OH GOD WHAT

The Far Plane

Not only does it dissolve your body, it dissolves your soul!

Roll 1d20

On a 1-20 you lose.

SHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-

MY MIND.

It is you that stats us.

>>4282209
does that mean that as long as i do not roll it i am immortal?.

Normal cube
+ plane-shifting
+ sanity loss when viewing
+ can inflict a touch attack on anything where it could reach on "foot"

>>4282237
I think my mind just turned inside-out.

>>4282178
It eats you.. yesterday!

>>4282237

This works.

>>4282223
the only way to win is not to play.

>>4282285
So it's just like The Game?

Oooooops!

>>4282319
The game has no core rulebooks, no splatbooks, no classes, races or special abilities. Thereby making it unplayable for /tg/. Now would you kindly GTFO?

rolled =

Fullview this image, shit brix.

Gelatinous Hypercube is just a phrase. The reality is much worse.

>>4282178
OOZE HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-ATTACK
TIME CUBE
IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.
4 CORNER TIME, CUBES ADVENTURER.

Dammit, I need to use that brain today

>>4282363
I think you just curdled my brain.

WHERE WE'RE GOING YOU DON'T NEED EYES TO SEE.

What about the 5-D Rubik's Cube?

>>4282449
Ahhh, good times.

>>4282363

Yeah.... anyone engulfed by that is NOT coming back. They probably end up locked in perpetual orbit around a point three inches to the left of the future.

>>4282449
I solved it, it made Cthulu shit brix.

HE RUNS AWAY

>>4282449
I never managed to solve that one.

someone quote douglas adams...

bump for 4th dimensional translation

>>4282612
So long and thanks for all the fish

>>4282612
Mostly harmless

>>4282612
Does Arthur fuck?

A regular cube is already a hypercube.

>>4282612
Toadstools, I believe.

>>4283681
We already exist in 4 dimensions. 1 is just temporal and absolutely out of our control.

OMFG! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Hey, /tg/. Let's combine a Gelatinous Hypercube and a Tesseract Spider.

>>4283698
You seem to misunderstand. The most common reference to a hypercube are 4 dimensional ones, but that's only a subset of all hypercubes which can be 0-inf dimensional. A 3 dimensional hypercube is just a cube.

you want something even more frighting?

A tachyonic Gelatinous hypercube. Fucking you in more ways then your puny mind can hold.

Add a beholder in there somehow.

>>4283698

That's not true. Time isn't the 4th dimension when talking about things like M theory and string theory. It's just one of the higher dimensions we can't deal with yet (theres upwards of 11, actually).

My guess for the Gelatinous Hypercube is that it would be able to walk through walls (by moving around them in the 4th dimension) and do much more damage by enveloping you not only in the 3rd dimension, but also every 3rd dimension it could wrap around you in via the 4th dimension.

Also could technically envelop you from the inside out, if it finds a way through your body in the 4th plane.

tl;dr YOU WILL FUCKING DIE AND CAN'T ESCAPE

OH GOD I CAN SEE FOREVER

guys, i think i failed a SAN check...

>>4283924
AND IT'S MADE OF JELL-O

A cube (technically, a three-dimensional hypercube), is a cross-section of a four-dimensional hypercube. Just like a square is a cross-section of a cube, and a line segment is a cross-section of a square.

I sprinkle some orc dust.

>>4283913
This.
Pretty much slap a Dimension Door and/or Teleport on an ooze and you're ready.

I roll my presence attack.

>>4283913
>Also could technically envelop you from the inside out, if it finds a way through your body in the 4th plane.
IT EATS YOU FROM ANY ANGLE IT CAN, YOU INSTANTLY DISSOLVE THERE IS NO DIGESTION DAMAGE ONLY SAVE VS DISINTEGRATION!

I still want someone to stat the Napalm Ooze

>>4283913
isn't the 4th dimension just time... an ever stretching expansion of time all action that will and have happened.

>>4284009
That would be weak vs fire would it not?

>>4283966
All higher dimensional hypercubes appear to be constructable from lower dimensional hypercubes. (A square (2d hypercube) literally has 1 dimensional hypercubes for each side, for example. I don't know if it's something that falls from the definition of it, or if it's a literal part of the definition itself though.

I posted >>4283966 , btw

I'm now trying to figure out how it would interact with 3 dimensional beings. Would it only be able to interact using its 3d cross section, or more?

Actually, thinking about it, the hypercube would be able to see and interact with the PC's inevitable 4th dimesional bodies (just because we can't deal with 4th dimension doesn't mean we aren't part of it), though most likely it would be an extremely small 4d signature, and have the same effect as just the 3d space. Much like 2d things in 3d.

