real thing, it's just an abstraction of reporting behavior.

>>8423422
>Also 'experience' isn't a real thing, it's just an abstraction of reporting behavior
pfff lol

>>8422035
It's E

File: 2-format2103.jpg (7KB, 235x132px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 235x132px

>>8423451
>this guy is going to be an engineer one day

>>8421710
Eithe time itself or spacetime curvature in general could be described as a 4th dimension

File: 1425507954747.jpg (14KB, 232x235px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 232x235px

>>8423451
Fucking legendary

>>8423451
wat

File: 1460386193329.jpg (64KB, 620x445px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 620x445px

>>8423451

I think the brain in general could comprehend 4D.

But the visual cortex, and our eyes in general are specifically evolved to see in a 3D environment. So no they would not be able to understand.

File: 342730674.jpg (240KB, 630x450px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 630x450px

I thought the 4th dimension was time....

OKAY, SO, WHAT WOULD FOUR SPATIAL DIMENSIONS LOOK LIKE?

IGNORE "time is the 4th dimension", WE CAN SAY THAT TIME IS NOW THE 5TH DIMENSION.

>>8422035
Well that isometric shit is confusing as fuck.

>>8423780
I used to have a copypasta that went
>let me show you how to imagine another dimension
with some stupid as fuck explanation. I think I'm the only person who ever reposted that though and I don't have it any more.

Do 4D beings even exist?
Like surely there can't be a pocket of the universe which is in 4D?

Or is everything in 4d(+) and we just can't perceive it?
So basically is perceiving 4D an evolutionary thing which some beings can experience?

(Sorry for wording that like a tard, just typed my thoughts as I answered my own questions)

>>8422053

Yes.

>>8422096
I don't see how the second image looks like a female body.

>>8422458

>retard post

>>8422611

never seen it before either, truly a magnificent view

>>8424101
Top symbol is breasts. Bottom is legs together.

>>8422035
Immediately thought B without having to think. Then I thought it must be a trick based on your comment, but based on replies it's B unless they're memeing. Is it really B? Was this actually supposed to be difficult?

In my comprehension the experts would be Modest Mouse

File: 1467941769823.jpg (34KB, 368x417px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 368x417px

>>8422035
>tfw organic chemist
step it up motherfucker

4D is a spook

This thread is retarded. How the fuck do you raise a child in a 4D simulation.

>>8425007

>How the fuck do you raise a child in a 4D simulation.

How the fuck do you have that shit an imagination that you have to ask that question?

>Miegakure is finally released
>Child is born
>Surgically graft Oculus Rift with Miegakure onto newborn child

There, you're done.

>>8423749
he meant a fourth spatial dimension, bitch

>>8425075
Miegakure isn't a fourth special dimension you dipshit. Tons of shit is called '4D' for marketing purposes. If there is a fourth special dimension we are already in it.

>>8425103

>Miegakure isn't a fourth special dimension

Every object's position in the game is represented by four numbers instead of three. That makes it a four spatial dimension game by definition you brainlet.

>>8425112
Yet the interface still remains woefully three-dimensional.

Try harder

>>8425120

>Screen is flat
>Therefore 3D games don't exist

Literally what your retarded argument is. Go read Flatland or watch that Carl Sagan Cosmos episode, brainlet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_projection

>>8425127
show me a 3D game please...

>>8425131

Mario 64 you autist.

>DURR IT ISN'T 3D UNLESS YOU CAN PLAY IT ON A 3D SCREEN

Then Call of Duty isn't a first person shooter because you aren't really shooting a gun.

>>8425127
3D games aren't 3D, they are a 2D illusion that your brain 'sees' as 3D. Your brain cannot see 4D, a fourth special dimension does not exist outside the world of pure maths.

>>8421710
This is obviously impossible to anyone with the slightest, non meme idea of what 4 dimensional space is. Of you mean somehow "see" four dimensional space similarly to how we see 3 dimensions, obviously not. Of you raised in something like miegakure so they have some intuition for how 4 spatial dims is represented in 3 space, then people already have that intuition without your experiments

>>8425139

>3D games aren't 3D, they are a 2D illusion that your brain 'sees' as 3D.

Obviously it's graphical projection based. That's why OP said "4D simulation" and not "4D actuality."

>a fourth special dimension does not exist outside the world of pure maths.

