I think, therefore I am

Post Reply New Topic

I prefer rotating 4D images. A still tesseract is about as descriptive as a triangle shown in 3D from the perspective of a line segment.

/not saying anything bad about cubedemon6073...they started this awesome thread, after all....just stating a fact that a two dimensional drawing of a four dimensional object with projected three dimensional shading without movement to truly illustrate the fourth dimensional properties is futile.

Perhaps not vivid but definitely not futile. With an understanding of the nature of space distortions through perspective and distance a hint of the nature of four dimensionality can be gained with the aid of a good visual imagination. Of course none of us can actually see it as a four dimensional object since that capability is outside our experience but we make do with what we have. The tesseract as pictured in a two dimensional projection has been very useful to me in this matter.

But the rotation is the only aspect of it that even begins to hint at the nature of a fourth dimension. Otherwise, what is it other than a form inside a frozen ice cube? Seeing objects suspended inside other objects is very common for us thanks to jello and our abundance of means to freeze water within molds. Without that, we don't see that lines seemingly not only intersect but pass through themselves which is indicative that it is not a normal three dimensional shape where objects pass by each other but never through (even in physics, unless you get into the heavy duty quantum physics two objects cannot occupy the same space).

Seriously, the rotation is absolutely necessary because the rotation shows three dimensions and illustrates at least a small segment of how it is not an object of just three dimensions. A two dimensional drawing with three dimensional undertones alone cannot provide that: the movement is necessary to turn it into a virtual three dimensional image of the four dimensional object.

It is common experience to see an ordinary two dimensional photo of the three dimensional world and understand that it represents a three dimensional space. A rotating representation of a tesseract is no doubt more explicit in its four dimensionality but a viewer who has only the experience of three dimensionality is simply not capable of actually visualizing a four dimensional object. I am familiar with the animation of the revolving tesseract but am not any more than anyone capable of really visualizing the object in four dimensions and I sincerely doubt you are either. But I can comprehend the equality of length and the right angle connections at the junctions through even the two dimensional representation.

A rotating representation of a tesseract is the EXACT same thing as a two dimensional still of a three dimensional world.

Okay.......really, an actual representation would be a true three dimensional light projection of the rotating tesseract...that would actually be the EXACT same thing as a two dimensional still of a three dimensional picture. But still, my point remains: you cannot give representation of four dimensions by only using two and a perceived, stationary third.

Even your rotating image is but an aid for some comprehension of a four dimensional object. A representation is not necessarily something which coveys a totality. An unfolded tesseract will also display proper distances and proportions but not convey the essence of four dimensionality. But it helps. Each of these modes helps and they have helped me. I do not imply I can visualize the thing in four dimensions and I am pretty sure whatever representation you prefer cannot give you the capability of true four dimensional visualization. That is beyond our powers.

just wait until temptations wings show up. all bets are off then~

The rotating image is the only aid for some comprehension; that's what I'm saying. It's why I'm likening it to a 2 dimensional still of a 3 dimensional image: it's a partial help and you might glean some comprehension about what's going on but not necessarily a lot. It's also why I'm saying that a still 2 dimensional image provides no aid in and of itself.

We each have different capabilities. My mind is highly functional at visual imagery and the two dimensional representations helped me. I cannot speak for you.