Using my knowledge of drugs, and my age, I can infer that I since I understand this, I am actually high and am taking drugs that reduce my short term memory into a standstill. Therefore, I am unaware of whether or not you (the reader) is actually understanding this, or if it is gibberish. If it is, indeed, gibberish, then please do not reply, as it will seem that I am actually a spammer. If this is gibberish, you can't read this anyways. I'm talking to myself, aren't I? Yeah, I am.
So if you looked at a 2D person, would they just disappear? Since paper has some amount of depth, you can still see the piece of paper when holding it...however, since a 2D creature does not have depth, would you not be able to see it?
@ImageJPEG In Imagining the Third Dimension, I suggest the same point of view leads us to conclude that we can't see the third dimension. watch?v=-D4swzK4sKk
This comes back to my idea that the direction we call "time" can be thought of as always being in the next dimension up from the one you're currently examining - so just as our 3D world is observed from the fourth dimension one planck frame at a time, a 2D flatlander would be observed one frame after another from the third.
I got the entire idea of this vid and I think the online users as I observed many are like flatlanders. They don't even bother looking from a different angle before they make conclusion of what they have seen, read or heard whenever they try to participate in web community. Kinda like sleepwalkers too. In my opinion
@ikkenienwel Thanks! You mention Kaku's book, it was actually what I was reading when I got the inspiration for my book, because I saw how my approach to visualizing the extra dimensions could align with the ten dimensions of string theory. Kaku's book was called Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension. Most of the book is about ten dimensions, but he does mention the now abandoned idea that there are actually 26 dimensions.
@10thdim yes I love kaku's approach, I don't understand all the things he talks about, but I love to know more about this subject... that's why I bought 3-4 of his books
basicly, this subject can be catagorized in physics, theology and a little bit in philosophy when you think about it
like for instance... where do you end up after you die?
it's worth thinking about the pattern in the dimensions when we talk about that.
Does the flatlander necessarily exist on one 2-d plane, or can the 2-d object exist on multiple 2-d planes oriented in 3-d space? Another way to describe this would be: any point that makes up the flatlander could have any z (height) value, while maintaining x an y values, but when viewed from above, it appears the same.
@MrRgambord Yes, exactly! Just as 3D is space without time, and we have multiple planck frames of space stacked one next to another to create 4D space-time, it would be the same for the flatlander's world. 2D is a plane without time, no way for the flatlander to change from state to state. Which is why I say that the flatlander would perceive "time" to be a direction in the third spatial dimension, and "time" can be in any dimension depending upon your frame of reference.
@10thdim Wow! So, for us, even though each planck frame is actually "stacked" up on top of another, we can only really imagine them as overlapping 3-D spaces because we can only view it from "above"? I've never heard of a planck frame before; are these discrete units, rather than a continuum? Also, we know that all systems tend towards increasing entropy in the universe, as a function of time. So, what implications does that have for time travel? How does energy even exist in the 4th dimension?
@MrRgambord Please try watching Imagining the Fourth Dimension for more about how physicists like Julian Barbour support this idea of our reality being created in planck frames, one after another. watch?v=-D4swzK4sKk
i think this concept is false. a flatlander perceives the world just as we see it. when you look at an object you see a 2-D representation of that object. however our minds are capable of interpreting it as a 3-D model. flatlanders perceive 2-D representations of objects as we do, however they don't have a 3-D consciousness like us. for instance, if a flatlander were to walk around the house he would perceive the front of the house and the back of the house not as manifestations of the same
How do you know you're not suffering from Copernicus syndrome...that is to say are dimension is the center of the universe vs an off-shoot dimension devoid of life outside of earth...where the main dimension would have a plethora of life everywhere on every planet? I mean how would you know?
Also why are you using the measurement of mass and the absence of space as the first 3 dimensions? And some how you go from measurements to different realities, then to different universes? congruent?no.
It would see nothing since it does not exist!! 1st dimension is a point, but everyone agrees that a point has no physical dimension..how can a line stack with points (nothing) exist!?
@drumsandguns2908 This is an important point - time is a direction, not a dimension, and it can be a direction in any dimension based upon your frame of reference. We're made out of 3D atoms and molecules, so we perceive our duration to be in the fourth dimension. With whatever the heck our imaginary 2D flatlander would be made out of, he would perceive the direction of "time" to be in the third dimension, and so on.
Interesting. If you were a flat lander your nose would block your vision so you would need a whole to see through, if you were a 3d creature your eye lids would you vision so you would need a whole to see through... since we are for the most part 4d creatures this "hole" which we see through is a span of time in which our eyes are open.
So... say that there is a window (demonstration) and a person pressed his or her face against it (just touching it)... Is that what a flatlander would see? :O
This is off topic, but how come at the beggining of the video it sais it was recorded on july 3, 2008 but uploaded on july 2nd... how does that work?!?!
@DaVince21 Was "open in new window" an option for annotations back in 2008? Thanks for the note, I've turned that on now. You can also go to the "to read along go to" link in the description and get to the videos from the blog.
Wouldn't a flatlander see absolutely nothing whatsoever? I mean, you showed us the perspective of the flatlander by rotating the piece of paper. Now, if we imagine the piece of paper instead as a slice of a person, you'd only see the front of this slice, ie. a line of probably skin colours. But this line doesn't exist, because it's the depth you were talking about. Hence, I can imagine a flatlander actually sees absolutely nothing whatsoever.
isn't the problem of your analogy that you have 2d creatures living in a 2d world? When you described the point living on a line, you described a zeroth dimention creature on a one dimensional world. Similarly, you could say humans are three dimensional creatures living in a four dimensional universe. Therefore, for a creature to live "in" a 2d world, it would have to be one dimensional, a line. It would have a length only.
@qtzlctl2012 This analogy seems to break down when you try to apply that to a 2d creature (your poker card) living in a 3d world. Suddenly it seems identical to how we perceive ours; that is because as 4d creatures we are moving through ALL dimensions below, not just the immediate. How could you illustrate a 2d creature moving through a 3d world while perceiving that 3rd dimension as we do our fourth?
@qtzlctl2012 As I've said in a number of these videos, "time" is a way of describing change from state to state, and you use the next dimension up for that change to occur (keeping in mind that time is a direction not a dimension - so just as you could assign "forward" to be a direction in any arbitrary spatial dimension, same with "time"). So for our 2D flatlander to change from state to state, he needs the 3rd dimension, and for him that's where he could say "time" exists - in the 3rd.
what would happen if i placed a flat lander in our 4d spacetime and try to touch it?
would my finger stop on it or would it go through him? he is there, so it should stop, but if he has no depth, theres like nothing on my finger's way so it would just go through it. hm?
@Zajcooo That's a great question! First of all, we have to remember that you and I aren't seeing 3D, because you can't see something that has no duration in spacetime. Even my hand in front of my face is 4D, not 3D because of the "time" it takes for photons to reach my eye from my hand. So if our flatlander has a duration, wouldn't that be like the "long undulating snake" in the 3rd dimension? Which could mean that the "bushlike branching structure" of the flatlander would be in spacetime!
hey if things need depth to be picked up...and if humans suddenly teleported to flat land....would we be able to pick up anything at all or would we just go through everything?
@rancor09 Here we are in 4D spacetime, looking at one 3D "slice" after another, one planck frame after another. Each of those frames have no depth in the 4th dimension, yet we can still see the 3D objects around us because we're seeing those slices in a sequence which gives us the illusion of continuous reality. The same logic would apply for our imaginary flatlander - what he's seeing would have no "depth", but he would still be able to view the illusion of continuous reality, frame by frame.
@10thdim I thought that the difference between 2D & 3D was that 3D had depth? If neither of them have depth from a 4D perspective, how would someone from a 4D perspective distinguish between 2D & 3D? Or is there not a difference from a 4D perspective? Thanks for responding.
@rancor09 Words like "depth" can be confusing when we're talking about anything beyond the third dimension. Is the third dimension dimension length, width, or depth? It's a combination of all three, it's not any one of them. The fourth dimension, which for us is "duration", adds another pair of directions, which are time and anti-time. The "depth" of a 3D object in the fourth dimension is its duration. If we as 3D creatures had no 4D "depth", we wouldn't exist. But we do!
