2D Can't possibly exist... we can't possibly exist

Let's say the 2D plane is on the XZ plane (left/right, forward/backward). The circle in this plane would have a size and shape and can clearly be seen...

But think about this though, the XZ plane has no height, or is infinitely small. The only way for light to hit something on this plane is for it to have height or thickness, which it does not have. So the second dimension cannot truly be seen. This is all you should be seeing of that circle...


In our world we view fake 2D objects. They are always made up of atoms, which are inherently 3D. Using a pencil to draw a circle on paper does not mean you are drawing a 2D object nor are you drawing in 2D. All you are doing is flaking off bits of whatever the pencil end is made up of (lead perhaps) onto the paper.

From the fourth dimension you would think that a 3D object could not be seen either based on the fact that we can't see a real 2D object. Wait a minute though, because we exist and we live in the third dimension. We would have no "dimension", or "depth", on the fourth dimension so then how do we exist too?

Some peoples' theory is that the fourth dimension is space/time. Is the fourth dimension "really" time or is just a new type of depth? To me it seems somewhat ridiculous to think of the fourth dimension as time. Is the third dimension "time" for something in the second dimension? No!

Adding to the thought though, if a 2D object did exist and it tried to get to the third dimension how the heck would it do that? It is infinitely thin so it can't ever stretch out into the third dimension unless acted upon by a 3D object. How would we ever venture through the fourth dimension if we can't don't even know how a 2D object can move into 3D?

Thanks for reading my random thoughts. I'd like to read what some of you think about this topic!

 

My life has been unraveled before my eyes. I don't even know what dimension I read that in.

 

Well, its just a matter of perceptions, clearly on a technical level nothing is actually 2D in a physical matter, but its pretty irrelevant to everything.

 

2D is just a language like mathematics, art, and languages are language. Everything is represented in 3D and time, if you want to call it that, is the 4th dimension. There are no other dimensions so Stephen Hawkins is talking about reconstructions. Mathematicians are talking about dimensions greater than 4 dimensions as extrapolations of 3D time and they are missing a huge dataset that would give them the correct 4D equations. Maybe it's that mysterious dark matter dark energy (eg. these Boson particles): make no mistake though 3D + dt is all there is, even in a multiverse.

Pure 2D it is entirely fictional although 2D does make sense in an infinite vacuum because there is dx, dy, dt, but no dz. Nothing is ever irrelevant that lends good sense.

 

The answer is probably a literally endless set of dimensions which all have their own laws of physics and rules, some with reliable leakage of said rules which cause our physics to be under the rules they are and account for quantum fluctuation.

So its more like several donuts with mesh grills due to the fact that with so many dimensions you can't not have leakage. Of course this is as valid a theory as accepted ones like 4D, because we simply don't know. Depressingly, I don't think we can model it. Simplification is a vital attribute for a species unable to think big enough.

We'll just have to keep multiplying our population until we get more Einsteins to bail us out.

 

Einsteins atom bombs? I think not. Sometimes the smartest thing to do is being simple.

These multi-dimensions past 3 are fictions...to account for a process that isn't understood. A perfect sphere is a 3 dimensional object.

 

I think if we could look deep enough rules would be found to correspond through everything, but everything we know now in my mind is certainly wrong considering some things like electrons prove our "rules" to be wrong, generally there are constantly expanding levels of depth to everything which makes me think we are looking in the wrong area. From a atomic level and up we can fix any problems we will ever have including finding out about our existence. If we can make a true virtual reality where someone can live in it and not know they are not in our world anymore then that is all we need to know, we are certainly in a virtual reality so why worry about what else is happening. I'm a pretty strong believer that we are our own god and when we find that out we start the whole universe.

 

Of course we didn't start the universe, that's rather vain. That doesn't mean we can't try to make the niche of the world we live in better for others, to your ability.

Hmmm, actually a perfect sphere is impossible...but that's not being not being more than 3D that's nature.

 

You watch SGFs latest xblig video at the 52 minute mark
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nAW1YYd39oc

 

But if they are in my imagination then they are playing Dot wars in my imagination. Its no proof, its so stupid. Argh if I'm imagining the universe why am I imagining people futilely trying to change my mind?!?!

 

An infinitely precise sphere constructed of some infinitely fine unknown sandbox sand? Wait till you meet your neighbors. Warning: keep your cats out.

 

My response is: Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions.

 

Summary was pretty interesting.

 

Haha nice.

I think it is quite selfish when people think that they are above others and that only they matter in the world. So in a way he's right, we do have an obligation to each other... to play Dot Wars. We are all made of energy and have a higher consciousness than that of an animal so it only makes sense for us to respect each other as living, conscious things.

