More thoughts on Planiverse.

[unbibium]

The Planiverse is on an amazon.com list of Ten Books to Change the Way You See the World. It also contains The Design of Everyday Things, which I have also read, and recommend.

And by working outwards from the differences between the second and third dimensions, we can make certain assumptions about life in the fourth dimension:

• A planet would have much more room.
  • There would be a wider variety of geography and species.
  • The population of a planet would be staggering by our standards.
• That which is easier in 2D would be harder.
  • Containers, from cups to river dams.
  • Aerodynamic devices, like sails and flying machines.
• That which is more difficult in 2D would be easier.
  • Surgery
  • Information storage
  • Traffic
  • Machinery
• Aspects of life might also be in the opposite direction.
  • There would be much less respect for the land; littering might not even be a crime. One could build anything anywhere, since there would be so many ways to go around it.
  • Social norms might be looser.
  • Predatory life forms might have less incentive to evolve.

I'd better not think about it too much longer, or blood will start to shoot out my ears.

Comments

[schwa242.livejournal.com]

When I read this book for the first time as a wee one, it made me think the idea that the fourth dimension was time was a bit far-fetched. I reasoned that if I lived in a two-dimensional world, folks would probably speculate that the third dimension was time. In my mind, if time was a dimension, it would be the first (existing in a universe of any number of spatial dimensions) and length, width, and depth would be two, three, and four. Since I'm not really that adept at physics, and am probably starting to sound about as clued in as George Hammond, I'll just leave it at that.

I don't think that containers or flying devices would seem "harder" to denizens of a fourth dimensional universe, at least if you compare them to our universe and the planiverse. Cups are simpler there in comparison, sure, but I don't think they would be more difficult to discover or even create. Sure, 2D beings really only have to bend a semi-flexible rod of metal in two corners, and presto, they have a cup. At the same time (at least in the planiverse), their hands are much simpler than ours which are designed for creating and feeling three dimensional implements, and can make receptacles out of clay rather simply. As for aerodynamic devices... difficult for me to say. The "aerowing" in the planiverse struck me as being complex, and not really something I would picture denizens of a two dimensional world creating. But that's just me. I can see your point with that though, having an additional dimension of airspace, airflow, and weather pattern fluctuations would be a hassle. At least, to our primitive, 3d brains.

Another thing the 4d folks would have their advantage, is a larger number of available chemical combinations, having a fourth dimension for atoms to bond to.

Another book I read as a kid that went over differences between two, three, and four dimensional universes was a novel for teens called "The Boy Who Reversed Himself" by William Sleator. It was about a kid who could travel into the fourth dimension, and managed to flip himself backwards, similar to plucking Yendred up, rotating him on the vertical axis, and returning him to his universe. Wacky hijinks ensue with the boy and his friendgirl as they get stuck in a four dimensional world, look at two dimensional cross-sections of their three dimensional world from the fourth dimension, and get drunk off reversed ketchup packets. I warn you, it's not too deep a novel, as it is aimed at an early teen audience.

Happy Fun Bloody Ear Brain Teaser Quiz Time:

1. Describe, in detail, a fourth dimensional matroyshka doll.

2. After figuring out new possible chemical combinations available in a fourth dimensional world, describe the new available pizza toppings there and their flavor.

3. Describe the sound the propeller on a four dimensional helicopter.

4. Would fourth dimensional beings enjoy three dimensional tic-tac-toe, or would the game seem just as lame as two dimensional tic-tac-toe does to us.

5. Would they try and describe a hypersphere to an uncultered three dimensional being as a "circle within a sphere" or a "sphere within a sphere" or a "circle within a circle within a circle"?

-- Schwa ---

Re:

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

I dunno. But I just bought "Flatterland" so I reckon I'll find out soon enough.

[pootrootbeer.livejournal.com]

I think time IS a dimension*, but to assume it should be enumerated as the one immediately after the spatial ones we know about seems short-sighted.

Time should go at the very end of the list of dimensions. Time is the nth dimension!

-Poot
* actually, time is multi-dimensional.

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

Well, the whole idea of listing dimensions is a human idea. In fact, both "list" and "dimension" are concepts humans have created to model the outside world. We can list them in alphabetical order if it makes no more or less sense.

Also, the idea of time travel as strictly the fourth dimension, as an H.G. Wells time machine would, isn't plausible; you couldn't change direction without rear-ending yourself. You'd need a fifth dimension in which you can go around your forward-traveling past self. Therefore, it has to be like in that Futurama episode.