Hm. Don't know. I'm just sort of a... hobbiest, and am slightly drunk.

EARTH HAS 4 CORNER
SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY
GELATINOUS CUBE
IN ONLY 24 HOUR ROTATION.
4 Corner GELATINOUS, CUBES EARTH.
I Possess Harmonic Cubic Wisdom
that transcends and contradicts the
Bibical 1st Day - Genesis 1.5 - when
the greatest math & scientific scam
of all human existence was deified.
Claim of single 1st Day composed
of Day, Night, Morning & Evening
was a Lie, as they were Static points
as 4 corners and did not rotate as
Gelatinous motion. Instead each of the 4
quadrant gelatin represented a single
and separate 24 hour Day rotation
within a common 24 hour rotation
of Earth. You would be wiser if unschooled then be taught ONEness stupidity to worship Evil of ONEism,
contradicted by Opposite Creation.
Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human.

>>4284016
Depends if you're going for a 4th spatial dimension or a temporal dimension.

>>4284021
In 4th edition it could be killed by minor fire balls.

>>4284016
Technically both of you are right. Time is the 4th dimension, the thing is, I'm not sure that that's the 4th "d" in a hypercube. It's like how you can orient 2d 3 ways in normal 3d space.

>>4283987
I rolled a 120 on an 80 presence.
What happens?

>>4284016
Time is really only modeled as a dimension. For example, velocity is a 2 dimensional model containing time as one of those 2 dimensions,
>>4284025
There's no reason to assume that everything else would just be 3 dimensional. A 3 dimensional object displaced into a 4 dimensions would be 4 dimensional by virtue of what it is in. It's pretty much why a line in planar geometry is defined in 2 dimensions despite being a 1 dimensional object.
Another way to look at it though would be that a lower dimensional object has a infinitely fine edge in higher dimensional spaces.

How about a world...

in the shape of a Mobius strip?

>>4284021
it would be AWESOME vs. Fire.

in fact when it is hit with an attack that deals fire damage it must make a Reflex save or Accidentally a Vietnamese Orphanage.

>>4284046
The 4th dimension in a 4d hypercube is simply the most basic definition of dimension. If you were using a 4 dimensional hypercube to model some form of movement or change over time, then the 4th dimension could easily be time though.

>>4284124
" guys, i think we're going in circles. "

http://math.eretrandre.org/4dbb/applet.html

>>4284124
the BBEG wants to split the world down the center, causing the whole world to roll for SAN loss

>>4284124
There was a series of Esther Friesner books about a world like that. I remember it involved a talking cat from Earth as the main character's familiar.

>>4284124
It would have one surface.
OMFG
WHO THE FUCK CARES.

>>4284147

Hm, I thought in M theory or whatever that NONE of the 11 dimensions was temporal. That it was the first 3 dimensions, something, 6 pocket dimensions, then the membrane.

Actually now that I think of it, yeah, that could be time. It's all so fucking abstract.

Does anyone still follow the worldline view of time? I have an old book I read called "One, Two, Three... Infinity" and it talks about the worldline being used to represent time, and it was pretty neat. Basically time being a singular dimension type of thing... wait, yeah.

God I'm not drunk enough for this yet.

>>4284234
Wait, I'm not saying anything about M theory. I know next to nothing about it. I'm just referring to the mathematical model of a hypercube. I'm merely saying that model utilizing it could easily use time as a dimension. That's all.

>>4284234
>>Does anyone still follow the worldline view of time? I have an old book I read called "One, Two, Three... Infinity" and it talks about the worldline being used to represent time, and it was pretty neat. Basically time being a singular dimension type of thing... wait, yeah.
HA! I remember that book. My dad got that for me when I was 8 (weird family, weirder childhood). That said: Pretty much everything but the raw math concepts in the book are out-dated.

>>4284283

Yeah, that's what I figured. I found it in my high school english class. Teacher didn't know wtf it was doing there, and since they knew I liked shit like that he gave it to me. Still a good read.

>>4284277

Oh, yeah. I see what you mean. Yeah, I was talking in terms of physical existance.

>>4284283
Raised on Edgar Cayce and scifi. Well met.

>>4284325
>Oh, yeah. I see what you mean. Yeah, I was talking in terms of physical existance.
I would be careful accepting M theory at this point. Last time I checked, all of its predictions outside of existing models were unable to be tested at this point in time.

>>4284234
String theory works on the basis that you can make up shit hence why it has LAYERS of shit you can't test.

