all 12 comments

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And so were The Matrix

I do not believe The Matrix was intended to be interpreted literally by the creators. In fact I am absolutely positive it was meant as a metaphor for Baudrillard's "Simulacra and Simulation", a book which even makes an appearance in the movie. The gist of this is that we create things that are not real and treat them as if they are more real than things that are. Fiat currency, and map boundaries being the most obvious examples he uses, or even gender constructs if you are the Wachowskis. Baudrillard means simulation in a much different sense than your literal simulation theorist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulacra_and_Simulation

Anyways, I do not mean to argue against your beliefs, just that the creators of The Matrix really intended their work to be taken as support for the literal idea of simulation theory, I think the philosophical underpinnings of this work have a different origin, one that is metaphorical

[–]neolib 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

since we can't comprehend 4D

After playing 4D version of popular 2048 puzzle for a while you kinda feel you begin to comprehend it, try it

https://huonw.github.io/2048-4D/ (it's 2x2x2x2 hypercube)

Wikipedia entry for original version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2048_(video_game)

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You could never envision what it looks like. The most you can do is compare how lower dimensional planes look to you, and how higher dimensional objects look as they intersect the 3D plane. For example a 4D sphere would look to us like a tiny sphere appearing and growing larger, before getting smaller and vanishing again. Compare this with how a 3D sphere looks passing through a 2D plane, it has the same effect creating a circle.

We do have models of 4D objects following this process, such as tesseracts and hyperspheres. But they are just clever hacks to represent all the extra sides in a 3D graphic.

[–]neolib 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, you don't visualize it, but you begin to feel (on gameplay level) which tiles would collide with others in all 8 4-dimensional directions, just like with 4 directions in original 2048 (up/down/left/right).

Apparently two new directions have fancy names ("ana and kata"):

Comparatively, four-dimensional space has an extra coordinate axis, orthogonal to the other three, which is usually labeled w. To describe the two additional cardinal directions, Charles Howard Hinton coined the terms ana and kata, from the Greek words meaning "up toward" and "down from", respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-dimensional_space#Orthogonality_and_vocabulary

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You reminded me of something interesting I read

It turns our if you assume 4 spatial dimensions in general relativity (4 spatial +1 time, 5 Dimensional), it just happens to yield Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, which is quite striking. Although the guy who pursued this, Kaluza, never ended up coming up with a better predictive model using this assumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory

Some background if you are unfamiliar, since you seem interested in these models

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is pure schizophrenia. I'm am not joking when I say you need to get help.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Why, because it's unpopular?

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because it's a nonsensical wall of text that lumps together many unrelated topics seemingly at random and without communicating any coherent idea.

[–]Vulptex[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I know these concepts aren't easy to understand, but what's incoherent about them?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

history is full of myths about the existence being a wheel.

What do you mean?

the gnostics we’re right.

A lot of religion circles back to them.

[–]Vulptex[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ezekiel's wheel, the wheel of samsara, hallucinogenic drugs trigger visions of wheels...and it's goegraphically diverse.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well thanks for sharing. I hope you post more, at least it’s interesting, but it may lead to like a conscious awakening.

I don’t really understand everything you post. But it’s def interesting.

I like that you are trying to grasp higher dimensions.