That's why you need to do it with a mathematically coded game and not in real life. Computers can display what physically impossible but mathematically possible shapes would look like. Go read Flatland, it's the same idea. The flat shape people live in 2D and so their perception of 3D objects comes through as 2D cross-sections with weird and unexpected behaviors like changing size or disappearing and reappearing seemingly out of nowhere. Since we know it's possible for a 2D perspective to have a view of 3D objects moving through their world, we know by analogy we can do the same thing for ourselves with procedurally generated 4D shapes to make a game that provides what those sorts of higher dimensional objects would look like were they real. Which is exactly the same way games depict every other concept they've covered in the history of games; none of it is real, that's the point. If you were doing any of it for real then it wouldn't be a video game, it'd be you doing things in reality.

>>8422035
the ASVAB had an entire section devoted to this.

File: 1476916110302.gif (80KB, 700x884px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x884px

>>8423780
>Time is the 5th dimension if you are 4D person
Essentially this. Time is how you experience the dimension you are a 'slave' to and cannot experience all at once. there is no 'speed' of time, but only by the measurement you give it - and even then the "local" perception of time doesn't change as you measure it (by whatever arbitrary metric you set), but can change drastically as the observers speed and gravity change - relative to another observers. This much is fact.

To imagine 4D, I like to compare time to the 'frame rate' of a monitor. A 2D person inside your computer monitor could move in the x-y plane freely, but is experiencing 2D time as the 'frame rate' - as he pushes into the z-plane that he is a 'slave' to. He may not see something behind a wall in his 2D world, though you can see it because you - the 3D observer - can experience his 2D world all at once (for a given z coordinate/frame) from your outside perspective, you see it all.

Imagine a 2D being that could experience all past and previous frames at once because his frame rate became 'infinite'. He'd have an infinite stack of those 2D environments stacked up that he could move through at will just as he already does in 2D. He'd become a 3D being by having an infinite 'frame rate'.

For us 3D beings the 'frame rate' is the speed of light - our experience of time only speeds up or slows down as we approach the speed of light. If we were able to approach or surpass the speed of light we'd have moved faster than the allowed 'frame rate' and experienced 'frames' we shouldn't have normally been able to, but that isn't time travel.

Time travel would be tantamount to having infinite speed - having all of (3D) time accessible at any moment, like stepping 1m to the left is accessible, popping into the 4th dimension that you could experience all at once, at whatever speed of 3D time you wanted, all at your choosing,

Relating to OPs question, i do NOT think our human brains are capable.

>>8422637
Blind people do it all the time

>>8422637
we perceive the universe as a 2D image, ignoring the slight depth of field advantage our two eyes give us. This is interpolated into a 3D image that we can accurately imagine - and indeed manipulate spatially in our minds like >>8422035

We can perceive "Everything" in a 2D picture given a fixed 3rd coordinate in space. A 4D being would be able to perceive "Everything in a 3D picture (even if it was behind a wall) given a fixed 4th cordinate (fixed time).
>tldr a 4D being would be able to see through walls as they are outside the 3rd dimension.

>>8423261
It's only "not" spatial because you can't move across it, 3D fuckboy.

>>8426071

You're way overcomplicating this.

>i do NOT think our human brains are capable.


There already exist people who can solve 4D rubik's cubes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcbQwM7fS3A

>inb4 B-BUT IT'S NOT """REALLY""" 4D

It's a perfectly accurate simulation of what 4D shapes would look like were they to pass through our world and be perceived by us to the extent we're able to perceive them, which is what this thread was supposed to be about from the beginning.

>>8426179

Go ahead and try to develop and market a game as "4D" because it has time in it you autist. See how well that goes over. Every one of you "MUH TIME" retards knows exactly what was meant by "4D," you just wanted to show off your incredible popsci trivia knowledge by bringing up time anyway.

>>8426189
>ignores entire explanation of how to perceive 4D
>brainlet
>muh rubics cube
Humans cannot "take in" 3D space all at once, something behind a wall is invisible and unknown to you. You only perceive 2D space as it hits your eyeball and your mind does a trick. A 4D person - not existing in the 3D - looks upon us the same way we would look upon a 2D person from outside their world.

There is no way to simulate this even with Matrix style immersion. When your "vision" includes all 3D objects nearby REGARDLESS of obstructions - you may claim 4D experiments are possible.

>>8426226

>Humans cannot "take in" 3D space all at once, something behind a wall is invisible and unknown to you.

Miegakure literally lets you see behind walls you unimaginative brainlet. If everyone thought like you we wouldn't have any technology. You're disgustingly self-limiting desu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yW--eQaA2I

>>8426194
there was one game "Memory of a Broken Dimension". Like if MC Escher made a vidya.
https://youtu.be/nptXAYlRhFo
https://youtu.be/6G_IU5lK1E8

Download
https://steamcommunity.com/workshop/filedetails/discussion/305638565/613935404108926824/

---

This game handles 4D time a little different, than other shitty attempts at it.