So at least put up the backing for the theory. This is pointless! You only have 10 minutes for the video but you have infinite room in the text. And if you bugged youtube maybe they would make an educator ability(if needed) for a blackboard styles setup for your statements and presentation portions in text or something. Like more room for selected comments!
Try thinking all of this out and say to yourself how many dimensions must exist in the reality for the thing to happen. Now how many exist on the beings in it. (which is also disputable!) And see if it is stateable as being 2 dimensions! How does the theory get around this? How can the theory get around this? How if you state a way of getting around it does it get around it and are you sure!......sigh.
For a 2d person to see they would have to be more than 2 dimensional. If he is 2 dimensional and can see a line and move it's not possible. think of a 3d modeling program and how that would work. the physical reality would need 3 dimension to even have a position to see the other 2 dimension in a line. Unless you use something alot me complex(which this video avoids any teaching of) there is no foundation for this. this only allows someone to put a theory to insist others follow!
@PlatonicPhi You are saying a 3d flat triangle(flat is still 3d. There is no presidence for flat to not be if not explain. I'll assure you your logic will be wrong at it's most basic premise every time!) Then the object can see in whatever physical sense another objecst side. The other object must then be a 2d object on his lacking plane. meaning he has no reality there. And the other object must exist on a third plain to another angle. It's impossible. Or not 2D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Respond to this video... the fundamental logic of 2d will stand still no matter how complex it gets unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And i doubt any theory existing would do so regardless of it's plane. To many people in this field seem to treat this like high fantasy and and seem to thing because they can get caught up in it it's true regardless of the fact that they cannot fully go over their own premises correctly to see if it's true even on those premises.
A straight line, with depth and width but no height. Is it really that hard to imagine?? He can turn around 360º in his plane world and see closer and further things. The only complicated thing is to think in height, he can't see anything cause there's no height or does he sees all the "height" with the same color? :/
Does this imply that a 4d being would exist in more than one place at once relative to our understanding of space? I think you mentioned in another video that a 4d being would be able to see all sides of a 3d object at the same time, might have been someone else's video I can't recall.
well assuming that the flatlander is actually a three dimensional creature (the 1st 2nd and 4th), he would be able to move within his 2nd dimension. At any given point of the fourth dimension he would only see a line, just like we would only see a plane, but as he moves, he is able to discover pictures or objects in his 2 spacial dimensions. We can picture this and understand this given tiem to think. the question i pose is how would a creature live without the 4th dimension? only in the first3
This logic is the reality of an unlogical idea holding itself up against logic. And the reality of atheist and evolutionary theory. The avoidance of full logic. Fantasy. And the only thing psychology ever got correct. Projection! 8p. Your own reality being put on another group that is not your own by your definition or viewpoint. AKA christian/creation. Though those are not stuck together that simply by those groups. BTW the answer to the argument is teach them both logically as they are.
@PlatonicPhi The answer is the return to full correct open logic. where nothing is unteachable or should ever not be. Knowledge is the key. We used to know the realities to that. Knowledge weeds itself out in the end. In fact avoiding teaching them both proves the complete inability and removal of the school systems true responsibility. You always give information to be gone over fully. Hence the easy answer. The problem is stupid people who can't. and make that complicated.
@PlatonicPhi Or deny all the facts and full logic recreating the problem and arguments that are not articulated correctly and more importantly fully. which will sadly more than likely keep popping up even if they claim to since they realistically will probably not have learned it.
How do you stand upon a so called mathematically founded logic discrediting the very logic founding your theory. What normally happens in that standpoint?!
Another point that the 1d with a side cant' exist. to further clarify. That is 3d. It is a triangle without the side extended. That is Euclidean logic. it would be 3d already. Hence no interactivity. No means for substance hence no logical way of talking about it besides the most wild conjecture. Even if you hold it as interactive logical representation it is completely full of fallacies. Dimensions are pure mathematical interactions which exist on the 3d plane of our reality!
Your point of arguments are logic so convoluted and stupid no one can get around it all to argue it because of the gigantic mess. It is not scientific or realistic. You must claim omnipotence and no need for science to get it. No logic supports it. Only confusion which you claim to be logic because no one can get around the whole load of crap. You say the paper only represents it. show how. show the smallest piece of logic that can support it or you have no grounds period.
lol, if there rly was a 2 dimentional world from the multiple universe theory, dont you think that the world could exist but impossible for even living things to be on it anyway... haha. So what would be the point of arguing what a flat lander would see? And if there where living things in a world like that... i could only imagine the living things like the cells in our 3d world :) just an idea. dont hate.
hey i love your channel, we could probably talk for hours! Curious: how can you call a 1d line 1 dimension? dont you need the 4th dimension in order to discover that there is a line? for a line to exist there needs time (movement with respect to time) am i wrong?
Rob - If we see only moving 2-d images (from a 3rd-d perspective) we're seeing time-affected areas. If those images were reduced to 1-d we would see nothing because we would be looking at an infinitely thin line; the fact that it might be moving wouldn't help. It seems that 3 spatial dimensions is the minimum number necessary for the detectability of entities. In fact, except mathematically, how could anything exist with infinitesimal depth? Flatland entities can only be conceptually possible.
@JovianSatelite A Planck Frame is the smallest length and the smallest duration possible for our reality - anything smaller than that is meaningless, indeterminate, "between the frames" so to speak.
Your question reminds me about microsaccades (google it) - continuous microscopic motions of the eye: amazingly, without them we go blind.
WAIT! A flatlander wouldn't see anything. I understand exactly what you're saying. A flatlander would just see a straight vertical line which represents everything that passes past it as it passes this line. For example a blue cube passing past a flatlander's view would be seen as a blue line appearing for a few seconds then disappearing. But the line would have to have depth to be visible. Also it wouldn't be able to turn because that would be implying that it could move sideways. Please reply
@skysthelimit112 By the same logic, we as 3 dimensional creatures shouldn't be able to see anything because any particular "frame" of our third dimensional existence has no duration in the fourth dimension, because the third dimension has no duration, because it's space without time. And yet we seem to be able to see the 3D reality around us, as we observe one planck frame of our 3D reality after another. In the same way, a frame of the flatlander's world has no depth in the 3rd dimension.
@10thdim no not by the same logic. You say that a 2d can see on what must be called a third dimension! It is illogical by your already held logic on the nature of one and two dimensions. establish your definitions again and go over them based on your practical logic.
@PlatonicPhi You are using a sliding set of definition and are not holding onto them throughout. What you say is illogical. Gather your base definition and have enough to fully deal with what is said or this is nothing but stupid fantasy and not science or educational. And I hope to god isn't using public money anywhere.
@skysthelimit112 It wouldn't even see that. It's two planes are represented on the two planes we see from above. It has no interaction on the third. AKA the front. Or you have to take away one of the other two dimensions. The third dimension is the dimension of interactivity. The other are logical without further evidence. What this guy is saying is absurdity. Which is illogical mathematically or they have no basis for geometry to start with. He's a fucking liar/con like all atheist / etc.
@PlatonicPhi Proper absurdity logic applied to the viewpoint. The basis of geometry and their viewpoints. Hence their leg being pullout out from them. If you have two dimension on the top. If the two are represented on the top for a side view you need a third. to leave two you must remove one from the top. What do you have? you have a one dimension with a side? to extend that how do you give any side representation to interact. Putting that too short but...
@PlatonicPhi And without the third dimension there is no interaction or thing to see from the side or top? Both three dimensional logic! You cannot have a side without three to start.Hence it is absurd and impossible!!!!
@PlatonicPhi If you take one from the side you have no point of sight or interaction becuse you needed to to see the top. Hence more absurdity. This is the logic math is based on. Hence you cannot have one dimensional object with a side. What defines the reality of a corner. It takes a third dimension. Or you have merely moved it on it's axis if you say you put them both against one another. this still needs the last step but you see the logic. fill it in. what were the definitions and logic.
@PlatonicPhi Also interestingly if you put the side of the one dimensional line you must then shrink it to a point of no length. Hence doesn't exist to meet with the second on the side. it's completely impossible. It's absurd! hence no background. The only thing then is to move around the impossibly keeping it 2d which it can't as it would still be 3d and be on a 3d plane. Hence the logic is of a fallacy. I'm not begging to say enough to disprove that. You can go on endlessly it's so absurd.
