Quote:
|
I'm sorry if you feel like I'm just repeating the same argument over and over. I don't want you to feel like I've just made things up or otherwise given a coloured picture to you just for keeping you motivated; I just really think this exact issue is resolved by the epistemological analysis. And thus, perhaps it is not necessary to dwell on this "conceptual explanation".
|
Agreed. Anything our mind is going to be able to imagine or comprehend is going to be, at its max dimensional representation, 3 dimensional. Regardless of the geometry or math, and the scale an illustration is designed to represent. When we discuss anything visual and/or represent anything visual, when we put out imagination aside, what is left behind will be a product of our macroscopic 3D world.
Even something 2D is a concept. Like a square. You can't construct a square in the ontological sense, that is actually 2D in our epistemological world view. When we go to truly examine it, it will be 3D. Anything that is infact 2D, like the shapes and things on this computer screen are mental concepts of shapes, but what it really is, is a computer screen, and dots, and width, and length, and thickness. And furthermore, what those things really are, is unaquivacally unknown.
Its true to mention a person educated on the mathematics will understand that a multidimensional illustration may have some complex behaviors. A the same time, if a child came up and examined the illustration he might say something like, "Hey that looks like a Turkey", and in the end that is the extent of its expression realistically.