>>4284403
>>4284383

Yeah, I know that as well. Always wondered why its become accepted as the standard, even though so much of it is "hey what if?".

Hmm.... Permanently hasted Gelatinous Cube. Monster of Legend template. Pseudonatural template. Sentry Ooze template.

>>4284431
It's mostly because it is pretty much the big chance of a 'breakthrough' if we can start getting to the point of testing more of it's predictions. It could also easily be like the old fascination that mathematicians had for removing Euclid's 5th postulate.

>>4282237

Add to this that it can use a move action to alter its size, any size from Fine to Colossal. This represents its movement in the 4th dimension such that the '3d cross section' becomes larger or smaller.

Special Ability: Time Attack

Roll 1d3.

1. Attacks in the present. Roll standard attack.

2. Attacks at the beginning of one turn ago. If it kills or incapacitates a character, all of that character's actions performed during that turn roll back. The party reacts as though this had always happened unless they're able to see additional dimensions, in which case what is happening becomes apparent.

3. Attacks in the future 1d6 turns later. Regardless as to whether or not the cube is alive then, it will attempt to attack its target then.

Planeshifting characters or items and attacks that can affect multiple dimensions can be used to interdict time attacks by interrupting them.

>>4284705
sounds like achron...
http://achrongame.com/

>>4284705

That's not what the OP meant, I'm sure. Thats a timetravelling or whatever gel cube. Not a 4D one.

Speaking of 4D, there was a class in Rifts (one of the expansion books) that had the ability to move around and see in 4D... I wanted to play that because it seemed like you could use pure logic with the GM to completely annihilate shit. God dragon killing stuff? Pull its heart out with your hand. Annoying psychic? Pull it into 4d and watch him go insane. Never got a rifts group though, so I couldn't play it.

>>4284767

Still, it'd be cool to have some kind of otherworldly horror be able to do that.

>>4284767
>Pull it into 4d and watch him go insane
If you have 4 dimensional objects then he already exists in an encompassing 4 dimensional space.

>>4284824

Well, the classes ability was to be able to shift into a different 4d space, and the class was able to handle it.

Other people aren't used to seeing in 4d, so they go insane or just slightly crazy.

It's in the class rules. Basically it works like switching from 2d to 3d, but one more step. The class is used to 4d, but no one else is. Except for stuff like alien intelligences and shit.

I want to find a class that can do small shit like make something small like a pebble accellerate at a huge speed. Small pebble moving at 500km/s through 4D movement right at enemies needed organs/weakpoints = best weapon ever. And no one would ever know.

Since the 4th dimension, or so I've been told, is "everywhere in the third dimension, all at once" it would mae sense that the cube can:

- Dimension Door at will
- Automatically flank you from any angle
- probably some other wield shit that allows it to attack impossible spots, ignoring AC completely.

All engulfed players/creatures must make a reflex save (which they will likely fail, since they're paralyzed and whatnot). On a failed save, the portion of the hypercube that the player was in moves along the 4th dimension, effectively removing the creature from our universe. Other players can no longer interact with the player (can't try to pull him out or anything). This save can be repeated each round to re-enter our universe, but they are still inside the cube's body (just in a different dimension) and thus still is under the effects of engulfment. If the cube is killed while the player is not in the right dimension, that player is lost in 4 dimensional space. You could, i suppose, prepare some sort of side quest to travel to the proper plane and rescue the player.

>>4284763

Thank you, I've been watching Doctor Who all day and now you link me to this.

>>4284942

now that I think about it, just treat this as teleport; on a failed save the engulfed player is transported to another plane, a successful save returns the player to the proper plane.

Come to think of it, the hypercube would basically exist on multiple planes simultaneously.

High level parties could actually split up and travel to different planes, then attack the same cube from each plane simultaneously.

>>4285012

Planes of existance != dimensions. Unless your characters could actually travel along the 4D plane, in which case theres nothing to worry about except the players heads exploding from playing DnD in a 4D combat system.

>>4284880
If he's switching from a 4d space to another 4d space, then it's nothing like translating from a 2d to 3d space. If you have 4d objects around, then you were always in a 4d space.

>>4285106

I know it isn't the same thing. I'm merely throwing ideas out to make it into something playable, as opposed to physically impossible/irrelevant to a 3d universe. What, a transplanar battle royale doesn't sound remotely interesting?

>>4285108

Well technically speaking, EVERYTHING is always in a 4D space if the theories are right.

I know the bloody thing doesn't make sense, I'm saying whats in the rulebook.

Think of a 2d character. They only see in 2 dimensions, and can't see past that. Then all of a sudden they jump into 3D, and can see the 3rd dimension. But they then go back to 2d, and can only see in 2d again.