@PlatonicPhi That should say it then must move around a 3d plane with only 2d substance. Basically a triangular logic. None of it is possible. if people are going to hold this then say Christians and creation is absurd they are stupid. This is the definition of absurdity. You have found the impossible standpoint. And the motion is impossible fully to start. you cant shrink one while extending another and remain 2D
@PlatonicPhi AKA you cannot create a 2d shape with the potential for a 3d triangle. AKA a one side just not joined by a visible line. That is still 3 dimensionality. Hence all aspects are proven absurd I believe. Even as a representative or basically everything you said is pointless as an example. The very premise is wrong. And you are claiming omnipotence whether you realize it or not.
Everything this guy is saying is absurd three dimensional logic. It's an idiotic or purposely deceitful viewpoint based on basic geometric logic on paper. And logically incorrect in every regards on his own statement structure. this is why I hate atheists and evolutionists. They are all cons and thieves. They will use any logic others can't get around or understand circumstantially to get what they want. they are criminals.
if something is 2d as he describes it must either turn on the third degree making the universe of 2d 3d! or it must have a third to interact on the side. A third dimension. So either they see the width/height of themselves or the third dimension or they move a third axis to view the top. Then you add in the matter of substance. to have it visible from above you need depth to have substance. this is absurd and unscientific by their own atheistic butts hold on to in argument(and argument alone!)
If he wishes to say this is truthful he needs a reason to say how this isn't absurd specifically not in generic logic which is backed against its' own absurdity. That is a crime scientifically and otherwise. it is the actions of an illusionist and is the definition of illusion. They are lieing to you or deluded and still criminals. This serves no purpose as they explain nothing about how it can. It is useful for nothing but brainwashing.
@skysthelimit112 No he shouldn't see anything. the other plane not making up his being doesn't exist. And to see something would have to be in a plane that doesn't exist again or at an angle to him wihch then requires a 3rd dimension. This whole idea is idiotic. And ROB can't think to save his ass correctly. Everthing he states is only a have use and twist of the true premises and requires throwing half of them out to make it "realistic" or possible! it's all Bologna!
You can add all the other dimensions you want. But you can't get around the basic premise existing to avoid what I'm saying now matter how much more info you add. these guys just can't finish analysing all the implications of their own theories and premises and live in a half thought out fantasy world! AKA logic on premises they aren't even capable of thinking about when they come to conclusions. They lack all proper critical thinking abilities in their theory making! if not they need to show it
Take his 2d jack explanation! He is talking about a being that is 2d length width! His eye projects towards a third plane that doesn't exist! There is not way for it to function or have anything to see. Let alone prop up the other two dimension which must happen. He will say no but can't back it up logically(the fallacious reasoning. He must prove that is possible for it to be possible as a theory without the logic being fallacious!) Now for the eye to see any other dimension..... up down....
@PlatonicPhi The other being would have to be up or down from him which doesn't exist. there can be no 2d! And the idea that it is projected from 3d is asinine. All of his premises are false! when he says impossibly flat he's correct. it is impossible. You must demonstrate how it's possible to even have a theory on it! that is proper reasoning! Now explain to me how it is possible showing completely how it is possible!! No I would have to explain to much crap!
I think rob should demonstrate his personal knowledge so we know where he is actually coming from so we know what he is saying. And not take his word on it!
The basic problem with these theories if they don't check all their premises for correctness then go off with different ones being ignored as the discussion goes! It then is making circular or possible spherical logic! 8) He gave himself another dimension of freedom to make false arguments!! 8p
Half of his arguments throw out either the definition or must of things he talking about or doesn't follow some necessary logic to talk about something You can't use completely unknowable or even any undefinable thing to make a solid theory or it is pure fantasy. no one can make theories on undefinable things unless it has logical backing for it like a possible god or endless matter because of the problem of where things came from etc. these theories fight against necessary logical backings!
And the use of god or endless matter must be in name only. Not as part of the reasoning unless you are saying you are trying to explain it and saying you haven't come up with anything yet in a practice(not as a pure theory! aka it's hollow! and defies deeper analysis!), Saying i want to find it, not I have a reason for it! they can not be the solid part of an argument. And all in all the premise of the title is wrong. This is not what a 2d person would see. So it is all mistaken! or misstated!
AKa nothing in this video is logically or correctly explaining anything this theory could be or is about! if it is a theory and not his imagining as he attempts to teach things he can't think out properly. which i'll take as what is happening.
All mathematicl theories should be stated in the format of the ELEMENTS. And should demonstrate every level of the theory and how you demonstrate it's correctness and possibility. If it's not or can't be it's a load of shit. And is until someone shows you correctly and completely. That is math. If you dn't like it go back to your imaginary physics world! 8)
The one thing that would resolve all of this is if he did(or even could) state and keep in mind all of his definitions and base premises as he went through his theory. this is all nonsense unless he can. AKA uneducational. AKA brainwashing if he thinks anyone should belief if. you teach by having someone learn to think for themselves by analysing base reason for things and their correctness and how you tell. This is the opposite of education! it's not introductory. It's brainwashing!
yes - flatlander will see everything as lines of different length and (possibly) colors.
"But the line would have to have depth to be visible" - that's wrong. We are talking about flatlander who has some sort of 2dimensional eyes which don't have any depth as well. You can't see objects without depth in our 3dimensional world, but in 2dimensional world there is no such thing as depth.
also I don't understand what you mean by "vertical". In flatlander's world such terms as vertical and horizontal are indistinguishable. So if you ask a flatlander "can you see a vertical line?" he will be confused.
What confuses me is how a flat lander could conceive of Time. To us time is seen as the fourth dimension and we see "shadows" of ourselves and others in the third. But a flat lander would see shadows of a three dimensional object as we would four dimensional objects. Meaning that flatlanders aren't actually flat landers, they are actually three dimensional beings through the perspective of two dimensional beings.
So my question is what would a flat lander look to us in the 3rd dimension?
Something that is 2D wouldn't be able to see at all. A line that it sees wouldn't send line through 3 dimensions to create a size of what it sees. It can't see anything at all.
@amarigmail Yes, our vision works in our 3 dimensions, but each eye is only seeing two dimensions, since the image is being projected onto a curved plane at the back of our eye which, topographically speaking, is only two dimensional.
Since this is only a thought experiment, getting into the details of how a flatlander's eye would actually work is irrelevant, the point of the exercise is to understand how taking away or adding spatial dimensions removes or adds degrees of freedom.
@10thdim How our eye hypotheticall sees in a mechanical sense does not work as a theory for dimensional space. Do you not understand that!? They are not connected logically! One is engineering specs the other is how the universe works. You cannot blindly combines them as a reason for the other. there is no premise for it! what is the importance between how the eye sees and how dimension work and how it applies to the other without jumping to conclusions!
By a delusional man! If not disprove me! please. I would love to learn it! And no I won't go to so and so sight and read so and so. If you want to teach you carry your weight and do it since it's your video and your teaching. You can only teach what you understand anyway or it's irresponsible! And likely full of errors no matter how you you "base" it on that guys ideas over there!
Educational about noisy pseudoskeptics (for freethinkers): debunkingskeptics
The flatlanders in Dr. Quantum video may ALSO be 3D creatures. Adding or removing a dimension for 2D doesn't really do anything mathematically, except add complexity. However, if the "flatlanders" are really 3D (or nD if you like) creatures with limited access and interaction to the last dimension(s), it may make more "pseudo-physically" sense. Then it starts to approach superstring theory etc
Im thinking that a flatlander realistically would not be able to see anything at all for the simple fact it does not have a brain to send electromagnetic signals to the eye it proposedly has.
A flatlander would see a line right? he would see a line with no width nor depth... Thats simply impossible for us to imagine as our idea of a line is actually a 2D rectangle. As you said, all we can see and imagine is a dimension below us. So, don't we "use" a part of the 4th dimension we call time to understand our surroundings?
Using that same principle, the flatlanders could use a part of the 3rd dimension to their understanding right. What would that be?
@Shoyrou Right. We use the 4th dimension to change from state to state as we choose from the wave function of our fifth dimensional probability space. Because our atoms and molecules are embedded in the third dimension, for us "time" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension. For a flatlander, they would use the third dimension to change from state to state, so they would say "time" is a direction in the 3rd spatial dimension. This logic continues for all the other spatial dimensions.
