1D and 2D are just mathematical abstractions. Everything is just 3D and that’s it. There is no time, just space with a state.
But… You can perceive 2D things. Like this text. Or a drawing.
4th dimension doesn't exist because even 1D or 2D themselves are not real.
Submitted 3 weeks ago by pocker_machine@lemmy.world to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
Kolanaki@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
pocker_machine@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This text or drawing is not really 2D. Down at the atomic/molecular level they are still 3D particles. We add just abstracting it as 2D.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The text on your screen doesn’t exist as molecules. The text exists as the light travelling between your screen and your eyeballs.
The length light has to travel to reach your eyes is three dimensionak, but the actual shape of the text is still two dimensional.
Then there is the light itself, which has wave-particle duality; a light particle has no discernable border, and can be described as a one dimensional point in space, with a two-dimensional wave function.
not_woody_shaw@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
A “dimension” is just something that can be measured. Imagine you have a square of paper and it has 5 coins on it. It has a width, a height, a thickness, a coin count. That’s 4 dimensions already. It also has zero elephants on it, now we have 5 dimensions!
Tattorack@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Electrons would like to have a word.
Quarks would like to have a word.
Gravity is standing in line.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
1D and 2D are just mathematical abstractions.
Your confusion is you expect 1d and 2d universes to exist within ours, when the reality is they are separate universes.
It’s not like one is built on top of the other, they exist separately and incompatibly.
We currently only see models of it in our universe, just like anyone from a higher order universe would only be able to see models of ours.
It would take insane levels of technology for them to even briefly appear here, and the only reason that would be worth it is if we’re essentially a “warp” zone for them where moving a short distance here would translate to a huge distance back home, at faster to whatever their equivalent of a speed of light is.
pocker_machine@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ah that’s interesting. I didn’t think of them as separate universes.
My point still holds though. I mean, we call 3D as 3D because of 1D and 2D. Since they don’t exist in our reality (but of course they are mathematically useful). One could still argue that since it cannot be perceived, it’s not real.
May be this is some form of nihilistic thought too 🙂
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I mean, we call 3D as 3D because of 1D and 2D.
No, we call it 3d because there are three physical dimensions we move thru: front/back, side to side, up and.
We experience time linearly, so it’s not included. However time behaving like the three other dimensions isn’t precluded by a single law in physics. Literally everything works backwards just as fine as forwards, except consciousness. We need the cause/effect of linear time to be conscious.
Since they don’t exist in our reality
Think of it like fireworks. There can be multiple in your field of view at once.
Each firework is a universe, with its own unique laws of physics and number of physical dimensions. Multiple are still “real” at the same time, even if they’re incredibly unlikely to interact.
I mean, one of the leading theories on how a universe forms is there’s giant “planes” randomly bumping into each other. On that scale not only are multiple universes “real” we’re all completely inconsequential and incredibly fleeting. Not just as individuals, species or even planets. Entire universes don’t matter.
If you’re interested there’s a lot to learn about with all that stuff, but it honestly doesn’t really matter.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Personally, and take this with a grain of salt, I feel like you’re overthinking it. Everything at some level is just an abstraction of something else. So what. Dimensional exist whether you acknowledge them or not. 🤷♂️
M137@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
[deleted]pocker_machine@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Ok. Hear me out.
We draw a line on a sheet of paper. That line only has x and y dimensions mathematically.
BUT
That line is a thin layer of ink. It is on a paper which has a width (however small it be). To explain 2 dimensions we abstracted the whole thing as 2D when in fact it is 3D.
There are no dimensions, there are just mathematical abstractions which helps us think. But there is no proof of a physical object in 1D or 2D.
Fecundpossum@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
They hated him, because he spoke the truth
M137@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I edited my comment before seeing your reply. That edit works as an answer to your reply. You should learn to know when you have nothing of value to say about something. I don’t make posts about football because I know that I have less than basic knowledge about it (and also don’t wish to have more) for example, the same goes for you here.
mkwt@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I gave you the downvote because I once attended a public lecture by Stephen Hawking, near the very end of his lifetime. It had to be one of the few, very last, public lectures that Dr. Hawking had in him. And the topic of that lecture was the nature of time, and how all of the equations of motion are fully reversible, etc, etc etc.
Out of all of the topics Dr. Hawking could have discussed, that one is the one he chose. And to me, that means that the nature of time was interesting enough to him to spread around to the public. That there are live issues that are not well settled. And so on.
