I have a thesis about spatial dimensions, and humans being 4-dimensional. This thesis uses only logic, and can probably not be proven.

[Ali Zufer]

We all are familiar with the theories of the universe being higher dimensional I assume. There has never been any proof of this, bit I'm going to go ahead and add another probability level to them being true by explaining them with simple logic. But first, I'm gonna 'prove' something else which leads to this point.

Let's start with the 3 dimensions we know of. Width, height and depth. We are able to see all of these dimensions, and that has led people to assume that this world is 3-dimensional, and we living here also are 3-dimensional. And this is a valid assumption... except that it logically doesn't make sense. Why? Well let me explain.                                                                                                                                When looking at a 2-dimensional square (although nothing in this world is truly 2-dimensional, and remember this for later). What we see are the two dimensions, the width and depth of said square. However, keep in mind where we're looking at it from! That's right. Our viewpoint is actually the third dimension, height! What does this say?

Well for one to be able to discern that what they're truly looking at is 2-dimensional, one must see it from the 3rd dimension. Otherwise, without the third dimension all you'd see are one-dimensional lines, since you cannot look at it from above. And that brings me to us humans. We see the world as 3-dimensional. We can discern height and width, as well as height. But to be able to see height we must technically be looking at a dimension that's outside of height no? Let's compare it to something else:                                                                                                                                                               

You're in a car. Your viewpoint is from the car, but what you see is not the car but a bike outside your windscreen. You then conclude that the car doesn't exist, since you can't see it. But what you actually do is to see from it. To actually see the car you'd have to go inside of a truck. You'd the conclude that the car is the highest form, but you're actually looking at it from a higher form, the truck. And this goes on and on.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Dimensions work the same way. The reason why we can't see the 4th dimension itself is because we're seeing from it, and to see the 4th dimension as we see the third would require you to exist on the 5th dimension. However the 4th dimension has to exist, because we're actually seeing everything from it. Which means that we humans never were 3-dimensional beings, but have always been 4-dimensional.

And now I come back to what I briefly mentioned, the point that something 2d cannot exist in a 3d world. If you look around you what you see are just 3d objects. You might argue that a paper is 2-dimensional, but it still has a tiny bit of height. Nothing can truly be 2-dimensional. This proves that were the world to consist of several more dimensions than we see, it still wouldn't matter since we actually interact with them daily.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            In other words, every object, including your own body has more dimensions than 3. They might just as well have infinite dimensions, and it wouldn't matter one bit. You can only see 3 of them because your brain is not advanced enough to handle more, which then made you gain eyes being able only to discern 3 dimensions during the evolutionary stages. An ant for example can only see two, because of evolving eyes that only can see two thanks to it's brain capacity. but it still sees everything from the 3rd dimension, making it a 3-dimensional being.

In short the physical mass is not what determines what dimension a being exists in, since that could be infinite as stated earlier, but it's the mental capacity of said being. Which means that were a 'higher dimensional being' interact with us it wouldn't be infinite times powerful as people state, but would instead just have a wider perspective on the world. 

 

That being said, this is just a thesis and will probably never be more. Thanks for reading, and feedback would be appriciated.

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ali Zufer

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

Dimensions work the same way. The reason why we can't see the 4th dimension itself is because we're seeing from it, and to see the 4th dimension as we see the third would require you to exist on the 5th dimension. However the 4th dimension has to exist, because we're actually seeing everything from it. Which means that we humans never were 3-dimensional beings, but have always been 4-dimensional.

That doesn't really make sense. We don't have to see "from" a separate dimension. We can see perfectly well from within three dimensions. Note that we only ever see 2D images, anyway. (Your brain lies to you and pretends you can see in three dimensions. In fact, pretty much everything you see is constructed by your brain.) So if you insist on seeing "from" a dimension, then you still only need three.

Also, that is not the definition of a dimension. Do you need to specify 4 dimensions when you want to meet someone? No, just the three. Actually, that's wrong: you do need specify 4: the place (3 dimensions) and the time. So we are 4 dimensional, but the 4th dimension is time.

[Ali Zufer]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn't really make sense. We don't have to see "from" a separate dimension. We can see perfectly well from within three dimensions. Note that we only ever see 2D images, anyway. (Your brain lies to you and pretends you can see in three dimensions. In fact, pretty much everything you see is constructed by your brain.) So if you insist on seeing "from" a dimension, then you still only need three.

No, you didn't quite understand what I meant. 

Take a square. It is 2-dimensional, but to be able to see that you have to look from above, which is a 3rd dimension You cannot see 2 dimensions using just 2 dimensions alone. The third is needed. The same way, to be able to see the third dimension means that you're actually looking at it from outside of the third dimension, hence the 4th dimension.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, that is not the definition of a dimension. Do you need to specify 4 dimensions when you want to meet someone? No, just the three. Actually, that's wrong: you do need specify 4: the place (3 dimensions) and the time. So we are 4 dimensional, but the 4th dimension is time.

No, time is not a spatial dimension as has been stated multiple times. A dimension occupies space, time does not. Time has no place in a discussion about space.

As for the other thing, you only specify 3 because you only can see three. You're still actually moving in more dimensions, you just can't see it.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ali Zufer

[Strange]

27 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

No, you didn't quite understand what I meant. Take a square. It is 2-dimensional, but to be able to see that you have to look from above, which is a 3rd dimension You cannot see 2 dimensions using just 2 dimensions alone. The third is needed. The same way, to be able to see the third dimension means that you're actually looking at it from outside of the third dimension, hence the 4th dimension.