It is simply unimaginable for us 3 dimensions beings. Our eyes were made to analyse the dimension we live in so... they would definetly have different eyes xD
if a 2d entity could be able to see, it would see nothing because without any depth to an object, there would be no surface oriented towards the retina of the 2d object.
In the Steve Hawking book A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. A 2 dimensional animal a dog was shown and he was showing that life cannot exist in a 2 dimensional space because the digestive tract would cut him in half.
I was thinking, Actually, A flat lander cannot see anything (this is my opinion) Because actually, by mathematics, something in 2D doesnt really exists.
For example, in our 3D world, a box 20cmx10cmx5cm would be a 1000cc box, right?
But for the "jack" something would be Ycm x Zcm x 0cm, and mathematics says that anything multiplied by 0 = 0.
In other words, if we flip our flat lander until we get to his perspective, he will dissapear.
May u please tell me what you think about my thought?
How could a flatlander see a line in front of it if that line has infinitesimal depth? And how could cells function in such a world? It seems like these flatlanders wouldn't be capable of achieving the basic needs of Heat, Food, and water.
@PKDana Since we're talking about a thought experiment, whether our imaginary flatlander could actually exist is beside the point. Flatlanders help us to visualize what additional degree of freedom each new dimension adds.
But you're right, he couldn't be made out of cells or atoms and molecules because those are 3D constructs. Physicists agree that gravity is the only force that exerts itself across all dimensions, so perhaps something about our flatlander's existence would be based on gravity?
@PKDana Re your question regarding infinitesimal depth - this is why I say "time" would be a direction in the third dimension for the flatlander. In the same way, 3D space without time would have no duration in the fourth dimension, but you and I have no problem seeing the world around us: because just as the flatlander would use the next dimension up to observe change from state to state in his 2D world, so do we 3D creatures as we observe our 3D world using 4D spacetime.
@10thdim So something in the 4th dimension would use the 5th dimension as a reference for duration? What about the final dimension, is there no duration of time? And you bracketed "time", and I also observe that Stephen hawking in his book "A brief History of Time" says " Time(Whatever that may be)". It seems as if no one really understands time, and really, it would only make sense in a finite universe, as any point in time in an infinite universe would be considered mathematically "undefined".
Thanks! In this video, who cleared up a question that I recently installed as a comment on one of your other videos utube..If you like you can remove that question comment..I quess I should watch all your videos first before asking questions...thanks.
@zaboo23 If you go to the text version of the blog you'll see it was published July 3rd. So when I recorded this video a few weeks before July 3rd I supered the correct date, then put it up on youtube the day before so that when the blog went live it could have the youtube video already embedded in it.
You need to have three dimensions to see anything. Without hight no light would be reflected to your eyes. Since a flatlander would only be able to see the length and width of stuff they would not be able to see thing just a liiiittle bit from above. Therefor: A flatlander would be completely blind, since nothing in a two dimensional world is able to reflect any light
it give's me alot of hope knowing that there are people out there that are interested in more than just the latest music video or what other people think of their facebook page...
@Rob Bryanton: Great videos, and great execution too! You've got to give us a video on how you do your videos! Like what video editor you use, what green screen etc...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this is wrong... if you cover your eye, you are still seeing 3D ... i am not suddenly seeing cross sections of 3 dimensional object am i? so im still seeing 3D this man doesnt know what he's saying ...
This is why it's much harder to drive a car if you have only one eye - the subtle difference between what one eye sees and the other is what allows our brain to deduce what objects are close and what objects are far. The image that the lens of the eye projects on the back of the eye is only a 2D projection of the world around us, that's an absolutely true and accepted scientific fact.
Using my knowledge of drugs, and my age, I can infer that I since I understand this, I am actually high and am taking drugs that reduce my short term memory into a standstill. Therefore, I am unaware of whether or not you (the reader) is actually understanding this, or if it is gibberish. If it is, indeed, gibberish, then please do not reply, as it will seem that I am actually a spammer. If this is gibberish, you can't read this anyways. I'm talking to myself, aren't I? Yeah, I am.
melovepeas 1 week ago
So if you looked at a 2D person, would they just disappear? Since paper has some amount of depth, you can still see the piece of paper when holding it...however, since a 2D creature does not have depth, would you not be able to see it?
ImageJPEG 2 weeks ago
@ImageJPEG In Imagining the Third Dimension, I suggest the same point of view leads us to conclude that we can't see the third dimension. watch?v=-D4swzK4sKk
This comes back to my idea that the direction we call "time" can be thought of as always being in the next dimension up from the one you're currently examining - so just as our 3D world is observed from the fourth dimension one planck frame at a time, a 2D flatlander would be observed one frame after another from the third.
Rob
10thdim 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
ImageJPEG 2 weeks ago
a flatlander doesn't see anything.he doesn't have eyes, he has sonar guidence......
love your mindblowing channel. keep up!!
dimechanic 2 weeks ago
have you tried uv texture mapping its all about wrapping a 2d drawing over
INVADERxDIB 2 weeks ago
I got the entire idea of this vid and I think the online users as I observed many are like flatlanders. They don't even bother looking from a different angle before they make conclusion of what they have seen, read or heard whenever they try to participate in web community. Kinda like sleepwalkers too. In my opinion
markymarkxz7 2 weeks ago
very nice channel buddy....
I'v been reading michio kaku's hyperspace, parallel universes and other books
but this videos are really clear if you have those background info
you understand what is talked about
by the way.... I though there where 22 or 23 dimensions?
ikkenienwel 2 weeks ago
@ikkenienwel Thanks! You mention Kaku's book, it was actually what I was reading when I got the inspiration for my book, because I saw how my approach to visualizing the extra dimensions could align with the ten dimensions of string theory. Kaku's book was called Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension. Most of the book is about ten dimensions, but he does mention the now abandoned idea that there are actually 26 dimensions.
10thdim 2 weeks ago
@10thdim yes I love kaku's approach, I don't understand all the things he talks about, but I love to know more about this subject... that's why I bought 3-4 of his books
basicly, this subject can be catagorized in physics, theology and a little bit in philosophy when you think about it
like for instance... where do you end up after you die?
it's worth thinking about the pattern in the dimensions when we talk about that.
youknow what I mean?
ikkenienwel 2 weeks ago
bet they are the size of an ant :)
theblobinc1 1 month ago
our 3d eyes only see 2d images. thats what i got out of the video! thanks rob, i live these.
rossschcheese 1 month ago
Does the flatlander necessarily exist on one 2-d plane, or can the 2-d object exist on multiple 2-d planes oriented in 3-d space? Another way to describe this would be: any point that makes up the flatlander could have any z (height) value, while maintaining x an y values, but when viewed from above, it appears the same.
MrRgambord 1 month ago
@MrRgambord Yes, exactly! Just as 3D is space without time, and we have multiple planck frames of space stacked one next to another to create 4D space-time, it would be the same for the flatlander's world. 2D is a plane without time, no way for the flatlander to change from state to state. Which is why I say that the flatlander would perceive "time" to be a direction in the third spatial dimension, and "time" can be in any dimension depending upon your frame of reference.
Rob
10thdim 1 month ago
@10thdim Wow! So, for us, even though each planck frame is actually "stacked" up on top of another, we can only really imagine them as overlapping 3-D spaces because we can only view it from "above"? I've never heard of a planck frame before; are these discrete units, rather than a continuum? Also, we know that all systems tend towards increasing entropy in the universe, as a function of time. So, what implications does that have for time travel? How does energy even exist in the 4th dimension?
MrRgambord 1 month ago
@MrRgambord Please try watching Imagining the Fourth Dimension for more about how physicists like Julian Barbour support this idea of our reality being created in planck frames, one after another. watch?v=-D4swzK4sKk
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 1 month ago
@MrRgambord are you canadian?
marfg12345 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i think this concept is false. a flatlander perceives the world just as we see it. when you look at an object you see a 2-D representation of that object. however our minds are capable of interpreting it as a 3-D model. flatlanders perceive 2-D representations of objects as we do, however they don't have a 3-D consciousness like us. for instance, if a flatlander were to walk around the house he would perceive the front of the house and the back of the house not as manifestations of the same
stanlozinsky 1 month ago
objects, but as 2 completely different objects altogether.
stanlozinsky 1 month ago
Comment removed
stanlozinsky 1 month ago
Comment removed
stanlozinsky 1 month ago
A true flatlander would see nothing at all because color is perceived in the third dimension, right?
slavesofwar 1 month ago
How do you know you're not suffering from Copernicus syndrome...that is to say are dimension is the center of the universe vs an off-shoot dimension devoid of life outside of earth...where the main dimension would have a plethora of life everywhere on every planet? I mean how would you know?