My guess is its like a wierd conciousness thing, or some crap like that. I know it doesn't really make sense fully, but dammit its Rifts and they'll be damned if it makes sense.

>>4285157
I wasn't talking about a specific scientific theory. The idea that you would suddenly perceive higher dimensions like that is probably because of Flatland, where it was more of a metaphor for enlightenment.
If you only perceive 3 dimensions in a 4 dimensional space then you'll only ever perceive 3 dimensions regardless.
Secondly, if a 4 dimensional object exists, then you live in a 4 dimensional space already. An object is defined by the dimensions of the space it occupies.

>>4285229

I don't know, what's preventing an object from not being able to percieve all of it's demensions?

If you think about it, maybe thats what Enlightenment IS. Percieving more of reality when you suddenly become aware and able to comprehend more dimensions. I dunno.

bamp

>>4285288
Let me put it this way, let's go with your example and have a plane in a 3 dimensional space. Now, let's say that plane is your reality as you know it. Now, if something were to pull you out of it, then all it's essentially doing is shifting you to another plane. Now, this could make things look weird depending on how your new plane is angled with the old (A square could suddenly look like a line, 2 dots, or 1 dot depending on how it moves through the intersection of the two). There is even the possibility of the two being parallel so you can't even interact or perceive the old.

>>4285288

Proper sensory equipment and mental processing power.

>>4284124
Did someone say "Mobius"?

>>4285361

No, thats more along the lines of movement along another plane.

It would work more like... hm... god this is complicated... suddenly being able to see "light" type energy bouncing off of objects at another 4D position. Or adjusting your eyes to see light from another angle (if there's light-light energy in the other positions). It would be like looking around normally, but moving your eyes/head in a 4D sense, not 3D. Granted, that would be gross as hell, as it would look like your head/eyes phased out of existance.

Also, what this guy said: >>4285385 . It's all about the mind and looking at the right things the right way.

>>4285361
You wouldn't just be in another plane unless there were such a thing. 3-space isn't a stack of planes any more than 4-space is a stack of 3-spaces. That interpretation makes no sense since there's no such thing as being aligned to the universe's axis. Were there to be a fourth dimension, there's no logical reason why you would be unable to detect photons which had moved through spaces other than the one your flat self occupies. However you would see only garbage without a proper three-dimensional retina and a correctly functioning lens.

>>4285439
>No, thats more along the lines of movement along another plane.
No, that's a 3 dimensional shift. You're still going to see a 2 dimensional cross section of 3 dimensional space. Your new plane is just going to be a different cross section then the one you saw before.

ITT Yog-Sothoth

>>4285397
Aaaaaawwww YEAH!
Wait, fuck, this thread isn't... Oh well, it's still cool.

>>4285450 Were there to be a fourth dimension, there's no logical reason why you would be unable to detect photons which had moved through spaces other than the one your flat self occupies.

As for the tiny looplike dimensions that have been suggested, if they do indeed exist their impact on what we see is negligable. Its entirely possible that we can and do move through these all the time, but that since they are so small, movement through them, by our molecules or by photons, is unnoticable. Assuming they're small enough, of course.

>>4285439
would it be similar to graphing the derivative of a function next to said function? related, but different?

>>4285450
I was using plane as a reference to a 2 dimensional cross section. It should be rather obvious since I stated other examples as opposed to just the parallel one.

>>4285481
Why are you making the assumption that a 2-dimensional creature is only able to see 2-dimensional cross-sections of space?

>>4285520
The point I'm making is that 3-space isn't segmented into planes of any orientation.

>>4285528
Because it would have seen the others already. There's literally nothing to stop it from already doing so, if it could.

>>4285481

Wait, shit. I was talking about something else. Goddamn scotch.

Yeah it would sort of pull people +/- along whatever direction the 4D is in (as every dimension is just really 1D in movement, you have +/- x, +/- y, +/- z, and whatever 4D is). But I believe what the ability meant by "pull into the 4th dimension" was the ability to comprehend/see multiple dimensions at once. Like only ever looking right and left, then all of a sudden HOLY SHIT THERES AN UP AND DOWN. Except not really moving your head, but physical up and down.

Look at the 4D hypercube in the OP. Imagine that the sides of the cube were all opaque. With normal 3D abilities, all you would see is a normal 3D cube. When you have the ability to see in 4D, you would see the other stuff on the inside, because you could look *around* the outer walls.

Though I don't know how light would work in that case. 4D light? Someone get on this shit.

