Live data from Hacker News

4D toys

4dtoys.com

21–30 of 112 posts

Re: 4D toys

#21

Here's a thought I had watching the bit with 2D man: Actually, the 3D view that 2D man does not understand but which we do understand is... still 2D. My screen is flat. You can use a 2D viewport to render a 3D scene in a way that is natural and easy to understand for us humans: A human watching the 2D scene can very quickly surmise from a glance at the viewport: Which objects are in the scene, and where are they loca…

Yes. there are many ways to do 4d to 3d projections, including perspective projections. You could also make a 3d 'camera' view with 4d lens and 3d projection plane.

Here is a good intro to 4D Visualization http://eusebeia.dyndns.org/4d/vis/vis

Re: 4D toys

#22
"To deal with hyper-planes in a 14-dimensional space, visualize a 3-D space and say 'fourteen' to yourself very loudly. Everyone does it." – Geoffrey Hinton, A geometrical view of perceptrons, https://www.coursera.org/lecture/neural-networks/a-geometric...

* but remember that going from 13D to 14-D creates as much extra complexity as going from 2-D to 3-D

Re: 4D toys

#23
post #5

There's also Miegakure, another beautiful game based on 4D puzzles. http://miegakure.com/

Just to make it clear - the original site and your site were created by the same person. The 4d toys are an offshoot of work they did to create Miegakure.

Re: 4D toys

#24
post #18

Can someone help me out here?: I can represent 3D quite comfortably on 2D monitors, can there be an intuitive mapping of 4D to a 3D VR view? I know 3D mapped to 2D suffers from occlusions and heavily relies on clues like perspective, shadow etc. But given enough time even a less intuitive 4D view could become intuitive with time, too. edit: found this: https://youtu.be/S-yRYmdsnGs?t=252 even better: https://youtu.be/…

What would be the benefits of the 3D VR? There will always be a 2D bottleneck on your eyes' retina. The most important perspective clue I would say is temporal sampling. For dynamical systems, Takens theorem says that a high dimensional topology can be restituted by the sequential sampling of a single variable alone. It seems likely to me that our perception generally works by this principle. That being said, I think…

I'd say we have two eyes and compile to something 3D, which is mostly possible because of that and nothing is hardwired, just takes a lot of responsive feedback to rewire itself.

Re: 4D toys

#25
post #17

Can someone help me out here?: I can represent 3D quite comfortably on 2D monitors, can there be an intuitive mapping of 4D to a 3D VR view? I know 3D mapped to 2D suffers from occlusions and heavily relies on clues like perspective, shadow etc. But given enough time even a less intuitive 4D view could become intuitive with time, too. edit: found this: https://youtu.be/S-yRYmdsnGs?t=252 even better: https://youtu.be/…

Of course you can, and it would be different from the cross-sections seen in this video. I doubt it would ever become intuitive though, I suspect our brains are hard-wired for a 3d world. Here's a video of a rotating 4d hypercube in a 3d perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WyreE9ZkI It's called a tesseract, and as each face of a 3d cube is a 2d cube (a square), each face of a 4d cube is a normal 3d cube, t…

I'd say our brain is anything but hardwired. Sense-substitution works beautifully too and even a tool like a hammer or a mouse becomes one with your body through frequent use.

Your linked video maps the 4th dimension to time, it doesn't project to 3D. Projecting through time (especially non-interactively) lacks the immediate feedback needed for the brain to grasp it as intuition.

Re: 4D toys

#26

Here's a thought I had watching the bit with 2D man: Actually, the 3D view that 2D man does not understand but which we do understand is... still 2D. My screen is flat. You can use a 2D viewport to render a 3D scene in a way that is natural and easy to understand for us humans: A human watching the 2D scene can very quickly surmise from a glance at the viewport: Which objects are in the scene, and where are they loca…

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that (although I wish it were). While you could generate a 3D perspective on each 2D "slice" of a 3D viewport, it wouldn't be that much more different than what's going on in here. The main issue arises from trying to render a 4-polytope in a universe where we ourselves can only sense 3 dimensions "natively."

Sad thing is that what we sense (see) is in fact just a poor projection into 2D (aka perspective) with some largely learnt concept of depth. If only we could sense space entirely with nothing "behind", not just from single point...

Re: 4D toys

#27

Here's a thought I had watching the bit with 2D man: Actually, the 3D view that 2D man does not understand but which we do understand is... still 2D. My screen is flat. You can use a 2D viewport to render a 3D scene in a way that is natural and easy to understand for us humans: A human watching the 2D scene can very quickly surmise from a glance at the viewport: Which objects are in the scene, and where are they loca…

The problem is that while everything you see on your (2D) monitor is effectively 2D our brain is good at taking 3D cues (shadows, perspective, parallax etc...) to reconstitute 3D "data" from it. For instance look at 3D rotating cube on your monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E10zYKln3g

Even though there's no shading, a bad resolution and zero context anchoring it in a familiar setting you immediately see it as a 3D object when effectively that's just 3 2D quadrilaterals changing colors and shape. We really need very little to be able to extrapolate depth information from a very limited 2D-only display.

If you did that with 4D cues in 3D space (say in VR or something) I think it wouldn't work. It'd just look like a 3D object changing shape, not a projection of a higher dimension (the same way an hypothetical 2D being would see 3 quadrilaterals changing shape in the above video, not a solid 3D object that would be an abstract concept to them, not a familiar reality).