Also why are you using the measurement of mass and the absence of space as the first 3 dimensions? And some how you go from measurements to different realities, then to different universes? congruent?no.
MogulSuccess 1 month ago
man i lov this sype of stuff.
d0gm34t 1 month ago
It would see nothing since it does not exist!! 1st dimension is a point, but everyone agrees that a point has no physical dimension..how can a line stack with points (nothing) exist!?
DojiSan 1 month ago
wat would a 10th dimensional being see?
plutoend99 1 month ago
If the 4th dimension is time/duration, how would a flat-lander percieve time? If it would percieve it at all.
drumsandguns2908 1 month ago
@drumsandguns2908 This is an important point - time is a direction, not a dimension, and it can be a direction in any dimension based upon your frame of reference. We're made out of 3D atoms and molecules, so we perceive our duration to be in the fourth dimension. With whatever the heck our imaginary 2D flatlander would be made out of, he would perceive the direction of "time" to be in the third dimension, and so on.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 1 month ago
"Before we repositioned his eyeball"
Don't you mean eyecircle?
BuIletForMyVaIentine 1 month ago
....So what if we had 2 control centers/brains??
Would we be able to see into higher dimensions or something like that?
1y9b9b 1 month ago
So that's what 3D viewing is?
The observation of something through TWO pickups (eyes) that come back as signals to ONE control center (part of brain)?
1y9b9b 1 month ago
mind = nuked
lifeDotGov 2 months ago
If you were a flatlander, I'm pretty sure that you'd be blind, cuz if you had eyes, they would have to be 3d, but flatlanders are 2d.
PackAPuncherz 2 months ago
Interesting. If you were a flat lander your nose would block your vision so you would need a whole to see through, if you were a 3d creature your eye lids would you vision so you would need a whole to see through... since we are for the most part 4d creatures this "hole" which we see through is a span of time in which our eyes are open.
CaptJiggles 2 months ago
So... say that there is a window (demonstration) and a person pressed his or her face against it (just touching it)... Is that what a flatlander would see? :O
Insayneful 2 months ago
I love you dude!
shirshiri 2 months ago
This is off topic, but how come at the beggining of the video it sais it was recorded on july 3, 2008 but uploaded on july 2nd... how does that work?!?!
DemonHUNTAxDman 3 months ago
Oh, by the way... That's a lot of video links I want to watch. You should have put them in the description or have them open in new windows. ;)
DaVince21 3 months ago
@DaVince21 Was "open in new window" an option for annotations back in 2008? Thanks for the note, I've turned that on now. You can also go to the "to read along go to" link in the description and get to the videos from the blog.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 3 months ago
@10thdim I don't think that was an option in 2008, but thanks for changing that now. :) I will most definitely check out more!
DaVince21 3 months ago
Wouldn't a flatlander see absolutely nothing whatsoever? I mean, you showed us the perspective of the flatlander by rotating the piece of paper. Now, if we imagine the piece of paper instead as a slice of a person, you'd only see the front of this slice, ie. a line of probably skin colours. But this line doesn't exist, because it's the depth you were talking about. Hence, I can imagine a flatlander actually sees absolutely nothing whatsoever.
DaVince21 3 months ago
let's raise some money for the poor flatlanders with their eye inside their head.
PawelWysocki 4 months ago
isn't the problem of your analogy that you have 2d creatures living in a 2d world? When you described the point living on a line, you described a zeroth dimention creature on a one dimensional world. Similarly, you could say humans are three dimensional creatures living in a four dimensional universe. Therefore, for a creature to live "in" a 2d world, it would have to be one dimensional, a line. It would have a length only.
qtzlctl2012 5 months ago
@qtzlctl2012 This analogy seems to break down when you try to apply that to a 2d creature (your poker card) living in a 3d world. Suddenly it seems identical to how we perceive ours; that is because as 4d creatures we are moving through ALL dimensions below, not just the immediate. How could you illustrate a 2d creature moving through a 3d world while perceiving that 3rd dimension as we do our fourth?
qtzlctl2012 5 months ago
@qtzlctl2012 As I've said in a number of these videos, "time" is a way of describing change from state to state, and you use the next dimension up for that change to occur (keeping in mind that time is a direction not a dimension - so just as you could assign "forward" to be a direction in any arbitrary spatial dimension, same with "time"). So for our 2D flatlander to change from state to state, he needs the 3rd dimension, and for him that's where he could say "time" exists - in the 3rd.
10thdim 5 months ago
what would happen if i placed a flat lander in our 4d spacetime and try to touch it?
would my finger stop on it or would it go through him? he is there, so it should stop, but if he has no depth, theres like nothing on my finger's way so it would just go through it. hm?
Zajcooo 6 months ago
@Zajcooo That's a great question! First of all, we have to remember that you and I aren't seeing 3D, because you can't see something that has no duration in spacetime. Even my hand in front of my face is 4D, not 3D because of the "time" it takes for photons to reach my eye from my hand. So if our flatlander has a duration, wouldn't that be like the "long undulating snake" in the 3rd dimension? Which could mean that the "bushlike branching structure" of the flatlander would be in spacetime!
10thdim 6 months ago
@10thdim
thats right! thanks for the reply.
Zajcooo 6 months ago
hey if things need depth to be picked up...and if humans suddenly teleported to flat land....would we be able to pick up anything at all or would we just go through everything?
please respond
LightDarkNinja 7 months ago
Without any depth, I doubt a flatlander would even see a line at all. Wouldn't a line need a certain amount of depth for it to be seen by another?
rancor09 8 months ago
@rancor09 Here we are in 4D spacetime, looking at one 3D "slice" after another, one planck frame after another. Each of those frames have no depth in the 4th dimension, yet we can still see the 3D objects around us because we're seeing those slices in a sequence which gives us the illusion of continuous reality. The same logic would apply for our imaginary flatlander - what he's seeing would have no "depth", but he would still be able to view the illusion of continuous reality, frame by frame.
10thdim 8 months ago
@10thdim I thought that the difference between 2D & 3D was that 3D had depth? If neither of them have depth from a 4D perspective, how would someone from a 4D perspective distinguish between 2D & 3D? Or is there not a difference from a 4D perspective? Thanks for responding.
rancor09 8 months ago
@rancor09 Words like "depth" can be confusing when we're talking about anything beyond the third dimension. Is the third dimension dimension length, width, or depth? It's a combination of all three, it's not any one of them. The fourth dimension, which for us is "duration", adds another pair of directions, which are time and anti-time. The "depth" of a 3D object in the fourth dimension is its duration. If we as 3D creatures had no 4D "depth", we wouldn't exist. But we do!
Thanks for writing
Rob
10thdim 8 months ago
test
YJohnstar 8 months ago
They won't see anything, because eyes are three dimensional.
behnamasid 8 months ago
I imagine that a flatlander would see in a straight line.
vidwatcher31951 8 months ago
Wait, is a shadow 2 dimensional?
ArtistryofDebauchery 9 months ago
if they dont have the 3rd dimention they dont have a volume, so they really dont exist
eirikmurito 9 months ago
So at least put up the backing for the theory. This is pointless! You only have 10 minutes for the video but you have infinite room in the text. And if you bugged youtube maybe they would make an educator ability(if needed) for a blackboard styles setup for your statements and presentation portions in text or something. Like more room for selected comments!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Try thinking all of this out and say to yourself how many dimensions must exist in the reality for the thing to happen. Now how many exist on the beings in it. (which is also disputable!) And see if it is stateable as being 2 dimensions! How does the theory get around this? How can the theory get around this? How if you state a way of getting around it does it get around it and are you sure!......sigh.