>>4285540
By having purely 2d objects, you have already segmented it into planes.

>>4285550
Once the sphere pulled our friend square out of Flatland, he *was* able to do so. I'd sooner argue that his prior inability to perceive anything outside his nominally 2-dimensional world was more an artifact of his location within it than anything inherent to his status as a 2-dimensional creature. Perhaps he could only see nothing outside it because there was nothing outside it to see.

>>4285566
>4D light?
The same as 3 dimensional, but the vectors are defined in 4 dimensions. Nothing really special there.

>>4285596

Hm. This is interesting, and goes with my idea of light itself being stuck in the same 4D position as us.

Someone, build a device that creates light type stuff in adjacent 4D positions (like +1 or -1 4d space), and somehow reflects it back. Break physics whenever possible.

For it to not be pulled apart by space and time and to keep it simple, the cube would have to exist at all times in one spot. If it could move, it would move from the place it would be in the future and the place it was in the past, retroactively changing where it just so happened to always be. It digests its prey by spreading its present matter across multiple periods of time, using it to sustain itself in the past, present, and future.

That's how I'd make it.

>>4285596
First, It isn't like there's a ceiling or floor to block line of sight.
Second, all that pushing him out would really do is change his orientation with respect to that plane.

>>4285626
>>4285596 here
However our friend's ability to from without see an image of his world presumably similar to what we would see muddies things up. That would require a 2d retina like we have. Likewise decent sight in a 4d world requires a 3d retina (looks like http://www.urticator.net/maze/ ). So it's probably unwise to use Flatland as a bible for anything. But in a hypothetical situation *not* using Flatland as a reference, we aren't starting with an assumption that 2d creatures cannot see outside their world.

>>4285671
> First, It isn't like there's a ceiling or floor to block line of sight.
The situation was poorly explained. Maybe there was just nothing outside to see.

> Second, all that pushing him out would really do is change his orientation with respect to that plane.
Enabling him to see it from a new "3d" perspective.

>>4285608

Also, what I meant was light that moves along the 4D position. It's easy enough to describe something in an arbitrary amount of dimensions, as long as you ignore any change or movement along the unknown dimensions' axis.

For example: Lightbulb gives off light. This starting point shall be the centre for this study (therefor [0,0,0,0] position).

Your eye is at, lets say [0,10,20,0]. You see the lightbulb because the light went from the lightbulb to your eye. Now, if the light bounces off the wall [100,20,30,0], then to your eye, you see that as well, and know it's position.

But if the light beam somehow moves along the 4th axis to, say, [0,10,20,1], you would not see it whatsoever, as your eye isn't at that position, and unless the light reflects off of something to the 0 position on the 4th axis, you will never see it.

What we would need to see in the 4th dimension truely, is the ability to accept outside information from other positions along the 4th axis. To do this you require eyes in that position (meaning your eyes would have to be 4D hyperspheres), and a nervous system able to connect from the brain [5,10,20,0], to one of the parts of your hypersphere eye at say, [0,10,20,1].

Then you'd need a brain/conciousness that wouldn't instantly go insane from that sort of data input.

>>4285685
Nice point, the Square's perception was strictly one dimensional.
Also, the book isn't exactly internally consistent. Lines are extremely deadly due to their superfine cutting edge, but the square doesn't pose any threat to the sphere from hitting him despite having the same advantage.

I preferred the first one.

>>4285741 Then you'd need a brain/conciousness that wouldn't instantly go insane from that sort of data input.

Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. Take a look at that maze game I posted above. It's confusing, doubly so because you're trying to map from a 2d picture to a 3d cube, and triply so because the world is constructed like a game of Descent, and quadruply so because the world is wire-frame, but it's not insanity-inducing. The hard part is finding some 4d space and getting an appropriate eyeball.

>>4285718
>The situation was poorly explained. Maybe there was just nothing outside to see.
That was one thing that wasn't poorly explained. It even went to the trouble of describing exactly what they saw, and special cases that came as a result. (Lines)
>>4285741
Going with your wall example. Depending on what 3 of those 4 dimensions you actually see normally, you could see an object at [100,20,30], [100,30,0], [100,20,0], or [20,30,0].

>>4285824

Well, thats not what I'm talking about here. The matrix is basically [x,y,z,a]. Where x/y/z are the 3 dimensions we are used to, and a is the 4th axis.

Essentially, if you had a viewing area of 5a large, and the wall was 3a large on the axis, you would see a wall at [100,20,30,0],[100,20,30,1] and [100,20,30,2] or thereabouts.

>>4285814

Well, okay, yeah you wouldn't go insane, I know that. But such a large shift in perspective would be HUGELY disorienting.

