Submitted 8 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/d1f4f66a-8a64-4609-8be3-3ca0347ec309.jpeg
This scientist who wrote a paper about the 4th dimension had this to say about what a 4d being, appearing to us would look like to our eyes.
“We would see disconnected blobs of flesh, some attached to claws, teeth, lips, eyes, or hair…”
Reading that made me wonder if biblical Angels are 4th or 5th dimensional beings that appeared to people in the past with environmental warnings or something, and of course an ancient human would see that and immediately think it’s a celestial being
I mean, celestial means “the heavens” so… they pretty much are. Like even if they had a different mode of travel altogether that would allow bypassing traveling through space, they still would have come from the stars… or beyond this universe (or something even weirder like time).
If humans are bound to a three dimensional realm it only makes sense that god created angels as higher dimensional beings to intercede between the limited humans and the infinity of god.
How interesting that god in their infinite wisdom would fail to account for the design flaw. Or maybe they were lazy and just didn’t care how these beings would appear to us.
Can an infinite being be lazy or fail to account for a design flaw? Seems less than infinitely wise to me.
And if it’s just a test, why is this infinitely wise being running quality assurance on his creation. Shouldn’t all that infinite wisdom have precluded the need for testing?
Not necessarily true - an infinite god would not “need” other beings, higher-dimensional or otherwise - to intercede.
The cool part is that it is not necessarily false either - if a plethora of beings were created, like not just animals & plants or even bacteria and fungi and viruses, but also beyond matter-based ones into gaseous forms, plasma, raw energy, or other stuff we don’t even so much know about (involving patterns of those raw things but connected in ways that we cannot yet see and likely have not began to fathom), well… they could be put to use in an intercessory capacity.
And if so, then perhaps we too will do similarly, when we grow up enough - e.g. if we create AI and become a “creator” to them. They too will have a purpose or at least reason that they were created, and they, being like us, will likely want to know what that is. Perhaps we will hard-code those answers into their cortexes, or perhaps we won’t bother to explain at all, but likely we would do something in-between. Just like the stories of the various gods that we have heard about all around the world explain might have been done to us. Who really knows? Certainly not I, but it is fascinating to think about.
Well that explains why they taste so good.
The third rank angels (in the picture on the right) are also called Ophanim (“wheels”) or Thrones.
Another inaccuracy is “covered their eyes with wings” being translated as “covered in eyes and wings”.
In fact, there are depictions of both going back many centuries, with the former being the most common until memes came along.
Its inevitable for someone horny to come along and fuck everything up, isn’t it
Let them have cake sex, but having an occupational celestial purity obligation is a bad company ethos, IMO.
I fuck with this
It has teeth
Even better
Mmm tasty angels.
smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Ok wanna hear my theory on angels?
First, this presumes all accounts are true, so if you can’t get by that, stop here.
The people on record of having seen angels describe them as having “wings” and “eyes”, however as these people were very likely agricultural in nature (farmers, herders, etc.) they may have simply described what they saw with the closest analogies they had. What they actually saw could have been something much different, but so far beyond their experience that they couldn’t describe them any other way.
Hypothesis: angels are actually higher dimensional beings that exist in more than 3 dimensions, and intersect part of their being to our 3 dimensions in order to interact with us. “Wings” and “eyes”, along with “wheels within wheels” could be undulations, harmonics, ripples, echoes, sympathetic frequencies of their actual presence that we interpret as best we can. It’s like when the sphere visits Flatland, we are seeing multidimensional cross sections of them, which give them such an otherworldly appearance.
BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 8 months ago
Or, since ancient Jews were desert dwelling people, saw a fucking peacock from the jungles of Asia that was brought in by merchants and so they got high in their temple from breathing incense herbs all day and wrote about it.
jaybone@lemmy.world 8 months ago
“Mustafa keeps this powerful messenger of heaven in a small wooden cage. Huh.” Shrugs.
tryptaminev@feddit.de 8 months ago
The accounts are consistent over a timeframe of about three thousand years, counting from Abraham to Mohammed (s.a.s). Note that Mohammed was an arab who could neither read nor write, leave alone hebrew.