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
For a 2d person to see they would have to be more than 2 dimensional. If he is 2 dimensional and can see a line and move it's not possible. think of a 3d modeling program and how that would work. the physical reality would need 3 dimension to even have a position to see the other 2 dimension in a line. Unless you use something alot me complex(which this video avoids any teaching of) there is no foundation for this. this only allows someone to put a theory to insist others follow!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
@PlatonicPhi You are saying a 3d flat triangle(flat is still 3d. There is no presidence for flat to not be if not explain. I'll assure you your logic will be wrong at it's most basic premise every time!) Then the object can see in whatever physical sense another objecst side. The other object must then be a 2d object on his lacking plane. meaning he has no reality there. And the other object must exist on a third plain to another angle. It's impossible. Or not 2D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Respond to this video... the fundamental logic of 2d will stand still no matter how complex it gets unless you can demonstrate otherwise. And i doubt any theory existing would do so regardless of it's plane. To many people in this field seem to treat this like high fantasy and and seem to thing because they can get caught up in it it's true regardless of the fact that they cannot fully go over their own premises correctly to see if it's true even on those premises.
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
@PlatonicPhi That should say there "And I doubt any theory existing would do so regardless of it's claim otherwise" aka fallacious reasoning.
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Carl Sagan explains what a flatlander would see without plugging computer consoles, that's all I'm saying.
freshjuicedouble99 9 months ago
Intro song is best - pussy pussy pussy, tits tits
MakeCashOnlineWithMe 9 months ago
You traveled through a higher dimension. The video says July 3, 2008, but the YouTube upload date says July 2, 2008.
Well done, good sir.
MOTHforLife 9 months ago
i have never seen more multi paragraph youtube comments in one video
ArcanumComplex 10 months ago
How do Flatlanders or Linelanders eat or drink without a stomache, breath without lungs or live without a heart.
StandardVideoTech 10 months ago
A straight line, with depth and width but no height. Is it really that hard to imagine?? He can turn around 360º in his plane world and see closer and further things. The only complicated thing is to think in height, he can't see anything cause there's no height or does he sees all the "height" with the same color? :/
Didactb 11 months ago
Does this imply that a 4d being would exist in more than one place at once relative to our understanding of space? I think you mentioned in another video that a 4d being would be able to see all sides of a 3d object at the same time, might have been someone else's video I can't recall.
deepfreeze202 11 months ago
Thanks for this vid, it's a question i have been trying to work out on my own for a while.
C0LDPaW 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you covered your eye! :P
MBrowett 1 year ago
@minanda01 no
Tronnixx 1 year ago
looks like how the kabala tree/line is set up. 11 is at the top and represents God....
ThankyouJESUS316 1 year ago
@minanda01 yep!
MrSkateholic 1 year ago
"Hi, it's Rob Bryanton" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Beenyad 1 year ago
well assuming that the flatlander is actually a three dimensional creature (the 1st 2nd and 4th), he would be able to move within his 2nd dimension. At any given point of the fourth dimension he would only see a line, just like we would only see a plane, but as he moves, he is able to discover pictures or objects in his 2 spacial dimensions. We can picture this and understand this given tiem to think. the question i pose is how would a creature live without the 4th dimension? only in the first3
profjaykay 1 year ago
A flat lander would never develop sight, as development and change are things that don't exist at that dimension.
evitanigaminU 1 year ago
This logic is the reality of an unlogical idea holding itself up against logic. And the reality of atheist and evolutionary theory. The avoidance of full logic. Fantasy. And the only thing psychology ever got correct. Projection! 8p. Your own reality being put on another group that is not your own by your definition or viewpoint. AKA christian/creation. Though those are not stuck together that simply by those groups. BTW the answer to the argument is teach them both logically as they are.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi The answer is the return to full correct open logic. where nothing is unteachable or should ever not be. Knowledge is the key. We used to know the realities to that. Knowledge weeds itself out in the end. In fact avoiding teaching them both proves the complete inability and removal of the school systems true responsibility. You always give information to be gone over fully. Hence the easy answer. The problem is stupid people who can't. and make that complicated.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi Or deny all the facts and full logic recreating the problem and arguments that are not articulated correctly and more importantly fully. which will sadly more than likely keep popping up even if they claim to since they realistically will probably not have learned it.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
How do you stand upon a so called mathematically founded logic discrediting the very logic founding your theory. What normally happens in that standpoint?!
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
Another point that the 1d with a side cant' exist. to further clarify. That is 3d. It is a triangle without the side extended. That is Euclidean logic. it would be 3d already. Hence no interactivity. No means for substance hence no logical way of talking about it besides the most wild conjecture. Even if you hold it as interactive logical representation it is completely full of fallacies. Dimensions are pure mathematical interactions which exist on the 3d plane of our reality!
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
Your point of arguments are logic so convoluted and stupid no one can get around it all to argue it because of the gigantic mess. It is not scientific or realistic. You must claim omnipotence and no need for science to get it. No logic supports it. Only confusion which you claim to be logic because no one can get around the whole load of crap. You say the paper only represents it. show how. show the smallest piece of logic that can support it or you have no grounds period.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
lol, if there rly was a 2 dimentional world from the multiple universe theory, dont you think that the world could exist but impossible for even living things to be on it anyway... haha. So what would be the point of arguing what a flat lander would see? And if there where living things in a world like that... i could only imagine the living things like the cells in our 3d world :) just an idea. dont hate.
ShoopDaWoot 1 year ago
Are you from canada, or does anybody know if he is from canada?
loneone01 1 year ago
hey i love your channel, we could probably talk for hours! Curious: how can you call a 1d line 1 dimension? dont you need the 4th dimension in order to discover that there is a line? for a line to exist there needs time (movement with respect to time) am i wrong?
bambamboom2 1 year ago
so basically a linelander wouldn't see anything?
Btw Rob, i'm 15 years old and I am fascinated by your videos...You are absolutely genius, and the world needs more people like you.
Thank you for your incredible mind boggling questions, you really help me understand the Universe better.
I have always been fascinating by questions like these such as yourself.
Thanks again
rumive 1 year ago
I'm mesmerized by his voice...
And his videos are cool too. He really knows and understands what he's talking about.
lardhat 1 year ago
Rob - If we see only moving 2-d images (from a 3rd-d perspective) we're seeing time-affected areas. If those images were reduced to 1-d we would see nothing because we would be looking at an infinitely thin line; the fact that it might be moving wouldn't help. It seems that 3 spatial dimensions is the minimum number necessary for the detectability of entities. In fact, except mathematically, how could anything exist with infinitesimal depth? Flatland entities can only be conceptually possible.
DrDeist 1 year ago
This guys voice is so soothing lol
NYCest2010 1 year ago
@JovianSatelite A Planck Frame is the smallest length and the smallest duration possible for our reality - anything smaller than that is meaningless, indeterminate, "between the frames" so to speak.
Your question reminds me about microsaccades (google it) - continuous microscopic motions of the eye: amazingly, without them we go blind.
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 1 year ago 2
@10thdim So then 2D eyes see 1D lines, in a 2D Planck frame? And 1D eyes can see dots in a line frame I would assume.
Aluenvey 1 year ago
WAIT! A flatlander wouldn't see anything. I understand exactly what you're saying. A flatlander would just see a straight vertical line which represents everything that passes past it as it passes this line. For example a blue cube passing past a flatlander's view would be seen as a blue line appearing for a few seconds then disappearing. But the line would have to have depth to be visible. Also it wouldn't be able to turn because that would be implying that it could move sideways. Please reply
skysthelimit112 1 year ago 6
@skysthelimit112 By the same logic, we as 3 dimensional creatures shouldn't be able to see anything because any particular "frame" of our third dimensional existence has no duration in the fourth dimension, because the third dimension has no duration, because it's space without time. And yet we seem to be able to see the 3D reality around us, as we observe one planck frame of our 3D reality after another. In the same way, a frame of the flatlander's world has no depth in the 3rd dimension.