>>4285824
It describes some things they saw, but I don't recall it describing it in enough detail to indicate whether there were things to see other than Mr. Square's world. I'd reference my copy, but I'm not sure where it is.

>>4285685

I am genuinely frightened that I found the end of the maze in 5 minutes.

>>4285872 Well, okay, yeah you wouldn't go insane, I know that. But such a large shift in perspective would be HUGELY disorienting.

I'm just saying I think a standard-issue brain would suffice. I certainly hope so. 4d games are my plan to take the industry by storm.

>>4285872
>Essentially, if you had a viewing area of 5a large, and the wall was 3a large on the axis, you would see a wall at [100,20,30,0],[100,20,30,1] and [100,20,30,2] or thereabouts.
It depends on how you're oriented with respect to axis a. However, you would only be able to perceive [100,20,30] from your clarification. It could cause some weird effects due to light speed delay if they were reflected from alot of points on the same object though.You could possibly see an object still in the same position after it's moved though.

>>4285921
It's public domain.
http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

>>4285935
You may be a 4-dimensional creature at heart.

Look at it this way. Us, looking at a square, can see all parts of the square, in and out.

In 4d space, you can see every part of a cube, in and out, at the same time.

>>4285978
Anyway, if people in flatland had 3d vision then they wouldn't be able to perceive each other for the exact same reason they can have trouble seeing lines. The writer conveniently forgets this with the sphere though.

>>4285961
>It depends on how you're oriented with respect to axis a. However, you would only be able to perceive [100,20,30] from your clarification. It could cause some weird effects due to light speed delay if they were reflected from alot of points on the same object though.You could possibly see an object still in the same position after it's moved though.

Huh? I mean that at the position of [100,20,30] you can see 0a to 5a due to the viewing angle your at, distance, etc. etc.. Nothing else matters. Just like if your near a wall and look at it, you can only see X meters by Y meters.

And the light wouldn't be reflected from multiple points per light item. Just like every other point of the wall [99,20,30,0] to [80,20,30,0] are all different beams of light heading from the wall point to your eyes, the different 'a' points are all separate light beams, meaning they all reach your eye at the same time (well, besides the infentesimally small time lapse for the distance between 'a' values, which I'm sure would be negligible).

It works the exact same as if the light was completely normal and never moved out of 0a space. All thats required to see is A) light created from source B) light bounce off object C) bounced light hits your eye

If your eye isn't where the light is (like a normal eye wouldn't be at [0,10,20,1], since we are only 1a unit large, at least our eyes), then we don't see it.

Guys, I just threw up a bunch of blood.

>>4285978
Thanks, but no need. I found it on my shelf. It is indeed as I remembered.

>>4285814
Well.. Just imagine falling into a direction that didn't exist before

It'd be pretty freaky

>>4286050
They don't have trouble seeing lines, except from the ends where they appear very small. And you don't need to have any special restriction to be unaware that there is space above and below you. Just an eye that only views meaningfully in an arc.

>>4286056
Ok, I wasn't sure where you were going with your example.

>>4286117
The line when viewed straight on is a point. It literally has no width.
It would be like us trying to view a line from the side with absolutely no height. It would literally have no thickness whatsoever.

Well this has been an awesome discussion so far, but I gotta get sleep. Someone should archive this shit for the benefit of humanity.

Goddamn gotta get up for work in like 7 hours.

>>4286145
> The line when viewed straight on is a point. It literally has no width.
Right. Although women must have some measurable width to be able to anything.

> It would be like us trying to view a line from the side with absolutely no height. It would literally have no thickness whatsoever.
Doesn't the square later speculate that his countrymen do have some thickness? At any rate, as long as there is some detectable amount of light leaving the surface of a person, they are going to be visible. A piece of paper edge on, for example, is hard to see because of the visual noise in the background, not because it is invisible.

>>4286179
>Although women must have some measurable width to be able to anything.
What?

>>4286192
Eat, drink, have some kind of metabolism, bear young (do they do that?). Anything.

>>4286179
If they have that thickness then they aren't 2 dimensional. Second, if they did have 3d perception and thickness(Height), then they would have already noticed the change in height as opposed to rely on only how relatively long something appeared.

>>4286220
To a 4D being, or ability to do such things while lacking a measurable dimension would be just as vexing.

>>4286252
Yes, we also need to consider how a 2d object even eats without height.

>>4286237 If they have that thickness then they aren't 2 dimensional.
That's the logical conclusion.