>>8426236
you aren't understanding the limitations i'm describing. If you can overcome them, great, i hope you can.

Try this:
Imagine yourself - in your minds eye - sitting in your bathroom, you are seeing what's within your imaginary 2D vision in that imaginary room you are picturing in your mind.

Did you simultaneously perceive and imagine the kitchen sink and the rose bushes out front all at the same time within your vision?

That's the limitation i'm stressing here. Having real 3D spatial vision -xray like- as you fly forwards and backwards through "time" at will.

>>8426287

You don't need to fulfill all of those criteria to have a 4D simulation. If you build a game like Miegakure where every object's position is defined by four different numbers and can explain everything that happens in the game by analogy against a 3D simulation game like Mario 64, then you have made a 4D simulation game. Just because you make use of graphical projection doesn't make it not count. All games of every sort make heavy use of illusion. If they didn't, they wouldn't even be games in the first place.

>>8426250

It has a neat aesthetic, but I wouldn't call other 4D games shitty attempts in comparison to it. Traditionally 4D games get the four coordinate spatial maths figured out, which is pretty impressive. I don't see anything impressive for this game in contrast beyond the normal impressiveness of developing a modern 3D game.

>>8426314
I would have used Miegakure's game as an example if i thought it was noteworthy enough, it's just too simplistic, honestly Mario World has a better analog with it's P-switch.

>Memory of a Broken Dimension
It's better than most, i recommend to anyone who hasn't played through it. but vidya isn't the discussion.

I'm trying to convey to you that there can be no 4D simulation/game - BECAUSE you don't have a 4D mind that is remotely capable of perceiving 3D total vision naturally - Even if we could somehow glimpse what the Outside 4Dto3D perception difference was.

You'd have to completely rework areas of the brain that fundamentally cannot do this with some far off future tech that we cannot even begin to conceptualize in star trek fantasyland.

Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_memory#Spatial_working_memory

>>8422035
B.
That's a hard one though. Had to think it for a while. ;_;

>>8426342

You're dictating that there's only perfect, absolute, all detail encompassing 4D or nothing. Approximation isn't nothing. Everything important in the modern world runs heavily on approximation. A projection costs you some details of representation. So what? Do you throw out your maps because they aren't perfectly to scale representations of the 3D globe? So you can't see every 3D object in existence all at once. So what? You can make a really good 4D game that works with what is available to us and gives us a mathematically accurate simulation of perception covering objects that are by definition 4D. It doesn't need to be perfect. Perfection gets us nowhere, and if any game's content were perfectly reproduced it wouldn't even be a game anymore, it'd just be an exactly duplicate of reality. You don't tell people their shooter games aren't real because they aren't shooting real guns at real people. You shouldn't hold 4D games to that standard of absolute perfection and detail coverage either. Even 3D games don't give you literal 3D, that doesn't mean it's wrong to point out that they're clearly different from 2D sidescrollers. The impression of movement and visualization of 3D space on a 2D screen is sufficient to consider it a valid 3D simulation.

File: Youre_a.png (9KB, 500x121px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 500x121px

>>8426348

File: Dumb.png (8KB, 627x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 627x200px

>>8426348
1

File: Nigger.png (13KB, 500x122px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x122px

>>8426348
2

A>>8426376
D>>8426380
D>>8426385
now make one with like 30 pieces and like 100 different answer choices

>>8426376
>>8426380
>>8426385
ADD
dumb moar plz

>>8426399
>>8426408
congrats on passing an 10th grade spatial logic test.

>>8423749
auyyo crunchy blacc wuz good

>>8421710
Jesus, OP, this thread is more of trying to explain to middle schoolers what 4D is than answering the question.

Once you all figure out tesserats and hyperspheres, then come back to answer OP's question.

I think that yes, if a Zygote's brain was hooked up to a 4D screen for eyes and had the appropriate touch sensor distribution for a 4D human-like body, then its mind could handle it as it grew.

Building the simulation requires ground-up construction, not 4d representation with 3d objects (such as atoms). We would have to build from the 4d equivalent of an atom/sphere, and everything in that world would follow the same principle.

Remember the experiment where the guy inverted his vision by wearing upside-down goggles? Same principle, but I think if 4D-ing can be done to a newborn, it can be done to the rest of us with enough submersion. Problem is, no one alive would be willing to be scooped out of their skull just to properly hook up to a rudimentary 4D submersion experience.