Rob
10thdim 1 year ago 2
@10thdim no not by the same logic. You say that a 2d can see on what must be called a third dimension! It is illogical by your already held logic on the nature of one and two dimensions. establish your definitions again and go over them based on your practical logic.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi You are using a sliding set of definition and are not holding onto them throughout. What you say is illogical. Gather your base definition and have enough to fully deal with what is said or this is nothing but stupid fantasy and not science or educational. And I hope to god isn't using public money anywhere.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@skysthelimit112 It wouldn't even see that. It's two planes are represented on the two planes we see from above. It has no interaction on the third. AKA the front. Or you have to take away one of the other two dimensions. The third dimension is the dimension of interactivity. The other are logical without further evidence. What this guy is saying is absurdity. Which is illogical mathematically or they have no basis for geometry to start with. He's a fucking liar/con like all atheist / etc.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi This view is there to control the ignorant masses for their gain. it is a crime.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi Proper absurdity logic applied to the viewpoint. The basis of geometry and their viewpoints. Hence their leg being pullout out from them. If you have two dimension on the top. If the two are represented on the top for a side view you need a third. to leave two you must remove one from the top. What do you have? you have a one dimension with a side? to extend that how do you give any side representation to interact. Putting that too short but...
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi And without the third dimension there is no interaction or thing to see from the side or top? Both three dimensional logic! You cannot have a side without three to start.Hence it is absurd and impossible!!!!
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi If you take one from the side you have no point of sight or interaction becuse you needed to to see the top. Hence more absurdity. This is the logic math is based on. Hence you cannot have one dimensional object with a side. What defines the reality of a corner. It takes a third dimension. Or you have merely moved it on it's axis if you say you put them both against one another. this still needs the last step but you see the logic. fill it in. what were the definitions and logic.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi Also interestingly if you put the side of the one dimensional line you must then shrink it to a point of no length. Hence doesn't exist to meet with the second on the side. it's completely impossible. It's absurd! hence no background. The only thing then is to move around the impossibly keeping it 2d which it can't as it would still be 3d and be on a 3d plane. Hence the logic is of a fallacy. I'm not begging to say enough to disprove that. You can go on endlessly it's so absurd.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi That should say it then must move around a 3d plane with only 2d substance. Basically a triangular logic. None of it is possible. if people are going to hold this then say Christians and creation is absurd they are stupid. This is the definition of absurdity. You have found the impossible standpoint. And the motion is impossible fully to start. you cant shrink one while extending another and remain 2D
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi AKA you cannot create a 2d shape with the potential for a 3d triangle. AKA a one side just not joined by a visible line. That is still 3 dimensionality. Hence all aspects are proven absurd I believe. Even as a representative or basically everything you said is pointless as an example. The very premise is wrong. And you are claiming omnipotence whether you realize it or not.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@PlatonicPhi You still must have base logic to make an example. It is the basic logic of an example!
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
Everything this guy is saying is absurd three dimensional logic. It's an idiotic or purposely deceitful viewpoint based on basic geometric logic on paper. And logically incorrect in every regards on his own statement structure. this is why I hate atheists and evolutionists. They are all cons and thieves. They will use any logic others can't get around or understand circumstantially to get what they want. they are criminals.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
if something is 2d as he describes it must either turn on the third degree making the universe of 2d 3d! or it must have a third to interact on the side. A third dimension. So either they see the width/height of themselves or the third dimension or they move a third axis to view the top. Then you add in the matter of substance. to have it visible from above you need depth to have substance. this is absurd and unscientific by their own atheistic butts hold on to in argument(and argument alone!)
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
If he wishes to say this is truthful he needs a reason to say how this isn't absurd specifically not in generic logic which is backed against its' own absurdity. That is a crime scientifically and otherwise. it is the actions of an illusionist and is the definition of illusion. They are lieing to you or deluded and still criminals. This serves no purpose as they explain nothing about how it can. It is useful for nothing but brainwashing.
PlatonicPhi 1 year ago
@skysthelimit112 now imagine 4d green reatures imagining the 3d dimension creatures....
MegaAppless 1 year ago
@skysthelimit112 No he shouldn't see anything. the other plane not making up his being doesn't exist. And to see something would have to be in a plane that doesn't exist again or at an angle to him wihch then requires a 3rd dimension. This whole idea is idiotic. And ROB can't think to save his ass correctly. Everthing he states is only a have use and twist of the true premises and requires throwing half of them out to make it "realistic" or possible! it's all Bologna!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
You can add all the other dimensions you want. But you can't get around the basic premise existing to avoid what I'm saying now matter how much more info you add. these guys just can't finish analysing all the implications of their own theories and premises and live in a half thought out fantasy world! AKA logic on premises they aren't even capable of thinking about when they come to conclusions. They lack all proper critical thinking abilities in their theory making! if not they need to show it
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Take his 2d jack explanation! He is talking about a being that is 2d length width! His eye projects towards a third plane that doesn't exist! There is not way for it to function or have anything to see. Let alone prop up the other two dimension which must happen. He will say no but can't back it up logically(the fallacious reasoning. He must prove that is possible for it to be possible as a theory without the logic being fallacious!) Now for the eye to see any other dimension..... up down....
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
@PlatonicPhi The other being would have to be up or down from him which doesn't exist. there can be no 2d! And the idea that it is projected from 3d is asinine. All of his premises are false! when he says impossibly flat he's correct. it is impossible. You must demonstrate how it's possible to even have a theory on it! that is proper reasoning! Now explain to me how it is possible showing completely how it is possible!! No I would have to explain to much crap!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
I think rob should demonstrate his personal knowledge so we know where he is actually coming from so we know what he is saying. And not take his word on it!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
The basic problem with these theories if they don't check all their premises for correctness then go off with different ones being ignored as the discussion goes! It then is making circular or possible spherical logic! 8) He gave himself another dimension of freedom to make false arguments!! 8p
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Half of his arguments throw out either the definition or must of things he talking about or doesn't follow some necessary logic to talk about something You can't use completely unknowable or even any undefinable thing to make a solid theory or it is pure fantasy. no one can make theories on undefinable things unless it has logical backing for it like a possible god or endless matter because of the problem of where things came from etc. these theories fight against necessary logical backings!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
And the use of god or endless matter must be in name only. Not as part of the reasoning unless you are saying you are trying to explain it and saying you haven't come up with anything yet in a practice(not as a pure theory! aka it's hollow! and defies deeper analysis!), Saying i want to find it, not I have a reason for it! they can not be the solid part of an argument. And all in all the premise of the title is wrong. This is not what a 2d person would see. So it is all mistaken! or misstated!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
AKa nothing in this video is logically or correctly explaining anything this theory could be or is about! if it is a theory and not his imagining as he attempts to teach things he can't think out properly. which i'll take as what is happening.
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
All mathematicl theories should be stated in the format of the ELEMENTS. And should demonstrate every level of the theory and how you demonstrate it's correctness and possibility. If it's not or can't be it's a load of shit. And is until someone shows you correctly and completely. That is math. If you dn't like it go back to your imaginary physics world! 8)
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
WATCH. "it's not math its' physics!!" RRROOOFFFLLLL
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
The one thing that would resolve all of this is if he did(or even could) state and keep in mind all of his definitions and base premises as he went through his theory. this is all nonsense unless he can. AKA uneducational. AKA brainwashing if he thinks anyone should belief if. you teach by having someone learn to think for themselves by analysing base reason for things and their correctness and how you tell. This is the opposite of education! it's not introductory. It's brainwashing!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
@skysthelimit112
yes - flatlander will see everything as lines of different length and (possibly) colors.
"But the line would have to have depth to be visible" - that's wrong. We are talking about flatlander who has some sort of 2dimensional eyes which don't have any depth as well. You can't see objects without depth in our 3dimensional world, but in 2dimensional world there is no such thing as depth.
eraser8head 5 months ago
@skysthelimit112
also I don't understand what you mean by "vertical". In flatlander's world such terms as vertical and horizontal are indistinguishable. So if you ask a flatlander "can you see a vertical line?" he will be confused.
eraser8head 5 months ago
Flatlanders are also mentioned in Bill Bryson's book, A short history of nearly everything.
skysthelimit112 1 year ago
Your videos are really interesting and thought provoking, but I don't really get to see where all this theory comes from. Who do support this?
Ajenadro2010 1 year ago
Comment removed
ppedalen 1 year ago
Comment removed
ppedalen 1 year ago
I love your videos, they are all extremely interesting. Also, I enjoy your floating head haha. :)
melOHyellow 1 year ago
that would suck to live in 1 or 2D...
