Quote:
Originally Posted by dipayankar  What I get of this post is that 2D+ actually combines two dimensions to give the perception of 3D. When you talk of 2D field, are you talking of force / energy fields? |
At this point, I am only talking about the spatial concept. In 2D+, a single D is a field, and two of them together describe reality.
1D is like a book cover, 2D+ is like opening the book. The book cover may contain a beautiful picture that delivers the perception of a lot of depth, but place your finger on the book and you know there is no depth to the picture. Your finger can go up and down, left and right, but not in (and out) of the picture.
2D+ is the experience with the book open; you can place your finger inside the book and it will feel that it is not flat, but contains some depth. Depending on how far you fold the book open, your finger will experience different outcomes because both fields can be angled together in different ways. This is a contrast with the book cover, because with the book cover your finger will experience just that one field (even when you hold the book cover differently, it will still be just that one same flat field).
Your (or my) fingers can experience the spatial reality in one way only (as belonging to 2D+), but within 2D+ we can have the experience of something flat.
If we place this conceptual delivery next to that of 3D, then we can point to the essential difference. The finger can still experience everything, too, in 3D, and also feel the difference with just the flat 2D experience. Yet there is no 1D for any finger to experience that is in any way different from 2D. If you can already imagine your finger to move 1D then that is still a 2D experience: as in, it is still flat.
The only conclusion available, according to me, is that 3D is a flawed spatial concept (no matter how handy it is in daily use) for 1D either cannot be experienced or if someone considers that it can be experienced then it is in essence not different from the 2D experience.