6 ms·

Often when I see something about 4d it uses this same analogy: a 2d being seeing a crosssection of a 3d world, in 2d. However, the video is in 2d, and it's able

• js8 9y ago
  Maybe they could do something like a fog? That is, if the object was farther away in the 4th dimension, it would appear less distinct or more fuzzy/blurry, like being in the fog.
  • ucarion 9y ago
    That's a neat idea! But I think it might be a bit overwhelming and confusing. It would help with getting the bigger picture. Every 4d object would end up being a clear 3d cross-section where it intersects with our 3d world, plus a cloud of superimposed and increasingly hazier 3d cross-sections above and below us along the 4d ("w") axis, projected down onto w=0 3d-space.
  • hcs 9y ago
    Miegakure did something similar where it showed a shadow of the 3D space immediately adjacent to the currently visible slice. I think he since removed that, so I expect he must have experimented with something similar in 4D Toys and decided against it.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• jerf 9y ago
  "Why does the object just disappear when it bounces into the 4th dimension, can't we maybe see a projection of it onto the 3rd dimension?" Yes, you can. This program just doesn't.
  • jacobolus 9y ago
    There’s a big problem with that, which is that we don’t actually see in 3 dimensions. Our eyes only get 2-dimensional projections of a 3-dimensional world.
    • lorenzosnap 9y ago
      I am not sure you are correct. We have 2 eyes so that our brain can work out the depth of the image.
      • p1mrx 9y ago
        We see in 2D, with a tiny bit of depth metadata. True 3D vision would allow you to look at someone, and see the entire volume of all their internal organs simultaneously.
        • HiroshiSan 9y ago
          Wouldn't that be xray vision?
          • gtremper 9y ago
            An xray is still a 2D projection, just with different wavelength light.
            • deleted 9y ago
              [deleted]
            • pavel_lishin 9y ago
              It's somewhat like having the alpha on everything turned down to varying levels - you can see through the skin, bones and metal implants are still at 100% alpha - but fundamentally no different than what looking at someone gives you: a 2D plane.
          • tgb 9y ago
• mabbo 9y ago
  Watch the part about the slicing of 2d world looking at the 3d objects. That slice is infinitely large in both dimensions, yet it can't see the 3D objects when they aren't in the same plane. Now apply the same analogy to our world: our 3D world is just an infinitely large 3D plane in a 4D world. When the objects aren't in our 'plane', we can't see them.
  • pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    See also Flatland (http://amzn.to/2qKFrOh http://amzn.to/2qKFrOh, aff. link) which is a short novel in part about 2D shapes discovering the third dimension. Edit: Didn't notice it was mentioned at the end of the comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14472395 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14472395, there's a free version linked from archive.org.
    • mabbo 9y ago
      A favorite novel of mine actually! Hard to believe that it was written in the 1800s, yet still Abbott understood the 4th dimension better than most people today.
      • fao_ 9y ago
        > Hard to believe that it was written in the 1800s Aside from all the misogyny and the style of writing, you mean?
        • nanistheonlyist 9y ago
          Virtue signal a little harder, I dont't think they can hear you in the fourth dimension.
        • throwaway135634 9y ago
          To be fair I think the misogyny was satirical
          • 9y ago
• mirekrusin 9y ago
  Exactly, you could do it with transparency/mesh lines/color gradient - it would be interesting to see.
• squeaky-clean 9y ago
  I remember playing a flash or java game years ago that did exactly this. It was a 4d maze, rendered in stereoscopic 3d. It displayed the images side by side and you crossed your eyes to get the 3d effect. It was really disorienting (the 4d, but also the eye-crossing), and like the post author says, just bundles of lines rather than solid shapes. Still very cool. Ooh, I found it! http://www.urticator.net/maze/ http://www.urticator.net/maze/
  • fao_ 9y ago
    Thank you so much! I've wanted something like this for ages. Now to figure out how to cross my eyes consistently with astigmatisms...
    • wruza 9y ago
      Idk where I found these. Not 3d though, just stereoscopic 2d. Tetris may be nice for stereo-training, as it doesn't involve any complex movements. But it was harder to me than seeing stills. http://www.hidden-3d.com/games_stereogram_tetris.php http://www.hidden-3d.com/games_stereogram_tetris.php http://www.hidden-3d.com/stereogram_games.php http://www.hidden-3d.com/stereogram_games.php
• amelius 9y ago
  Yes, I would also expect a projection rather than a crosssection. One reason could be: perhaps it would make the game too confusing and difficult? But I'd still like to see the difference.
• hoprocker 9y ago
  The 2D->3D analogy made sense to me -- only being able to see the cross-section that is visible in a current dimensionality -- but I got to wondering if you couldn't use some of techniques from information visualization techniques to show a representation of that extra dimension in the current dimensional landscape (ie fading the object as it gets farther away from the current dimension).
• ShrubberyKnight 9y ago
  Purely theoretical, but the presence of a 3D object can be detected by a 2D creature, by it's shadow, depending on relative positioning of object, 2D surface, and light source. What would a 3D shadow look like, with no need for a wall or flat surface onto which the shadow would be cast? For that matter, what would 4D light look like, if it even differs. Maybe the light we see is only a shadow of something from the 4th Dimension, or maybe a portal or doorway we have not yet learned to use to it's potential.
• collinmanderson 9y ago
  I would like to see _four_ simultaneous 3d projections of the 4d space, each ignoring (or flattening) one of the 3 dimensions.