I do understand your point. And it is actually quite good: a creature living in a 2D flatland would only be able to see in 1D. But your extrapolation of this is wrong for exactly that reason: the flatlander would see the 1D projection of other 2D objects. And that is exactly what we see: you only see two dimensions. So you only need three dimensions to see it from.

You can draw a diagram of how vision works in three dimensions without needing to draw a 4th dimension. Because we only see the 2D projection of things. So only three dimensions are needed.

28 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

No, time is not a spatial dimension as has been stated multiple times. A dimension occupies space, time does not. Time has no place in a discussion about space.

It is not a spatial dimension, but it is a dimension. I was using it to highlight how dimensions are defined and why, therefore, your fourth dimension is not needed.

[Ali Zufer]

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

I do understand your point. And it is actually quite good: a creature living in a 2D flatland would only be able to see in 1D. But your extrapolation of this is wrong for exactly that reason: the flatlander would see the 1D projection of other 2D objects. And that is exactly what we see: you only see two dimensions. So you only need three dimensions to see it from.

You can draw a diagram of how vision works in three dimensions without needing to draw a 4th dimension. Because we only see the 2D projection of things. So only three dimensions are needed.

That makes sense, however if I only saw and perceived two dimensions, I wouldn't be able to feel an object in the way that I do now would I?

We cannot directly see all of a 3-dimensional objects sides at the same time, you're completely right at that point. But we can indeed understand the concept of the third dimension height, together with the two remaining dimensions. In theory that means that we're still able to see 3-dimensionally. Think of it this way: You can move your eyes up, to the side and at the same time you can move your head forwards and backwards giving you depth. That's all three dimensions covered there.

Which makes my previous point apply. At least that's my take on it.

55 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not a spatial dimension, but it is a dimension. I was using it to highlight how dimensions are defined and why, therefore, your fourth dimension is not needed.

Oh but there's still a difference. Since a dimension means and refers to a spatial one, time cannot be defined as a dimension even in the way that you propose. Sure you use it as a coordinate when referring to a point. But you cannot move within it at will, you're just bound to it by it's constant passing.

You can and do however, still move in more dimensions than you can see according to my thesis. But since you can't see them there's no reason to give a coordinate to it. Would you however see 4 dimensions instead of three, then the 4th dimension should be needed to give an accurate coordinate, just to get to the physical space. Which you can still do without a time coordinate.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Ali Zufer

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

That makes sense, however if I only saw and perceived two dimensions, I wouldn't be able to feel an object in the way that I do now would I?

You have moved from sight to feeling. You can only feel a series of points (arguably, closer to 1D than 2D) and, again, it is your brain that creates the impression that you are sensing three dimensions.

9 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

But we can indeed understand the concept of the third dimension height, together with the two remaining dimensions. In theory that means that we're still able to see 3-dimensionally.

It means, in theory and in practice, that the brain understands the concept of the three dimensional universe and fools you into thinking you are seeing in 3D. 

Your brain does this sort of thing all the time. You look ahead and you see all the world ahead of you in a detailed static image. But your eye can just create a small focussed image of a tiny part of that scene. Your eyes moves around continuously and your brain assembles all of those small moving images from two eyes to create the static 3D scene you see in front of you. It is all created in the brain.

7 minutes ago, Ali Zufer said:

You can move your eyes up, to the side and at the same time you can move your head forwards and backwards. That's all three dimensions covered there.

Exactly. You are getting closer to what dimension actually means. (You can't move your head in the fourth dimension, can you.)

To go back to the flatlander example: he can only see a 1D projection (which his brain will use to create a 2D model) but he can move in two dimensions.

 

[Ali Zufer]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

You have moved from sight to feeling. You can only feel a series of points (arguably, closer to 1D than 2D) and, again, it is your brain that creates the impression that you are sensing three dimensions.

It means, in theory and in practice, that the brain understands the concept of the three dimensional universe and fools you into thinking you are seeing in 3D. 

Your brain does this sort of thing all the time. You look ahead and you see all the world ahead of you in a detailed static image. But your eye can just create a small focussed image of a tiny part of that scene. Your eyes moves around continuously and your brain assembles all of those small moving images from two eyes to create the static 3D scene you see in front of you. It is all created in the brain.

Looking at is like this it actually makes sense. However it doesn't deviate much from the other point I had, which is that every object still can exist in higher dimensions than we can see. There's nothing to say that the computer I'm currently writing in is not say 10-dimensional, but my fingers are also 10-dimensional so I don't actually see or sense any difference.

 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Exactly. You are getting closer to what dimension actually means. (You can't move your head in the fourth dimension, can you.)

Actually I'd argue that you still do move your head in 4, 5 or even 10 dimensions. You just cannot sense it since you don't have the brain capacity to do that.

[Strange]

There might be an invisible pink unicorn right behind you all the time but you can't see it.

[Ali Zufer]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

There might be an invisible pink unicorn right behind you all the time but you can't see it.

Who knows... 

In all seriousness though, if the theories that introduce concepts of higher dimensions are true, that is the only logical answer.

[Country Boy]

  The problem appears to be that you are using the word "dimension" in a very strange, non-standard, way.  What is your definition of  "dimension"?

[geordief]

Would you know (or assume) that another dimension existed if an object  appeared at a different place in the existing dimensions without leaving a trace of its passage?

 

I understand that posited  extra dimensions exist at very small scales  so we would never see them on our commute to work.

Edited November 6, 2017 by geordief

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, Ali Zufer said:

Time has no place in a discussion about space.

If you want to think scientifically, time is almost always linked to space. All the math for moving about in space requires time. You can't understand what's going on with a black hole without thinking in terms of space-time. I don't think it will help you here to separate the two.

[Mordred]

Indeed it is impossible to seperate the two to understand gravity as per curvature of spacetime.