Also on the topic of "flatlands" that made me also remember what I've thought of before. Flat things don't exist in the slightest bit either. Besides a 2D plane, even a "flat" piece of paper can't exist. Everything in the world is round. Now think of a sharp sword. It can cut through things. But at the very smallest point of where the blade is sharp, it's still round. This "sharpness" is completely relative. Relative to the size and density I think. Your hand would technically be "sharp" if you were to "slice" through water or other certain other materials.

 

Pretty much what Superpig said.

Also, Flatland is great - one of the most influential books that I read in my childhood.

 

There is no evidence of this. I to try respect others and most things in general but thats because other people might be real, I'm unable to find the truth and thus must base myself off of the assumption that other people are infact real, as if they are then my actions can affect them and if not its not a problem because it made no difference. There is no evidence of anything except for yourself, energy might not be real and people might not have a high consciousness then an animal.

 

Or as Bill Clinton would say, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Yes, a perfect point is a point infinitely small and located infinitely precisely. Such a point doesn't exist unless we accept that it exists and if we don't we can always insist on infinite precision.

 

That's what jail is for.

 

Perhaps jail is a deterrent I put on myself to make myself not live a wild existence?

 

Well I must confess. I don't really believe all that nonsense everyone's saying above. Really, I know this:

In a distant and second-hand set of dimensions, in an astral plane that was never meant to fly, the curling star-mists waver and part... See... Great A'Tuin the turtle comes, swimming slowly through the interstellar gulf, hydrogen frost on his ponderous limbs, his huge and ancient shell pocked With meteor craters. Through sea-sized eyes that are crusted with rheum and asteroid dust He stares fixedly at the Destination. In a brain bigger than a city, with geological Slowness, He thinks only of the Weight. Most of the weight is of course accounted for by Berilia, Tubul, Great T'Phon and Jerakeen, the four giant elephants upon whose broad and startanned shoulders the disc of the World rests, garlanded by the long waterfall at its vast circumference and domed by the baby-blue vault of Heaven.

 

I don't play that. How old are you then?

 

To the author:

If you accept 2D as a subset of 3D, and 3D as a subset of 4D, and our perceived universe as a subset of the 10D theorized universe, we're in a subset of a subset.

Can 2D exist? Well, I have a better question. Does the set that contains all sets contain itself?

 

I like Guards, Guards.

 

How would I know?

 

Well based on your wiki page, you're 44 and very talented
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Perry

 

LOL, I guarantee you the Australian government knows.

 

I knew I heard that name somewhere besides my cousins. Flip Wilson was funnier.

 

You're right, it can't. Thankfully we're not actually looking at a physical 2D object, we're drawing a graph of a mathematical model of one. That's how this kind of computer rendering works - we define triangles in euclidean space and fill the space enclosed by their edges when they are graphed.

 

The answer is that a circle has no beginning.

 

Hmm, maybe that's why no government can balance a budget.

 

2D-like structures do exist, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene .

Graphene is currently under study by physicists to better understand a 2D world.

 

Do you have a published paper to prove this?

 

No Mr. Napier but then I don't need to publish a paper to travel from point A to point B. Do you?

 

Haha no I don't but then I'm not trying to prove/disprove science when i go to the shops.

 

The problem is, here in the good ol' USA, our government is a spiky triangle. Thus, the axiom I have advanced was pre-emptively proven false...

 

If the entire universe any everything in it were just a dream, with no real consequences, who the heck would care about how you describe it?

 

Exactly! That's why it makes sense to accommodate to the other theory were everything exists and things matter.

@graphine poster, not sure if that's a joke but graphine is just single atom thick carbon isn't it? It still has depth just not much.

 

Hello, you want to revisit WWII? Really some things are better left unsaid. I bet you have something to complain about often, no?

 

You could say innocence is all the depth any one needs.

 

Sorry, that was meant to be directed at the guy who posted graphine.

 

How is it a joke? It's a physical structure with 2D properties like I said. Of course it's not 2D because of atomic orbitals.

 

This comes down to the infinite division paradox. 2D could exist if it had just one unit of thickness, but if that thickness can be measured in multiple units, then it's 3D. What is the smallest unit of measurement that cannot be divided again?

 

I'm going to keep sipping my Coca-Cola and pretend I never read this. My mind will explode.

 

Assuming that by "thickness" you mean some measurable space that's perpendicular to with width and depth of the shape, then that's a 3rd dimension. It can't be measured if it doesn't exist. A thin flat thing isn't 2D, it's just thin and flat.

 

I didn't know we had so many theoretical physicists on these forums

 

What if it can only be measured by holding soemthing the same thickness next to it because it is the smallest possible amount of smallness?

 

It still has a thickness...

 

Yes it does, so it can exist, but because it can only be called 1 unit of measurement thick as it can't be broken down anymore, it succeeds at being 2D and existing. Of course this would only be possible is indeed a smallest possible unit of measurement exist, which it may not.