81–90 of 148 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a big problem with that, which is that we don’t actually see in 3 dimensions. Our eyes only get 2-dimensional projections of a 3-dimensional world.
I am not sure you are correct. We have 2 eyes so that our brain can work out the depth of the image.
I'm curious how this would look if the 4D space was projected onto the 3D space instead of taking a cross-section, much like we already project 3D space onto 2D space (your display), to create "3d" graphics.
I haven't tried OP demo yet (but I've spent a fair amount of time thinking about 4D and VR and implemented my own viewers), and I'm very convinced that the cross section approach is much much better if you want to deeply understand what is happening.
The perspective projection folds the fourth dimension into our hyperplane and you can't untangle it.
To paste something I wrote here [2], regarding the difficulty of groking the tesseract from the projected figure, I think it’s almost impossible to realize that there are points inside the tesseract that are not inside any of the eight cubes visible in the [projected] image, or that if you trace a diagonal between the corners of the tesseract you do not pass through any of the eight cubes.
There is much more space inside the hypercube than meets the eye in the perspective projection.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFmDLUUhZjE [2]: http://xn--1-2fa.fr/blog/down-the-4d-rabbit-hole-navigation/
If you make a Kickstarter to 4D print them, I would support it for my kids. I think for kids, it's more important to play with real-world physical objects rather than their virtual computer representation.
[0]http://www.georgehart.com/rp/rp.html [1]http://www.georgehart.com/rp/120-cell-george-hart.stl
This looks fantastic. If I had a VR device I would get this immediately. I've always had a fascination with trying to grok higher dimensions. I think it's just about impossible to have an intuitive understanding of it - 3D spacial reasoning is in our wiring through both nature and experience. You know the theory of how language shapes your thinking? For example, in societies where there is no separate word for orange…
Often when I see something about 4d it uses this same analogy: a 2d being seeing a crosssection of a 3d world, in 2d. However, the video is in 2d, and it's able to show 3d in a much better/more clear way, clearly, cause when it's showing that example it's got a cutout of the "3d" view (which is still 2d!). Why can't we do the same thing with 4d? Why does the object just disappear when it bounces into the 4th dimensio…
It was really disorienting (the 4d, but also the eye-crossing), and like the post author says, just bundles of lines rather than solid shapes. Still very cool.
Ooh, I found it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm hitting the same problem -- the app only renders to a smaller rectangle of the whole screen rooted at the bottom-left (when held sideways), but touch events are scaled to the whole screen. I could probably live with the smaller view, but it's very hard to accurately manipulate the objects when it thinks I'm touching further left than I actually am.
Same issue here. Has anyone reached out to the developer?
This looks fantastic. If I had a VR device I would get this immediately. I've always had a fascination with trying to grok higher dimensions. I think it's just about impossible to have an intuitive understanding of it - 3D spacial reasoning is in our wiring through both nature and experience. You know the theory of how language shapes your thinking? For example, in societies where there is no separate word for orange…