> Second, if they did have 3d perception and thickness(Height), then they would have already noticed the change in height as opposed to rely on only how relatively long something appeared.
Unless that height is nearly infinitesimal. Besides, I don't personally assume that they are able to percieve 3d scenes properly. Doing this requires a 2d retina, which obviously won't fit in Flatland. Why can he do it in Spaceland? Who knows.

>>4286252
Not so. I can see how a 2d being in 2d space can eat and so on. I'm not so clear on 1d. But at any rate, I don't see how a 1d being in 2d space could do any of these things.

>>4286354
>Unless that height is nearly infinitesimal
Going by the assumptions they would be effectively invisible.
>Besides, I don't personally assume that they are able to percieve 3d scenes properly. Doing this requires a 2d retina, which obviously won't fit in Flatland. Why can he do it in Spaceland? Who knows.
Wait, what are we discussing then? Just the book in general?

>>4286399 Wait, what are we discussing then? Just the book in general?

At this point I have no idea. I don't even have a coherent point I'm working towards.

Let's talk about this instead:
What the heck does a 4-dimensional creature look like? Are two feet sufficient for it to walk? What are its feed and musclature to accomplish this like? What the heck is 4-dimensional architecture like?

>>4286456
* feet

>>4286378

You could think of 1D life like a Turing Machine tape with many reads, particles with only length jostling each other back and forth.

From an information theory perspective someone a lot more motivated than us could probably design a program that operates in 1D to emulate life in higher dimensions, but I don't think it would ever work natively since a 1D organism would only ever be interacting with other 1D organisms through a single (1D) atom.

Name for said Monster:

Metatron's Gelatinous Cube

>>4286456
It depends. Going from the 2d vision perspective (us), he could literally look like he constantly changes shape as he moves, disappear and reappear, and change size.
>Are two feet sufficient for it to walk?
Why not, we have things that can move with one foot. All he really needs is the ability to rotate in 4 dimensions.
>What are its feed and musclature to accomplish this like?
They would be 4 dimensional. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to perform his full range of rotation.
>What the heck is 4-dimensional architecture like?
It would be made with geometric shapes that have 3d dimensional shapes for sides, much like we have objects with 2 dimensional shapes for size.

ITT: Fuck my brain.

>>4286534
>> Are two feet sufficient for it to walk?
> Why not, we have things that can move with one foot. All he really needs is the ability to rotate in 4 dimensions.
Yes, that's my hunch as well.

>> What are its feed and musclature to accomplish this like?
> They would be 4 dimensional. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to perform his full range of rotation.
Well, duh. I'm talking specifics. Not that I really expect an answer for something I haven't figured out myself.

>> What the heck is 4-dimensional architecture like?
> It would be made with geometric shapes that have 3d dimensional shapes for sides, much like we have objects with 2 dimensional shapes for size.
Again, duh.

2d6/1d20 SAN loss, at least.

Not sure the rest of the stats would matter.

Google Time Cube, look at diagrams.

>>4282397
>>4284030

Go to Hell. Just...go to Hell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

Imagining the tenth dimension.

>>4286582
>Well, duh. I'm talking specifics. Not that I really expect an answer for something I haven't figured out myself.
>Again, duh.
I really don't know what you're wanting from me then. We could literally be 4 dimensional and not be able to tell the difference. Trying to model something like their architecture would require multiple 3d models considering our ability to only perceive things as 2d images. You could have stuff like rooms with doors that open back into themselves, and maybe even what would appear to be straight vertical hallways that they can walk up easily.

>>4286683
> I really don't know what you're wanting from me then. We could literally be 4 dimensional and not be able to tell the difference.
What I want to do is visualize the sort of musculature and so on that a 4d creature would need to function. I'm also curious about whether 3 eyes would be necessary for adequate depth perception. I think so.

> Trying to model something like their architecture would require multiple 3d models considering our ability to only perceive things as 2d images.
This is something I've thought about a lot: what is the most fruitful way to visualize 4d environments and objects? I almost think it might be best just to imagine them as a 4d person would see them, and rotate them to get a fuller idea of their appearance.

> You could have stuff like rooms with doors that open back into themselves, and maybe even what would appear to be
That doesn't sound physically possible. We're still in Euclidean space here.

> straight vertical hallways that they can walk up easily.
I think gravity would like a word with you.