If it was just some birds brought in by merchants that would be an extraordinarily long time to not realise that.
stringere@leminal.space 8 months ago
Accurate or not I’ve always liked Vonnegut’s description of the viewpoint from the 4th dimension to the 3rd:
“The creatures can see where each star has been and where it is going, so that the heavens are filled with rarefied, luminous spaghetti. And Tralfamadorians don’t see human beings as two-legged creatures, either. They see them as great millepedes—“with babies’ legs at one end and old people’s legs at the other,” says Billy Pilgrim.
vithigar@lemmy.ca 8 months ago
That description presumes our temporal dimension is their fourth spatial dimension though. It also makes meaningful interaction basically impossible.
If it works more like Flatland and we have a shared temporal dimension then they’re simply able to perceive us, inside and out, from what we would consider every direction simultaneously. In much the same way that we can see the inside and full circumference of a two dimensional circle.
OpenStars@startrek.website 8 months ago
OMG I LOVED Flatland! There is also Sphereland, but especially considering when it was written, Flatland was by far more innovative and creative. Sphereland was an homage btw, not written by the same author, and instead much later, slightly updating things to include Einsteinian physics.
Okay in that case, you might be interested to know: C.S. Lews - the author of Chronicles of Narnia, and well-known apologist for both christianity and atheism (hehe, he switched, then switched again:-P he left his childhood religion behind, became atheist, then became a different type of Christian) -has this trilogy starting with “Out of the Silent Planet”. I highly recommend it for anyone who wants “imaginative scifi”, in the spirt of Flatland. It is less known than his fantasy works, I suspect b/c the details did not hold up well in historical hindsight, e.g. all of those creatures on Mars and Venus that we never did end up finding… but it was nevertheless quite bold in its risk-taking in that regard, having been written prior to that - even though he knew reality was not going to end up anything like that, yet he made this fantasy work anyway:-D. Also I love the neat way he has of making you be skeptical enough to question EVERYTHING that you believe:-).
In that series he puts forth basically exactly what you are describing. These are beings within our universe, but are entities of energy whose only way to interact with our world is… well, imagine how you would interact with a bacterium: you’d have to make a puppet and say “this is me”, but lol it really isn’t. And yet, from a certain POV, it kinda is? Like the best way to talk to “you” is to walk over to the puppet and engage with it, which your set-up would likely be predicated upon, as in even if their entire universe is observable under a microscope slide, still that is where your camera is pointed and zoomed at.
I also thought it was neat how planets are these dirty little mud-balls, in the eyes of those who literally fly through space - to us they are our entire worlds, but to them they are navigation hazards!!:-P We are the bugs that splatter on their windshields? Or perhaps the mud-balls are dangerous even, like reefs to a boat. Another interesting point was that space is not as “dark” as those pictures from the moon would suggest, b/c of the light streaming outwards from the sun (this one I can never do justice to the explanation, and anyway it may have been just more fantastical world-building material). The first and second are wonderful depictions of what it might be like to travel to Mars and Venus, while the third is more abstract, being on Earth but they do wake up King Arthur, in order to fight against aliens acting as demonic spirts that possess the spirit of a beheaded psychic kept alive with like lasers or something, so… there is that:-).
So many scifi series - like Star Trek - do such a wonderful job of showing us these imaginative concepts. But still there is something to reading them rather in books (or listening via audiobooks I guess), and since these were never made into movies, that is pretty much the only way to experience them. Enjoy!:-)
AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
Re: Flatlandb and sequels
I’m on break from work so I can’t say much, but Flatland as societal commentary is really weird and dated, as geometry it still holds up though. I haven’t read Sphereland but I really liked a different sequel, Flatterland. Check out other stuff by that mathematician too, I really like his writing.
5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 months ago
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKfZ8RJ487M