Since that time, I’ve not seen any major developments in theoretical physics or philosophy to shift the status quo to an appreciable degree.
This leads me to the final judgement on your comment: You are wrong. There are live issues to discuss here, and OP deserves to further explain, defend, and debate their philosophy.
my_hat_stinks@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
dumb enough to think that something you just thought of without any research is valid and also dumb enough to think sharing that online is a good idea.
Do you know what community you’re posting in?
You can disagree with someone without being an ass, this was uncalled for.
maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
We have no evidence of a 1 or 2 dimensional universe existing, just like we have no evidence of a 4 dimensional universe existing. That might be because they don’t exist, or it might be because we can’t look into other universes.
If time is a dimension or not, that depends more on what you think the word “dimension” means than on what time itself is.
mkwt@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I need to get you to sit down for a philosophical discourse with the Time Cube guy.
EightBitBlood@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I spent a lot of time reading the time cube guys rants, and I’m like 90% sure they just never understood that if you rotate a cube enough on both axis it resembles a globe.
He just didn’t understand that the earth has multiple times zones because it’s a big old globe, instead of 4 timecube-zones, because he couldn’t understand how surface area stretches over a globe, just a cube.
Anyway, my two cents. Sometimes ranblinga are just a misunderstanding of basic scientific concepts.
Sorry 2D /3D OP, but you’re a great example too.
You want to claim 2D or 3D aren’t “real” when what you’re simply trying to say is that we, as humans, with limited and dull senses, are incapable of perceiving dimensions / universes that exist outside our own.
No shit.
That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. For that, it requires tools that exist outside our perception, but are universally sound. Aka Math.
So yeah, we can prove other dimensions exist with math, but can’t perceive them because we’re meat.
That doesn’t mean math is bullshit, it means you need to read philosophy enough to understand our existence isn’t centered on human perception.
We’re monkeys that have harnessed self awareness to the point we can prove there’s a reality that exists outside our limited perception. But simply because that’s only doable through math, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
It means your feeble human body is literally only capable of understanding extradimensionality because of the meat in your head, and it’s ability to comprehend math.
You are meat. But math is universal. You are limited in perceiving the universe to what your meat has given you. So doubt your meat, not the math.
It’s what the time cube guy should have done imo.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Dimensions are primarily about coordinate systems. They are about the question of “Where is something?”.
1D and 2D exist and are used all the time. If you are moving your pawn to e3 in chess, you are using a 2D coordinate system.
If you have an accident and you call emegency systems and tell them that you are at highway kilometre 134.5, then you are using a 1D coordinate system.
The idea that there would be an n-th dimension as a physical space is nonsense and it’s also not what dimensions are about at all. That’s what happens if fiction authors hear fancy terms without understanding what they are about.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Pssshhhhh! I’m in the 39th dimension. Thats the one where colors start having tastes! And fingernails scream as you violently pull them out with pliers.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
This guy must be from Ohio.
pocker_machine@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I believe you
TheV2@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
Yes, they are only abstractions, just like numbers are. I do not understand your conclusion that they therefore do not exist.
I still upvoted this, because I can see where you are coming from. It’s frustrating when adults portray thin flat objects as “2D objects” to explain dimensions to children. It’s not a simplification; it’s simply wrong.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I get what you are saying, but it is not wrong. It is not even a simplification. The surface of any object is 2D, and the surface of a flat object is the simplest form of a 2D coordinate system.
TheV2@programming.dev 2 weeks ago
What I meant is that some people portray the thin flat object itself as a 2D object, e.g. a piece of paper opposed to a box. I do understand that it’s intuitive to associate the absence of a dimension with a value close to 0 for it and vice versa, because that’s how we visualize it.
benni@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
1D and 2D are just mathematical abstractions.
So are all dimensions. The number of dimensions is just an attribute of a vector space, and vector spaces are just models we humans define to describe natural phenomenona. You can claim that some of these models are more useful than others. But at no point does it make sense to claim that a model “exists” or not. There would be no meaning to such a statement, it would contain no information. Not wrong, just nonsensical.
agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Just like every “2D” object has thickness, every “3D” object has a temporal duration. Without duration, it wouldn’t exist.
So everything is at least 4D, 3D doesn’t exist.
uyanagi@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Take my fcking upvote, sir.