>>4286768
>What I want to do is visualize the sort of musculature and so on that a 4d creature would need to function. I'm also curious about whether 3 eyes would be necessary for adequate depth perception. I think so.
3 eyes could work like you were wanting as a replacement for a 3d retina. However it wouldn't be required. It's not we require 2 eyes to see.
>This is something I've thought about a lot: what is the most fruitful way to visualize 4d environments and objects? I almost think it might be best just to imagine them as a 4d person would see them, and rotate them to get a fuller idea of their appearance.
That's kind of just using real time to model the 4th dimension.
>That doesn't sound physically possible. We're still in Euclidean space here.
We live on the surface of a planet where we can walk all we can in one direction and arrive back where we were. There isn't really anything special about this. I'm also talking about it being perceived by someone who can only see 3 spatial dimensions.
>I think gravity would like a word with you.
That depends wholly on how you're oriented, and the direction of the force of gravity. Gravity as described by classical mechanics is uni-dimensional. Even with the revised forms of it, that hasn't really changed. In the context of a 4d space, your cross section could easily be warped enough to perceive just such as well.

>>4286867
> 3 eyes could work like you were wanting as a replacement for a 3d retina.
No more than 3 lines of pixels can give a decent picture.

> However it wouldn't be required. It's not we require 2 eyes to see.
No, but I'm talking about depth perception.

> That's kind of just using real time to model the 4th dimension.
How so? How many people accurately envision three-dimensional objects? There's nothing wrong with rotating something to see all sides of it. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that a person only view these things in "slices". I'm saying that projecting them into 3d space (the same view a 4d creature would get) might be best.

> We live on the surface of a planet where we can walk all we can in one direction and arrive back where we were. There isn't really anything special about this.
I thought you were talking about some kind of space warping thing. Agreed, 4d buildings are likely to have hallways.

> I'm also talking about it being perceived by someone who can only see 3 spatial dimensions.
No reason to make things more difficult. I'm assuming I have 4d vision.

> That depends wholly on how you're oriented, and the direction of the force of gravity.
The direction of gravity is down, making walking up a mite difficult.

>>4286988
>No, but I'm talking about depth perception.
There's monocular depth perception.
>How so? How many people accurately envision three-dimensional objects? There's nothing wrong with rotating something to see all sides of it. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that a person only view these things in "slices". I'm saying that projecting them into 3d space (the same view a 4d creature would get) might be best.
I never said there was anything wrong with it. It's how 4 dimensional hypercubes are modeled.
>No reason to make things more difficult. I'm assuming I have 4d vision.
That makes it less difficult?
>The direction of gravity is down, making walking up a mite difficult.
Up can mean one of 4 different dimensions. That's kind of hard to just state.

>>4287192
CONGRATULATIONS, SIR.

you have fucking EARNED the title of Xom's Champion.

if you'll excuse me, i'm going to go add skittles to my brain until i can talk it back into returning to it's place in my skull.

NEEEEERRRRDDSSSS

Fucking science.

oh gawd

a gelatinous tesseract

ITT: I stopped understanding what the thread is about after the 20th post. What the shit you guys!?

Is this... thorough discussion? In my 4chan?

>>4289089
No.

THIS.

IS.

/tg/!

*boot*

I have SuperNatural Wisdom.
NO God mentality can Know my 4 Day Cube.
No Bible Word equals my TimeCubed Earth.
How Stupid - Pay to worship Queer as a God.
Mom and Dad created you as a Trinity, the
Mirror of opposite brain meld into "We" Ego.
Your body is of their Creation, honor "We".

Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and King of Genius.

THERE IS NO DAMN GOD -
ONEism IS A DEATH TRAP
for Mom and Dad Opposites.
You're Educated ONE Nitwits,
I possess Math & Science Proof.
A Queer as God = Queer HIV.
Every Creation is of Opposites,
Not a human or planet is One.
Seek Wisdom of Cubic Life
Intelligence - or you die evil.
****************************************************************************************
Educators are KILLING US -
teaching Death value ONEism.
A male God without a female
Opposite = Queer Worship.
ONEism of a God Is Death.

Adults Evolve From Children,
not from a Queer deified as a
God by Religious/Academic
Organized Crime, Swindling
Educated Stupid and Gullible.
Love for God = Hate for Child.
Horrendous HOAX on the
Educated, for they worship
deified Queer as their God -
that is Criminal Education.
Life has 4 Opposing Corners,
Earth rotates 4 Corner Days.
Taught One equates Death.
Every Human is Composed
of 4 Corners, existing only as
Cubicians. No Man or God
exists as One, for Cubic fish
of Opposites, divide the Egg
into 4 Opposing Quadrants.
One Male God only, without
Opposing Female Opposite,
equates to Queer Worship
and Horror for Humanity,
deliberate spread of AIDS,
more dangerous than Leper.
About time for Queer colony.
Queers killed my lil Brother.
A Queer God induces AIDS.