Is it possible for 3-dimensional beings that exist within an

I really hope we find a toroid planet someday

>>8655780
If there really were 4 spatial dimensions, then energy in matter would be distributed between them. It's not. There isn't any higher dimensions

>>8655841
I'm not talking about our universe. Arguing over the existence of a fourth dimension is, believe it or not, not the point of my question.

>>8655874
>>8655780

What does dimension mean in your head?

You do realize n dimensional coordinates are simply a frame of refrence, right? I could, for example, measure a rotation of an object in 3 dimensional space with a 4 dimensional vector(quaternion), this doesn't mean we live in a "4 dimensional world"(whatever that means), it simply often gives a more efficient ways of calculating rotations.

What is this brainlet notion over "4 dimensional beings" and "7 dimensional beings"?

>>8655898
Stop being passive aggressive and actually understand the point of my question

>>8655902
I don't understand your question, and frankly I don't think you do either.

>>8655780
We already built 4 dimensional "time crystals". I hate that name but it is a 4 dimensional object.

/thread

>>8655841
Time is a spatial dimension and energy is distributed through it as a dimension. Gravity is a 4th dimensional force, we experience it, but so does time.

>>8655780
You'd have to define what you mean by "3-dimensional beings."

Think of the problem in terms of 2D versus 3D. Imagine a 2D plane stretching through a 3D universe and that plane is full of "2D beings." What does that mean for those beings? If you take it to mean that they are confined to that 2D plane, then they obviously could never even be aware of that third dimension all around them. But if your definition allows them to somehow rotate their bodies on an axis (a 1D line within their 2D plane), then they could escape that plane and move around in the third dimension. They would never be able to directly perceive anything in three dimensions, though, because all their sensory organs are still 2D. So they'd see slices of the 3D universe and have to try to imagine what it all meant.

>>8655906
Is it theoretically possible for 3-d entities to combine 3-dimensional objects in such a way that would add an extra dimension to them?

>>8655927
Again, define "dimension" here.

As annoying it may be, if you want to have a discussion, you need to define what you think of as a dimension and an n-dimensional being. One definition I know involves vector spaces, I'm sure you've heard of it.

>>8655927
Only if you allow them to move one of those 3D objects along the fourth spacial axis.

File: 4d.jpg (445KB, 1296x968px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1296x968px

>>8655927
here u go m8

>>8655925
3-d beings that have access to technology that can bend their space, only they wouldn't be able to perceive any of that, as their senses are also part of the process.

>>8655780

you are a brainlet

There cannot be an "n-1" dimensional being in an N dimensional space, because it automatically utilizes all of that Universe's dimensions - its information will always be defined as points situated within as many dimensions as the parent.

Even if something was infinitely flat in our Universe, it's still technically not exclusively 2D because it moves both in 3D and 4D (time), which is an indicator that its dimensions haven't been reduced other than it having slightly less depth than the rest.

>>8655933
An n-dimensional space is a space that requires n coordinates to define ever object in it

>>8655945
So that would be like the 2D beings in the 2D plane universe being able to bend that plane in the 3rd dimension. So you could imagine them constructing a 3D object by gradually moving a part of their universe up and down within our 3D universe.

Here's a big problem they're going to face, though... All their atoms are 2D. So every "slice" of the 3D object that they build is infinitely thin. They would need to find a way to push around 3D atoms from within their 2D plane.

>>8655961
So you would agree that my quaternion example of our space being 4 dimensional is valid? If so, would 3 dimensional cartesian coordinates not exemplify our space being 3 dimensional?

You seem to think cartesian coordinates are some profound physical reality and not just a convenient way to perceive the world around us.

>>8655957
> that its dimensions haven't been reduced other than it having slightly less depth than the rest.

That seems intuitive in our universe, but may not be the case in some other multiverse

A better wording is, Would flatlanders eventually find a way to become 3-dimensional being?