I think this starts with 4D games built off 4D principled building blocks and viewed representatively with 3D holograms. Fat neckbeards will eventually figure out the structure and behavior/reactions of a 4D world and picture it intuitively without trying. This can be tested by having them hand draw 4D objects from many angles without looking at re-oriented model.

The annoying thing for the kid would be that coming back to 3D would be like us walking into an art museum gallery that only had paintings of non-overlapping shapes. Imagine trying to hug your mom if your mom was a 2d painting. But lo, the real world is already far less exciting than the simulated so intensifying the cruelty is no matter.

>>8426173
>this
In a 3D space, in order to see around the wall, you have to take the time to walk around to the other side of that wall.
A 4D being, in 4D or 3D space, would be able to see those exact coordinates instantly / instinctively, because the 4D isn't restricted by our time scale the way we are.

>>8426521
I'm glad somebody understood my ramblings here. Mr. 4D is not inside the 3D world and can see volumetric 3D images in his mind - because he has a completely different perspective we cannot imagine or even describe.

The same way you look down upon 2D world, see everything all at once, but Mr. 2D can't see through that wall in his 2D land, nor can he begin to imagine or describe the perspective we have of 'top down' viewing of a tv or monitor.

Our brains simply do not have this capability biologically.

>>8426580

Time to bake your noodle.
You put the cart before the horse and are looking at the finished product, not how it was developed. We develop our world from our senses recursively; we don't sense a world in which we live.

Our 3d world comes from the behavior of narrative objects that behave in a 3d way. So for instance, if you were driving your car and had amnesia, and thought that the road was rolling under you, and you were still, until you saw something else, like a bird fly by, you could still think of yourself as being still and everything moving around you. But the instant another car came towards you, and you recognized that a person was in that car, well the road could be rolling under them, but not both of you simultaneously. Your spatial universe would then form around you moving over the world.

This is a simplification, of "The Amnesiac Driver" model which includes the feeling of acceleration and gravity, and why things aren't just getting bigger and smaller, and a bunch of other stuff but concludes with the question "But what if you were an entity that lived in space? Unless you could tell gravity, and had acceleration, how would you decide space?

We don't live in a 3d spatial world. We construct a 3d world recursively in our brains that simultaneously integrates our senses into one world.

A 4d world would have to therefore have different rules to be created as 4d: different motion, different senses, different relationships of what objects we considered important.

Stuff to consider when thinking about how other forms of life see their world and their place in it.

File: 5.jpg (74KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 728x409px

>>8426626
>examples
these make sense, i assume you are making a point towards OPs question of putting a new human in a matrix style immersion simulation and giving him the perception gifts of a 4D being - and that it'd become natural to him. I still disagree that our brains are capable - even if we could formulate what a 4D perspective on THIS universe would be.

>A 4d world would have to therefore have different rules to be created as 4d: different motion, different senses, different relationships of what objects we considered important.
so you don't think a hypothetical 4D being could exist in this universe? that time wouldn't just be another axis on his Xbox controller that he could shuttle just like we can with x,y,z?

>>8423302
Time can be shown as a vector or line going through R3 space, not as a an entirely new plane.

>>8426690

The brain is a sense organ, that senses itself, then senses itself sensing itself. This sets up recursion. The Meta-Narrative is a Philisophical narrative that is very complicated, but the crib notes say that this recursion that is set up by the brain (or brains) is a "nonlinear, bidirectional recursion with taps."
(the goal of Narrativism is to make a narrative that includes the narrative of how it was made. It is an Ouroboros that does not eat itself, rather vomit itself up from nothing. One of its conclusions is "the world is, but is unknowable; the narrative is not but is how we make stories that are useful to be believed." Platonism and Sophistry both mistake the narrative for the world in an effort at rhetorical persuasion, but in the end, there is only a story that is or is not useful to be believed.)

It is a simulation, just one that is very useful to be believed. It is just that there is no “outside” of the simulation, unless it was a different simulation.

That is what math teaches us: for different conditions we have to make different narrative universes, then develop inferences within those universes for consistency. In the end there is no “proof” or outside world to reference; there is only a narrative that is useful to believe that is some way.

For the scope of this discussion, I'd say that the "biology" (which is also a narrative) would be perfectly capable of handling inputs that created a consistent alternative universe that behaved like Hamiltonian space or Hilbert space or any other space that does not behave like the Euclidean space we have developed our feeling of inference in.

Most of math is simply unlearning common sense.

>>8426710
It's cliff notes not crib notes

>>8427294

sorry. Do they even have Cliff notes anymore?