Could we teach our brain to "think in 4D" and interpret these cues differently? To a certain extent probably, maybe if you spent hours and hours and hours in a VR simulation with 4D objects you'd start getting a feel for it. I doubt you'd ever get as good as with 3D objects since we've been exposed to these literally every waking moment since birth, but maybe I underestimate the plasticity of our brain.

That actually leads me to an other question: is 3D somewhat hardcoded in our brains or is it purely learned? If we were mad scientists and took a baby brain into a 4D "plato's cave" style simulation, could it grow into being able to perceive 4D as intuitively and effectively as we do with 3D space? Also unrelated question: does anybody have a baby I could borrow?

Re: 4D toys

#28
post #27

Here's a thought I had watching the bit with 2D man: Actually, the 3D view that 2D man does not understand but which we do understand is... still 2D. My screen is flat. You can use a 2D viewport to render a 3D scene in a way that is natural and easy to understand for us humans: A human watching the 2D scene can very quickly surmise from a glance at the viewport: Which objects are in the scene, and where are they loca…

The problem is that while everything you see on your (2D) monitor is effectively 2D our brain is good at taking 3D cues (shadows, perspective, parallax etc...) to reconstitute 3D "data" from it. For instance look at 3D rotating cube on your monitor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E10zYKln3g Even though there's no shading, a bad resolution and zero context anchoring it in a familiar setting you immediately see it as…

> Could we teach our brain to "think in 4D" and interpret these cues differently? To a certain extent probably, maybe if you spent hours and hours and hours in a VR simulation with 4D objects you'd starting getting a feel for it. I doubt you'd ever get as good as with 3D objects since we've been exposed to these literally every waking moment since we're born.*

Good lord! Has anyone tried?

This reminds me of the backwards bicycle video on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFzDaBzBlL0). I... really want to try what you're suggesting.

Re: 4D toys

#29
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course you can, and it would be different from the cross-sections seen in this video. I doubt it would ever become intuitive though, I suspect our brains are hard-wired for a 3d world. Here's a video of a rotating 4d hypercube in a 3d perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-WyreE9ZkI It's called a tesseract, and as each face of a 3d cube is a 2d cube (a square), each face of a 4d cube is a normal 3d cube, t…

I'd say our brain is anything but hardwired. Sense-substitution works beautifully too and even a tool like a hammer or a mouse becomes one with your body through frequent use. Your linked video maps the 4th dimension to time, it doesn't project to 3D. Projecting through time (especially non-interactively) lacks the immediate feedback needed for the brain to grasp it as intuition.

> Your linked video maps the 4th dimension to time, it doesn't project to 3D

No, it projects it to 3d. The movements you see are rotations, not movements of an intersection plane. You can clearly see at any point in time each of the 8 identical cubes making up the tesseract, skewed and resized by projection to a 3d perspective.

Re: 4D toys

#30
This passage from Death's End by Cixin Liu really gave me pause to stop and wonder about what the experience of seeing extra dimensions might be like (here translated to English by Ken Liu): --

A person looking back upon the three-dimensional world from four-dimensional space for the first time realized this right away: He had never seen the world while he was in it. If the three-dimensional world were likened to a picture, all he had seen before was just a narrow view from the side: a line. Only from four-dimensional space could he see the picture as a whole. He would describe it this way: Nothing blocked whatever was placed behind it. Even the interiors of sealed spaces were laid open. This seemed a simple change, but when the world was displayed this way, the visual effect was utterly stunning. When all barriers and concealments were stripped away, and everything was exposed, the amount of information entering the viewer’s eyes was hundreds of millions times greater than when he was in three-dimensional space. The brain could not even process so much information right away.

In Morovich and Guan’s eyes, Blue Space was a magnificent, immense painting that had just been unrolled. They could see all the way to the stern, and all the way to the bow; they could see the inside of every cabin and every sealed container in the ship; they could see the liquid flowing through the maze of tubes, and the fiery ball of fusion in the reactor at the stern.... Of course, the rules of perspective remained in operation, and objects far away appeared indistinct, but everything was visible.

Given this description, those who had never experienced four-dimensional space might get the wrong impression that they were seeing everything “through” the hull. But no, they were not seeing “through” anything. Everything was laid out in the open, just like when we look at a circle drawn on a piece of paper, we can see the inside of the circle without looking “through” anything. This kind of openness extended to every level, and the hardest part was describing how it applied to solid objects. One could see the interior of solids, such as the bulkheads or a piece of metal or a rock—one could see all the cross sections at once! Morovich and Guan were drowning in a sea of information—all the details of the universe were gathered around them and fighting for their attention in vivid colors.

Morovich and Guan had to learn to deal with an entirely novel visual phenomenon: unlimited details. In three-dimensional space, the human visual system dealt with limited details. No matter how complicated the environment or the object, the visible elements were limited. Given enough time, it was always possible to take in most of the details one by one. But when one viewed the three-dimensional world from four-dimensional space, all concealed and hidden details were revealed simultaneously, since three-dimensional objects were laid open at every level. Take a sealed container as an example: One could see not only what was inside, but also the interiors of the objects inside. This boundless disclosure and exposure led to the unlimited details on display.

Everything in the ship lay exposed before Morovich and Guan, but even when observing some specific object, such as a cup or a pen, they saw infinite details, and the information received by their visual systems was incalculable. Even a lifetime would not be enough to take in the shape of any one of these objects in four-dimensional space. When an object was revealed at all levels in four-dimensional space, it created in the viewer a vertigo-inducing sensation of depth, like a set of Russian nesting dolls that went on without end. Bounded in a nutshell but counting oneself a king of infinite space was no longer merely a metaphor.

Post reply on HN