Originally Posted by Fredrick  Dipayankar, it took me some time to get back to this (new job).
The best way for me to explain the concept is by stating first that there are two concepts that are vying for our attention at the same time. The first one is the regular 3D we have all learned and all understand. It works, and we can communicate perfectly well with each other. As such, the 3D concept does not need improvement.
The second concept does not undermine the functioning of the 3D reality, it only places the question mark at what the precise building stones of 3D are. There are 3 building stones, but only when we start out with the complete picture. Each building stone by itself cannot exist.
What can exist are two building stones together, though they are not reality, but artificial additions to our reality, such as a drawing on a piece of paper, a movie on a screen, a picture in an album. The art exists, is real, and has 3D properties in as far as the medium is concerned, but can be exposed as 'fake' because they are flat. For instance, a person in a picture cannot be measured with a real measuring tool (though through deduction one can make a professional guess).
So, the 3D is not connected to the keyboard, the 3D is connected to the common agreement that this is the way we explain the dimensional environment. You and I have learned to see, explain and describe our environment this way.
2D+ is nothing but the same environment, but it describes our environment differently. The dimensions are not directions, but fields. A field contains two directions (for instance, up-down and left-right, but not front-back). When adding another dimension (a field), both dimensions enforce some parts of each other, not all parts.
I guess it is best to immediately use the example of our eyes here. If we close one eye, we do not move our head, and look out of the other eye, then the image we are getting is basically flat. It is possible to notice up-down and left-right, but front-back is not an automatic part of it. If you were born with an immovable head, one eye, and nobody and nothing to disturb the image in front of you, there would be no way for you to have any certainty about the depths in front of you. By opening up a second eye (or by either yourself moving or something else moving, allowing your single eye to get more than one perspective) a depth becomes obtainable. The second eye establishes a second view, adding a slightly different perspective, and though the difference is truly minimal, we can see now what is up front or placed in the back.
Even when nothing changed in the outside world, except your opening up a second eye, then your perspective changed — not the outside world. That is the essence of my delivery: we can always view the same information differently, because we are bound to the specific result. The same is true with 3D and 2D+. They cover the exact same territory, but they give different answers to what is real. Foremost, they belong to the area of perspectives, not to the area of the outside world, even when it is the outside world on which both concepts find their starting point. So, your keyboard is still the same keyboard, but you can think about it as existing in 3D or in 2D+.
I know this is almost an ethereal difference, almost negligible, almost futile, almost not worth anyone's attention, yet it exposes the fact that the observer contains the concept, while the viewed environment is subjected to the concept, formulated not by itself, but by the observer. |