Is There Anything Truly 2-Dimensional in a 3-Dimensional Reality?

[size_of_light]

Could be wrong but I'm thinking on my feet here and blurting out that there is nothing truly 2-Dimensional in a 3-Dimensional reality like ours.

In the same way that 4-Dimensional objects can only be expressed in 3-Dimensional terms when imprinted in our world, 2-Dimensional shapes only exist as mental abstractions and cannot physically exist on our plane of reality.

Am I right?

Start to shoot me down and this will stimulate my SOL gland and make me think a bit harder about the issue, because I suspect there are some personally profound observations that will come out of it if I can be arsed to nut them out and don't immediately forget I started this thread.

[ianw]

An instant in time is 2d.











.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by ianw

An instant in time is 2d.

How so?

[wingwang]

Continuing in the same blurting vein, could it be said 2D could be expressed by numbers? Thus arguably 1D! Then there's the invention of zero. Yes, nothingness! Zero was invented, btw!

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

Continuing in the same blurting vein, could it be said 2D could be expressed by numbers? Thus arguably 1D! Then there's the invention of zero. Yes, nothingness! Zero was invented, btw!

Yeah, I'm thinking it can be expressed by numbers, but an expression is a representation, not the actual thing. It is a mental abstraction.

Fairyprincess got me thinking about this in another thread by observing that a 2-D diagram on a sheet of paper isn't really 2-D, because of the 3-D nature of the paper.

Sheet of paper under electron microscope:



A right angle drawn on such a surface is ink saturating a 3-Dimensional landscape, and is only a mental representation of 2-Dimensional reality in a 3-Dimensional one.

The same could be said of a 2-D shape rendered on a computer screen.

[wingwang]

I get what you're saying. I'm not sure how much fudge factor and wiggle room there is between the dimensions!

[wingwang]

Another way of looking at it is, is there anything that only has length and width? I posted something or other about the 4th dimension a while back and how, in theory, shadows of 4D appear in 3D. Shadows of 3D objects are precisely in 2D.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

I get what you're saying. I'm not sure how much fudge factor and wiggle room there is between the dimensions!

That's the key issue, for sure.

What are the means and limitations by which we can influence the 2-D world and what can be extrapolated from that to understand how a 4-D reality could influence us.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

I posted something or other about the 4th dimension a while back and how, in theory, shadows of 4D appear in 3D. Shadows of 3D objects are precisely in 2D.

Spot on. That's the thing.

[wingwang]

[size_of_light]

A tesseract, right?

A conscious being on that level could only imprint itself in a 3-D reality in 3-D terms in the same way we'd appear as 2-Dimensional shapes if we interacted with flatlanders (as in the above Dr. Quantum video).

So 4-D beings would necessarily be limited to manifest in the 3-D world in physical forms in the same way that a tesseract has to be a cube in the third dimension.

But which came first, the tesseract or the cube? And aren't they the same thing expressed in different dimensions?

Is everything in the 3-D world a manifestation of 4-D and vice versa?


I'll cut to the central thrust of my line of thinking in a bit...

[wingwang]

I'd suggest defining what the 4th dimension actually is while asking whether your physical being or your shadow came first.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

I'd suggest defining what the 4th dimension actually is while asking whether your physical being or your shadow came first.

As with 2-Dimensionality, it seems that 4-Dimensionality can only be defined by representations (e.g. your tesseract depiction) and mathematical equations in our 3-Dimensional experience.

That point is well understood in physics when it comes to 4-D and higher, but rarely mentioned when it comes to 2-D and lower.

In both cases, the only way to conceive or attempt to apprehend anything that is not 3-Dimensional is by way of analogy and mental abstraction.

It appears to me that it is impossible for dimensions that are higher or lower than us to exist unless our 3-D minds can abstract their reality.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

It appears to me that it is impossible for dimensions that are higher or lower than us to exist unless our 3-D minds can abstract their reality.

Since 3-Dimensionality requires 2-Dimensionality for its basis, and 2-Dimensionality only exists as a mental abstraction of the 3-D mind, it seems to logically follow that the mental process, or the mind, must be the thing that is creating the basis of the 3-D world, and by extension all dimensions up and down the scale.


If there's a flaw in this reasoning please point it out because I just don't see it.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

If there's a flaw in this reasoning please point it out because I just don't see it.

If Stephen Hawking were still whizzing around, or if any other dogmatic materialist read and responded to this, I suppose the only counter argument they could muster is that there is a purely mathematical realm, or a platonic realm, that exists outside of space and time that debunks the assertion that the mind is creating reality in the way I described.

But now who is talking 'woo'?

The thing with materialists is that they scoff at the notion that there is a paranormal or spiritual dimension to existence (which is only a 3-D intuition and/or experience of 4-D reality or higher), yet are perfectly comfortable believing in the objective, independent reality of an intangible, purely mathematical realm that is 2-D or lower.

Believing in 'woo' is considered acceptable and natural when it is directed downwards in the dimensions towards number-crunching, mental fragmentation and an increasing constriction and reliance on technological control by a scientism priesthood. But it is utterly taboo when it looks upwards and understands that the mind is limitlessly open-ended and the source of all reality.

"Shut up and calculate" as the saying goes.

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Our reality is holographic in nature, which means all it's dimensions are an illusion.

Height, width and depth are all illusory and relative.

A 2nd dimension would therefore be equally as illusory, but equally as real to the person who immerses themselves completely in that world.

So yes, 2 dimensional worlds only exist in our minds... but what doesn't?

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by cosmicpurpose1.618

Our reality is holographic in nature, which means all it's dimensions are an illusion.

Height, width and depth are all illusory and relative.

A 2nd dimension would therefore be equally as illusory, but equally as real to the person who immerses themselves completely in that world.

So yes, 2 dimensional worlds only exist in our minds... but what doesn't?

Yep, and I think I made a good case that it can be soundly argued even by resorting to the very same numbers that smug eggheads think they can hide behind and use to deny and obfuscate the reality.

[truegroup]

Check this out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ca4miMMaCE

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Check this out...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ca4miMMaCE

By the time he got to the fifth or sixth dimension he may as well have been speaking to me in Arabic for all the sense it made.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

By the time he got to the fifth or sixth dimension he may as well have been speaking to me in Arabic for all the sense it made.

Really? You didn't get it?

Five variable time lines for fourth.
Six switchability from one time line to the next.
Seven broadens out to all possible timelines that could ever have existed - infinity.
Eight is all the different infinities from different conditions.
Nine is the connection between different infinities.
Ten all branches, all universes, all infinities.