023132 1 year ago
What confuses me is how a flat lander could conceive of Time. To us time is seen as the fourth dimension and we see "shadows" of ourselves and others in the third. But a flat lander would see shadows of a three dimensional object as we would four dimensional objects. Meaning that flatlanders aren't actually flat landers, they are actually three dimensional beings through the perspective of two dimensional beings.
So my question is what would a flat lander look to us in the 3rd dimension?
insidetrip101 1 year ago
Something that is 2D wouldn't be able to see at all. A line that it sees wouldn't send line through 3 dimensions to create a size of what it sees. It can't see anything at all.
MagnusRulerHardt 1 year ago
The what would a flatlander see example is illogical, because they can't see anything - vision needs 3 dimensions, and so does the anatomy of an eye.
amarigmail 1 year ago
@amarigmail Yes, our vision works in our 3 dimensions, but each eye is only seeing two dimensions, since the image is being projected onto a curved plane at the back of our eye which, topographically speaking, is only two dimensional.
Since this is only a thought experiment, getting into the details of how a flatlander's eye would actually work is irrelevant, the point of the exercise is to understand how taking away or adding spatial dimensions removes or adds degrees of freedom.
Thanks!
Rob
10thdim 1 year ago 5
@10thdim How our eye hypotheticall sees in a mechanical sense does not work as a theory for dimensional space. Do you not understand that!? They are not connected logically! One is engineering specs the other is how the universe works. You cannot blindly combines them as a reason for the other. there is no premise for it! what is the importance between how the eye sees and how dimension work and how it applies to the other without jumping to conclusions!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
By a delusional man! If not disprove me! please. I would love to learn it! And no I won't go to so and so sight and read so and so. If you want to teach you carry your weight and do it since it's your video and your teaching. You can only teach what you understand anyway or it's irresponsible! And likely full of errors no matter how you you "base" it on that guys ideas over there!
PlatonicPhi 9 months ago
Comment removed
evolvingbeing1010 9 months ago
Comment removed
evolvingbeing1010 9 months ago
Educational about noisy pseudoskeptics (for freethinkers): debunkingskeptics
The flatlanders in Dr. Quantum video may ALSO be 3D creatures. Adding or removing a dimension for 2D doesn't really do anything mathematically, except add complexity. However, if the "flatlanders" are really 3D (or nD if you like) creatures with limited access and interaction to the last dimension(s), it may make more "pseudo-physically" sense. Then it starts to approach superstring theory etc
evolvingbeing1010 9 months ago
Im thinking that a flatlander realistically would not be able to see anything at all for the simple fact it does not have a brain to send electromagnetic signals to the eye it proposedly has.
OQUENDO1968 1 year ago
A flatlander would see a line right? he would see a line with no width nor depth... Thats simply impossible for us to imagine as our idea of a line is actually a 2D rectangle. As you said, all we can see and imagine is a dimension below us. So, don't we "use" a part of the 4th dimension we call time to understand our surroundings?
Using that same principle, the flatlanders could use a part of the 3rd dimension to their understanding right. What would that be?
Shoyrou 1 year ago
@Shoyrou Right. We use the 4th dimension to change from state to state as we choose from the wave function of our fifth dimensional probability space. Because our atoms and molecules are embedded in the third dimension, for us "time" is a direction in the 4th spatial dimension. For a flatlander, they would use the third dimension to change from state to state, so they would say "time" is a direction in the 3rd spatial dimension. This logic continues for all the other spatial dimensions.
- Rob
10thdim 1 year ago
@Shoyrou He wouldn't see anything. For the line to exist, there would need to be depth- which there isn't.
A flatlander is mainly just a tool for explaining the second dimension, they couldn't actually exist.
Savaril 1 year ago
@Savaril I think they would.
It is simply unimaginable for us 3 dimensions beings. Our eyes were made to analyse the dimension we live in so... they would definetly have different eyes xD
Shoyrou 1 year ago
if a 2d entity could be able to see, it would see nothing because without any depth to an object, there would be no surface oriented towards the retina of the 2d object.
phunguy123 1 year ago
OK, so actually a 2-dimensional being would be completeley blind since a 2-dimensional eye could not function, but whatever, I get the exercise.
badbeatbri3 1 year ago
In the Steve Hawking book A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME. A 2 dimensional animal a dog was shown and he was showing that life cannot exist in a 2 dimensional space because the digestive tract would cut him in half.
Zurround100 1 year ago
I was thinking, Actually, A flat lander cannot see anything (this is my opinion) Because actually, by mathematics, something in 2D doesnt really exists.
For example, in our 3D world, a box 20cmx10cmx5cm would be a 1000cc box, right?
But for the "jack" something would be Ycm x Zcm x 0cm, and mathematics says that anything multiplied by 0 = 0.
In other words, if we flip our flat lander until we get to his perspective, he will dissapear.
May u please tell me what you think about my thought?
Thankyo
lpperalta1 1 year ago
How could a flatlander see a line in front of it if that line has infinitesimal depth? And how could cells function in such a world? It seems like these flatlanders wouldn't be capable of achieving the basic needs of Heat, Food, and water.
PKDana 1 year ago
@PKDana Since we're talking about a thought experiment, whether our imaginary flatlander could actually exist is beside the point. Flatlanders help us to visualize what additional degree of freedom each new dimension adds.
But you're right, he couldn't be made out of cells or atoms and molecules because those are 3D constructs. Physicists agree that gravity is the only force that exerts itself across all dimensions, so perhaps something about our flatlander's existence would be based on gravity?
10thdim 1 year ago
@PKDana Re your question regarding infinitesimal depth - this is why I say "time" would be a direction in the third dimension for the flatlander. In the same way, 3D space without time would have no duration in the fourth dimension, but you and I have no problem seeing the world around us: because just as the flatlander would use the next dimension up to observe change from state to state in his 2D world, so do we 3D creatures as we observe our 3D world using 4D spacetime.
Thanks!
Rob
10thdim 1 year ago
@10thdim So something in the 4th dimension would use the 5th dimension as a reference for duration? What about the final dimension, is there no duration of time? And you bracketed "time", and I also observe that Stephen hawking in his book "A brief History of Time" says " Time(Whatever that may be)". It seems as if no one really understands time, and really, it would only make sense in a finite universe, as any point in time in an infinite universe would be considered mathematically "undefined".
PKDana 1 year ago
it would obiously see nothing since it can only see if it has a brain and i can`t see a brain on his head.
supernulia 1 year ago
@supernulia Not a brain in this universe.
lpperalta1 1 year ago
Thanks! In this video, who cleared up a question that I recently installed as a comment on one of your other videos utube..If you like you can remove that question comment..I quess I should watch all your videos first before asking questions...thanks.
JoeyMars1 1 year ago
i have one question ... what's with the "JULY 3, 2008" wrote on the screen if the video has been uploaded on July 02, 2008? :|
zaboo23 1 year ago
@zaboo23 If you go to the text version of the blog you'll see it was published July 3rd. So when I recorded this video a few weeks before July 3rd I supered the correct date, then put it up on youtube the day before so that when the blog went live it could have the youtube video already embedded in it.
10thdim 1 year ago
You need to have three dimensions to see anything. Without hight no light would be reflected to your eyes. Since a flatlander would only be able to see the length and width of stuff they would not be able to see thing just a liiiittle bit from above. Therefor: A flatlander would be completely blind, since nothing in a two dimensional world is able to reflect any light
assi1112 1 year ago
it give's me alot of hope knowing that there are people out there that are interested in more than just the latest music video or what other people think of their facebook page...
d0gm34t 1 year ago
@Rob Bryanton: Great videos, and great execution too! You've got to give us a video on how you do your videos! Like what video editor you use, what green screen etc...
SokJuice 1 year ago
i really want to slap him
TOWinkworthIpswich 1 year ago
You are so comprehensible! Great video. Very interesting!
FreeBeDrug 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is wrong... if you cover your eye, you are still seeing 3D ... i am not suddenly seeing cross sections of 3 dimensional object am i? so im still seeing 3D this man doesnt know what he's saying ...
TOWinkworthIpswich 1 year ago
This is why it's much harder to drive a car if you have only one eye - the subtle difference between what one eye sees and the other is what allows our brain to deduce what objects are close and what objects are far. The image that the lens of the eye projects on the back of the eye is only a 2D projection of the world around us, that's an absolutely true and accepted scientific fact.
10thdim 1 year ago 11