• seang96@spgrn.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    I always thought of it as something like 2 dimensional beings wouldn’t see 3 dimensional or how we wouldn’t be able to see 4 dimensional beings.

    • Ludrol@szmer.info
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      4D golf has thought me otherwise. I even begun imagining simple 4d object in my mind.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        we can’t truly 100% accurately conceptualize 4d shapes, but 3d shadows of 4d objects is piss easy and basically good enough

        • Ludrol@szmer.info
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          I think I can but I can’t really be sure that what we imagined is true. I can imagine 2+2=5 but it isn’t true.

          Also there is aphantasia and whole gradient of imagining capabilities. What if only a subset of humans can imagine 4d objects.

          My workflow: imagine a cube, imagine a second cube offset by 4D unit. connect the verticies.

    • toynbee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s a fun book based partially on this premise.

      I read it as a kid and enjoyed it, but have thought for years that it was called Flatland. Turns out that, while it covers a similar subject, that’s an entirely different book. I think I just read them around the same time. I’m glad I did because I read and enjoyed other Sleator books as a result.

      Also the Futurama episode was entertaining.