3 ms·
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that (although I wish it were). While you could generate a 3D perspective on each 2D "slice" of a 3D viewport, it wouldn't
by joshumax 8y ago
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that (although I wish it were). While you could generate a 3D perspective on each 2D "slice" of a 3D viewport, it wouldn't be that much more different than what's going on in here. The main issue arises from trying to render a 4-polytope in a universe where we ourselves can only sense 3 dimensions "natively."
- myfonj 8y agoSad thing is that what we sense (see) is in fact just a poor projection into 2D (aka perspective) with some largely learnt concept of depth. If only we could sense space entirely with nothing "behind", not just from single point...
- ozzmotik 8y agoi think it's great that you represent it as a projection because that is exactly what it is: a representation of another, perhaps more "objective" (though I'm not sure at that level that attributes like that apply) data set. I think it's super easy for us to assume what we visually perceive has a 1:1 correspondence with the intrinsic nature of the data it is constructed from. and i think it's also important to realize that that construct is also informed by other avenues of sensory input and that extra context tends to take it even further away from the nature of the raw data it is constructed from
- myfonj 8y agoPerhaps it is determined by the fact senses are bound to body and body is limitary. Our 2d vision could grasp entire Flatland (if it fitted into single view), but sight of similarly finite Flatland inhabitant could grasp just his immediate surroundings, i.e. the sum of closest opaque objects in his 1D sight.