The Third Dimension - Real or imaginary?

Now, this may seem like a bit of a long shot, but I think there's basis enough for this question to be valid.

In measuring volume and axises of movement, we're forced to rely on our perception. Perception, in turn, depends on our eyes and our brain to decode the visual signals received by our eyes. As most of us know, sometimes when the eyes are pitted against a paradoxical image, for instance images with conflicting colour spectrum, merging patterns and other stuff like that, the brain fills in the gaps and we in turn get visual anomalies -- essentially optical illusions -- the cause being that the signals are overpowering, stressing the brain into making and remaking conclusions about the perceived image, or related to our cognitive ability, with the brain making unconscious inferences to perceived images. In more rare, but often documented, cases the brain can make similar omissions or alterations for other types of processed information; audio, motion, sense etc.

So, let's hypothesise, for the sake of the argument, that the third dimension is a product of faulty perception. The cause of the faulty perception, in that case, would primarily be the lack of a third dimension. For one, our physiology changes -- our eyes are no longer spherical, but instead flat toroids, limiting our ability to focus right in front of us but giving us about the same all-around fov for the remaining 2 dimensions. It's evident right from the start that there would be a visual conflict involved, as no matter where you looked you'd be staring straight into infinity; possibly a self-replicating infinity, if the string-theory is added to the equation. The brain would have no other choice but to omit the actual image, and fill in the gap for the missing dimension off hand, to keep you living and breathing, as even something as simple as balance becomes an issue when vision overextends the ammount of dimensions available to the matter you yourself occupy.

Obviously, the third dimension is accounted for in mathematics, and visual representations have long since made their way into the world of computers.  I'm not going to debate that part, as math may well be used to account for  lots of things that will never actually see the light of day here in the real world, much like computer generated graphics are able to present us with myriads of items and scenarios that permanently belong to the realm of science fiction: in this context, there may very well be a third dimension, possibly even a 59'th one. But in the real world I personally believe that there's no way of knowing for sure whether or not the third dimension really exists.

Thoughts?

the earth is round.

If the third dimension doesn't exist then how did I escape from inside a hoop?

If the third dimension doesn't exist then how did I escape from inside a hoop?

Obviously the hoop does not exist, except for in your faulty perception.

Our perception is all we have, and unfortunately it's very subjective, but if we can attain general consensus about certain observations, we can piece together the actual environment around us.  If I were to witness Chris Spaghetti escape the hoop, then it becomes less likely that it was his faulty perception that afforded his escape.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 29, 2009, 08:22:49 AM

If the third dimension doesn't exist then how did I escape from inside a hoop?

Obviously the hoop does not exist, except for in your faulty perception.

The only problem with your idea is that you can measure all three dimensions of an object, so perception has nothing to do with it.

How do you measure something without use of perception?

Sight isn't the only sense that can detect a third dimension. 

The difference between an optical illusion on a sheet of paper and the real world is that you can interact with all 3 dimensions.

Each dimension could be removed, due to faulty perception, leaving the same argument and validity to there being 1 and 0 dinensions.

How do you measure something without use of perception?

Ever hear of a ruler, a tape measure, or for that matter a piece of string?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 30, 2009, 04:26:29 AM

How do you measure something without use of perception?

Ever hear of a ruler, a tape measure, or for that matter a piece of string?

Kind of ironic.


How exactly do you use a ruler, tape measure or piece of string, without involving your perception?

Assuming science can be trusted even somewhat (since you use it as evidence in your own OP), Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation should have been found to be false immediately, for the relation would be F = GMm/r, rather than F = GMm/r^2.  In a two-dimensional world, the density of field lines would drop proportionally to the distance.  They drop by the square of the distance in three-dimensions because the field lines take on a spherical shape, and the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

However, if you simply want to make all of our perception potentially invalid, then it is basically a brain in a vat model - interesting to think about, but that's all it can be used for.

They drop by the square of the distance in three-dimensions because the field lines take on a spherical shape, and the volume of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

If by square you mean cube, I'm totally with you.  Unless of course by volume you meant surface area.

I did mean surface area, thanks.  You'd think calculus would make sure one would never make one forget such things!   

Quote from: EireEngineer on November 30, 2009, 09:06:11 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 30, 2009, 04:26:29 AM

How do you measure something without use of perception?

Ever hear of a ruler, a tape measure, or for that matter a piece of string?

Kind of ironic.


How exactly do you use a ruler, tape measure or piece of string, without involving your perception?

You do love to quibble over semantics huh? My point was that is the third dimension was illusory, then you would not be able to wrap a tape measure around an object, then stretch it back out to measure its circumference, because the tape measure has to travel in three dimensions around the object.  The fact that you can do this proves that it is not some sort of perspective effect.

I'm not quibbling over semantics, because he's not talking about a 'perspective effect'. He's talking about perception in general. Look at the answer he gave Chris:

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 29, 2009, 08:22:49 AM

If the third dimension doesn't exist then how did I escape from inside a hoop?

Obviously the hoop does not exist, except for in your faulty perception.

Your tape measure example is no different.

How do you measure something without use of perception?

lol at weak argument

he's not saying perception doesn't exist. ony that it is faulty.

Our perception is all we have, and unfortunately it's very subjective, but if we can attain general consensus about certain observations, we can piece together the actual environment around us.  If I were to witness Chris Spaghetti escape the hoop, then it becomes less likely that it was his faulty perception that afforded his escape.

Less likely, yes, but in no way confirmed to be false.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 30, 2009, 04:26:29 AM

How do you measure something without use of perception?

lol at weak argument

he's not saying perception doesn't exist. ony that it is faulty.

Right. So the weak argument should be: "How do you get an accurate measurement if your perception is faulty?"

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on November 30, 2009, 04:26:29 AM

How do you measure something without use of perception?

lol at weak argument

he's not saying perception doesn't exist. ony that it is faulty.

When did I say that perception doesn't exist?

When did I say that perception doesn't exist?

How do you measure something without use of perception?

or you want it to exist... but you don't want to use it?...

Wilmore's got it.
If perception can't be trusted, how can you use measurements?

So the weak argument should be: "How do you get an accurate measurement if your perception is faulty?"

It's a question more than an argument, but if it's weak you should have no problem answering it.

Assuming science can be trusted even somewhat (since you use it as evidence in your own OP), Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation should have been found to be false immediately, for the relation would be F = GMm/r, rather than F = GMm/r^2.  In a two-dimensional world, the density of field lines would drop proportionally to the distance.  They drop by the square of the distance in three-dimensions because the field lines take on a spherical shape, and the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius.

However, if you simply want to make all of our perception potentially invalid, then it is basically a brain in a vat model - interesting to think about, but that's all it can be used for.

i wonder why noone adressed this post, imo it's quite a good point. you could argue in a similar way for every other field.
a few other thoughts that came to my mind:
- is two dimensional life possible? is it possible to construct a working organism without any overlapping structures?
- what do 2D objects consist of and would they have any mass?

Just now, I held my hands up. Then I passed one behind the other.

Didn't feel anything that felt like my hand was amputated.

You know, babies don't know that anything they can't see still exists. So you just stumbled upon what happens when you are born. Congrats!