this is NOT a 4D cube

What you see is not 4D cube. Because you'll never see a "4D" cube.

[SyDatNguyen-rj]

It’s not a real 4d tesseract but it’s a 3d version of a 4d tesseract

[YugiDmega]

"Or match me on Tinder" is a wild sentence

[АлександрЕвстифеев-ьк]

The Tesseract. Educational video about the multidimensionality of the world.

[itisALWAYSR.A.]

Not only a good description of lower-dimension projections of hypershapes, but also an introduction on how to see Arthur naked. That's thorough vid content!

[ValeraFedorov]

Arthur, thank u for continuing to make content. I was watched ur last channel and will continue to watch here.
Good luck

[YannY]

I tried drawing a tess since 6th grade and 8 years later, I think I've made a version of tesseract that lets me truly understand it for what it is.

[holandreas]

Every non-idiotic presentation of the tesseract specifies this model is the shadow of it rather than the cube itself.

[eugene_mikheev]

I almost managed to imagine a 4-d cube but then my brain got fried. 😀
I used to watch your Russian channel and I'm happy you're now making content in English! Keep up the great job!

[Garfield_Minecraft]

2:58 hey hey hey wait what? calm down there bro

[Poj]

A rotating tesseract looks like clothes being turned inside out

[tedsheridan]

Cool video. Though I disagree that is impossible to visualize or imagine a 4D cube. As you mentioned, everything we see is already a 2D projection of higher dimensional (3D) objects. Over the course of our lives we've internalized how these objects look when rotated. Similarly, we can view 2D projections of 4D objects (like the gif of the rotating hypercube). If you spend enough time studying and learning how the rotations work and how they appear, you can start to internalize 4D rotation. The only difference between looking at 3D and 4D objects is that we're very experienced with interpreting projections of 3D, and totally INexperienced with interpreting projections of 4D. But this can in fact be learned. It is not required to have 3D vision to 'see' a 4D cube, just as it is not required to have 3D vision to 'see' a 3D cube. It's just a matter of learning to interpret 2D projects of either object.

[donik]

To mention: All 4D objects have a surface volume. So its like an Atmosphere where we dont see where it ends. A Holographic screen could help, not VR, its also a screen what shows something else.

Edit: A 4D being can go trough a infinite big and thick wall. 0D, 1D and 2D are more of a flat dimension, 3D is more of a volumetric dimension, can also be 4D and 5D. The problem is that we don't understand the connections between volumes and hypervolumes. We can't see or even feel a hypervolume either. Because something is acting in a higher spatial dimension different.

[MacaroniAndGames]

You are very underrated, this is a great channel!

[ziggyzoggin]

love the 2D tv with a screen on the inside of the device lmao

[arrivingdrake]

Great video.


Remember me before this video blows up

[petricastirbu]

So if we have 2 eyes and with them 2D vision, then.
The flat man has 1 eye with 1D vision.
A 4D being has 3 eyes with 3D vision.
A 5D being has 4 eyes with 4D vision.
And so on

[JHandle]

To understand the rotation of a tesseract, I imagined looking at the bottom of a 4D glass table and dropping a tesseract from above. Whichever point of the tesseract is closest to the table when it hits will bounce and cause the tesseract to spin away. If you can imagine what this looks like, I think it’s fair to say you understand 4D rotation to a degree.

[Italian_Isaac_Clarke]

I here see the same problem as when people try to describe time and time travel:


Our ancestors have existed long before homo sapiens evolved.
They, as we do now, often gave names and internal explanations of the world without understanding the true ways in which it works.

The Scientific Method and thus Science has been around for a relative instant in the span of our lineage; the only way to get correct information about the world is not that old.


We need to communicate ideas through language and if it turns out that a word is incorrect it must either be modified or scrapped, unless the one using it wants to continue being wrong.




The correct definition of time is "our observations of the changing states of our world, or better said in other words, "as long as matter things move time exists; absolute entropy will signal the moment time ends".
Many have come to see time as if it were a place, where you can go or come back to. No. Time is not a place, but a chronological description of events based on the data which the entity possesses at any given moment.

One can not "travel through time" because there's nothing to travel over. If you lose something in the forest and 40 years later you happen to dig it out by mistake it has not "got there", rather it has always been there (this impression is given by one individual's ignorance at any given moment).

On the same note, there is not any "master time" or "index time" to refer to,
rather in different portions of reality, space, time moves faster or slower relative to the "amount"
(don't dare say anything, I said it this way just to make it quicker)
of gravity in it.

As said before, TIME is an observation of the changing states of matter, so it is absolutely relative to where this matter changes





Now: Space.

Space is what we gave the name to a portion of our reality.
Doesn't matter its dimensions or shape, if we take a chunk of reality of any kind it's called "space".
We observed that we can describe space, objects in that space and movement in that space with 3 planes, each being perpendicular to one another with the same origin point. These are the "three dimensions".

These dimensions do not imply the existence of realities or objects that have fewer or more than 3 dimensions because such things can not exist at all.
You can not find anything with less than 2 dimensions in our reality because {X * Y * 0 = 0}, while more dimensions are just a combination of X, Y and/or Z or even worse, the implication that TIME ITSELF is a dimension, which is not.



Only ideas, stories, imagination can have more or less dimensions; only there time is a place or a physical object or a force that can be bent to one's will, because in reality that is not what observation shows.



Now, as closure:
The UnFalsifiable are aspects or reality which can not be "proven" (shut up) true or false.
What is Falsifiable changes through time thanks to the Scientific and Technological development of a group of people.
An example of what once was unfalsifiable is atoms, cells and DNA.
Some things, on the other hand, will remain UnFalsifiable forever, such as discovering anything at all that is infinite.

Infinity exists in numbers, math, because they are not physical, they are data.
In reality discovering that anything is infinite is impossible because to do that you'd need infinite time to measure it and even if you manage to already know that X = ∞ you will fail to prove it to anyone because you'd need infinite time, as anyone else.

Things can just and only be proven finite if you find an end to them, because otherwise you can never be sure of their infinity (AKA they either are truly infinite or you just stopped short).



Why am I saying this stuff?
Because if anyone wants to say "mumble mumble ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES!" or something of the kind I just want to stop them immediately:
that is THE definition of UnFalsifiable. Rather than seriously talk about something as real to us as the toothfairy I'd rather work with the Falsifiable and expand what can be known.

[donnlai]

When we copy a dot in zero dimension, where to land the copied one? As there's no space for this dot to land. It is zero dimension. If it landed somewhere in 1D space, could this dot have any relation with the prior one?
Is this only our 3D creatures' interpretation on our theory?

[alexanderten]

What about color dimensions, not space dimensions?