>>8422035
1st year aero eng here, we had to do this the other day, apparently a bunch of the students don't get 100%

>>8422035
Is there a place I can find more problems like this? I'm not sure what I would search for, exactly. But it seems like a fun way to practice 3D spatial translation, rotation, etc in your head.

I do a lot of 3D modeling and found this pretty fun.

>>8423865
There's strong evidence that the entire universe is 3d spatially.

A n+1 object in n space causes a lot of problems in physics, and probably can't happen. Just like how a n-1 object can't exist in n space.

>>8421722
What if certain mentally retarded people weren't retarded, but were seeing 4th dimensions while existing in a 3rd dimension world?

>>8427439
There's also strong evidence there's also a 4D universe with the 4th dimension being represented by """"space time"""""

If there are three spatial dimensions wouldn't it stand that there are three temporal dimensions?

>>8428669

No.

File: spintowin.webm (1MB, 1198x778px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1198x778px

>>8422035
Thought this was gonna be a prank desu.

>>8422096
just because you can jack off to 2D doesnt mean its a good idea.
you're apealing to the :
>everything thats natural is healthy
type of fallacy

>>8422431
I hope someone shoots you

>>8426698
>>8429913
But we construct is as a element of a manifold called space time, due to effect that time does not move at a fixed rate, but changes based on how much energy you're close to.

Hence, a 4th dimension.

>>8429913
Are you a part of the high school / pol invasion?

Time does make a 4th dimension. Pseudo-Riemannian manifold we live in is 4-dimensional. And you don't have to act bitchy to show that you need to be educated.

>>8421710
>4D
Anon try to imagine a fourth spatial dimension oh wait you cant its literally impossible for our brains to ever imagine something like that because our brains are 3D.

What is all the fucktards in this thread calling Time the fourth dimension? We mean spatial dimension you imbeciles meaning

WIDTH
LENGTH
HEIGHT
?????

The issue with trying to make a simulation of the fourth-dimension is that we would have to display it in a 3 dimensional way (correct me if i am wrong). If this is the case then the child will not feel completely uncomfortable in the real world, however he will not be able to see or imagine what the fourth dimension will look like, he will merely be able to understand and perhaps add to concepts of it (more easily) as he will have greater spatial awareness than most people.

>>8430121
I'm not OP, but I think we could eventually simulate the actual 4th dimension by telling the in-game camera angle to act like a 4D cam. As long as that camera 'eye' is fed directly into the brain, it should avoid the 3d projection issue.

Just ask Jacob Barnett because he can think in 4D.

>>8421710
I love it how 4d fucks up your mind when trying to understand it spatially, but analytically its a piece of cake.

just state a point that has 4 position variabnles that are numbers. You have X Y Z and ? values for each poitn

>>8430182
>He actually thinks some 3D representation of the Z axis is the anyway like the real fourth spatial dimension.

>>8422035
i had stuff called descriptive geometry or something my first semester and hated it with my whole self

now i see it really gave me some actual mental boost because it was easy

>>8430191
not 3d representation you gigantic cum slupring faggot

an ANALYTICAL interpretation

if you imagine a point with 4 values for position, youre imagining the 4th dimension, its as simple as that

say the fourth dimension is W , then we have

X
Y
Z
W

Imagine a point whos position is

X=0
Y=0
Z=0
W=0

you move it to the side you get


X=1
Y=0
Z=0
W=0

you move it to the front you get


X=1
Y=1
Z=0
W=0

You move it up you get:


X=1
Y=1
Z=1
W=0

you move it to the ??? (this is what we actually cannot comprehend spatially but yes analytically like im explaining you right now) and you get


X=1
Y=1
Z=1
W=1


its very VERY simple in these terms, but ultra abstract in spatial terms

>>8427386
I had to revise shit like this for the non-verbal reasoning section of the 11+ exam

>>8422035
B, took a minute, only to verify all possible outcomes XD

>>8422432
Criminally underrated

File: 1476711656210.jpg (67KB, 540x607px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x607px

>>8423407
>Consciousness

>>8421710
We already live in 4D you mouthbreather

>>8422035
B.. It's just rotating [math]\pi[/math] around whatever axis is pointing upwards wrt camera

since we live in 3d and are still able to comprehend 2d

the subject would be able to understand 3d once he gets out of the simulation

this would be a great idea

>>8421710
>If you raised a child in a 4D simulation would they be able to properly comprehend 4D naturally for research?

That depends entirely on what your fourth dimension IS.

I mean, other than JUST an abstract mathematical concept.