Message #3259

From: Melinda Green <>
Subject: Re: [MC4D] Re: Visualizing Hyperobjects
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:28:28 -0800

It can’t be the case that every universe has a random number of
dimensions because it’s impossible to select a random number out of an
infinite range. No matter what number you choose, it will always be
close to zero, and therefore isn’t random. I don’t know about orbital
mechanics in other dimensions but wouldn’t be surprised if higher
dimensions can’t support planets, though all they need to do is support
*any* type of environment rich enough for evolution to operate in to
support life. Who knows what might happen in dynamically twisting
magnetic fields, surfaces of neutron stars, etc. My hunch is that for
chemical life at least, 3 dimensions is special because of how badly
spheres pack. That may provide the dynamic richness needed, whereas in
4D, molecules might favor crystals too much to support life.

I *really* like Vasily’s description of 3D sense organs. It grasps what
I was saying about sensing with our hands and goes on to explain the
problems that happen when 3D projections are too large or too small. His
description of 4D viewing direction is especially interesting. When I
grok a 3D object, it is not from any particular viewing direction, but
there is a 4D viewpoint that generated our 3D projections, and that’s
clearly important. He’s definitely on to something there.


On 11/30/2015 7:48 AM, [4D_Cubing] wrote:
> I understand your point. A 4D being would see volume just like we see
> area. We need to move to see the back of a 3D object but a 4D being
> would see all the 3D object all at once. That is what Melinda means
> when she says "from every angle". If I am not mistaken in 4D an
> individual without moving would see up to 4 cells of a 4-cube and 60
> cells of a 120-cell.
> I wonder why our universe have a few spacial dimensions. In math you
> can have anything from zero to infinite spacial dimensions. I do not
> think it is impossible that there is a multiverse with infinite
> universe and all universes have a random amount of spacial dimensions.
> I think there would be a "Goldilocks Zone" when it comes to the amount
> of spacial dimensions an universe that can support life have. Few
> spacial dimensions like one or two and it might be impossible for the
> universe to have life. A vast amount of spacial dimensions and life
> would have a difficult time processing all the visual information. A
> while back I saw a MinutePhysics where it basically says that planets
> would not be able to orbit the sun if there were more or less than 3
> spacial dimensions. Maybe that is why we have only 3 spacial dimensions.