So /sci/ what do you think about the 4th dimension? Do you think

>>8739707
I think we'd need one or two more eyes.
Or maybe the mind's eye to see cause and effect, effect and cause.

Do you mean a 4th spacial dimension or 3 dimensions and a special time dimension?

So /sci/ what do you think about Euclidean coordinates? Are they real? Are they already proved in any way?

I'll answer your question. Technically, the fourth dimension is not real. Neither is the third or second or first "dimension". They're just ways of describing what we see and categorizing ideas. If you categorize and describe your ideas and observations in certain ways, results obtained from extensions of your thinking can produce tangible predictions that make it seem like the way you categorized your ideas is the way that reality actually behaves.

>>8740067
I thought time was the 4th dimension
(x, y, z, Time)
A shank being left on a school desk in a public school in Detroit, Michigan at 4:30 PM December 5th 2013

and my pet theory of Choice/Will being apart of the 5th dimension, based on my limited understanding of the mutliverse theory
(x, y, z, time, choice)
A shank being left on a school desk in a public school in Detroit, Michigan at 4:30 PM December 5th 2013, due to being being found by a Mr.Fuckyourshit in some one's locker

While at the same physical location and point in time, but in a different universe, the object might have been somewhere or something else at that particular time and location due to the choice of a sentient being

>>8741489
How would you define a metric for "choice"?

I've seen this implicitly in some media, such as Steins;Gate, which represented "world lines" using a terminated real number.

However, I don't think you can actually represent the idea as a dimension, as you'd need to define order (is an universe greater than another?), distance and stuff.
I presume multiverses are uncountable, which makes ordering more difficult.

In addition, you need to make clear in these threads whether you mean 4th dimension as an abstract, a physical or a popsci concept.

>>8741489
The (x, y, z, t) system already exist but it's mostly used in physics. Physicists even invented a new scalar product just for it.

>>8739707
Any dimension is constructible with mathematics. However, we can only observe things in 3 dimensions. We have no ways to observe the existence of any 4th dimension.

>>8741544
we use many single dimensions to measure things in 2 dimensions

We use many 2 dimensional points to measure things in 3 dimensions

so logically we'd use 3 dimensional points to measure something in 4 dimensions...
but that's only if the 4th dimension is physical like the previous dimensions

but what if it isn't?

Lets consider for a moment that the 1d, 2d and 3d that we are familiar with are one set of dimensions and time is the 1st dimension of a different set

I warn you this next part is probably going to sound like bullshit pseudoscience

If you're head was covered in eyeballs all on sides and you went into higher dimensions, it would be confusing at first but eventually your brain would learn how to make sense of it. It's real because while we can't imagine what it would look like, math says it makes perfect sense.

>>8741639
before I continue with my second part I have a quick question

can energy be measured using physical dimensions?

>>8741652
go home, you're drunk

>>8741652
But there would be a whole new set of sides where you had no eyeballs.

>>8742029
Ok then suppose you could access a higher spatial dimension. If there are living beings there just kill them, steal their eyes, and frankenstein that shit into your brain. Instant hypervision

>>8739707
I like to think that time is our 4th spacial dimension.

>>8742150
This seems coherent and elegant enough to me.
It makes sense if you consider that each new dimension is like multiplying. Every point on the y axis is an instance of the x axis, every point on z is an instance of the xy plane, every point in the t axis an xyz space.

Who knows how high it goes? The fifth dimension could be multiverse, and then higher is something like tegmark's levels - different physics and math structures

>>8741663
Yes it can, that's how Einstein derived E=mc^2 using the Lorentz Transform on a linear representation known as a '4 momentum vector'.

>>8741544
The answer to your question is popsci.

>>8739707
Which one? (There's at least 13 4th dimensions).

File: tesseract.gif (3MB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 255x255px

>>8739707
Here OP, at least use the .gif version

File: 4bc.gif (488KB, 460x336px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 460x336px

Isn't extrapolating on the existence of 4th dimensional beings or objects on an equal level of evidence as claiming the existence of God? Why give this stuff the time of day when there's no reason to believe the entire universe isn't 100% bound in the third dimension, with time only ever moving forward?

How do we know this concept isn't just some Lord of the Rings shit, enjoyable but fantasy nontheless?

>>8743642
>Why give this stuff the time of day when there's no reason to believe the entire universe isn't 100% bound in the third dimension, with time only ever moving forward
because our level of intelligence enables us to look back on the past and speculate on the future

we have a science dedicated to predicting the past, present, and future of 3 Dimensional objects

we call it physics

>>8739707
Picture a circle expanding into a volume. If you are in the circle, it seems as if new area is being "created" from nothing, when in fact you are extracting area from a specific plane in the volume you are expanding into.
Now picture a 3D volume expanding into a 4D hypersurface. It would seem as if volume was being "created" out of nothing, when if fact you are extracting volume from the hypersurface you are expanding into.
Wait, this sounds familiar...

Theoretically can an infinite number of dimensions exist, and theoretically could we explain the properties of each one of them?