The Problem With Observations & Dimensions
Updated: Nov 7, 2022
The Problem With Observations
From a distance, we don’t perceive depth well, which is why we think of constellations as coplanar when individual stars in constellations are often light-years apart and have no relationship with stars we group them with.
Consider two vectors v1 and v2 where v1 = 2x^ + 5k^ & v2 = 5x^.
From a distance, v2 would appear more than twice as big as v1, for the z component of v1 wouldn't be visible. An observer would conclude v2 to be bigger than v1, for it is self-evident. He might ask others to confirm his observations. He might ever get cameras to take pictures. All modes and observers would support his conclusion. He might then use deductive logic to say a lot more about those two vectors. He might formulate his entire worldview on it. And he would be all wrong. This is the problem with observations and logic. Logic is just a pattern that follows from a set of self-evident truths, which may not be self-evident at all, as we see above.
This is what I was struggling with in 2017. If our entire worldview is based on assumptions that we call self-evident, we are likely wrong about everything. We likely do not know anything. That was the year I found philosophy. I presented my concerns to Dr. Anthony Neal, whom I had met at a conference on campus. He recommended I read Aristotle's Organon. Aristotle had written about the first principle and its demonstrability in the Organon. The two books in my logo are Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics. Dr Neal held those books as I took a picture.
The problem of observation has no solutions. We can never know if our observations are correct. There is no reason to think that v1 and v2 do not have more components in dimensions we can’t see. I am inclined to think that we perceive nothing at all and would be wrong about everything if we relied on observational learning.
The problem with dimensions
I am inclined to think that dimensions do not exist. The 3D world may be a result of simultaneous observation from two different points of view. Imagine how a one-eyed creature would view the world. His range of view would likely be circular. He would not be able to perceive depth. To get a good idea, we can look at pictures produced by phone cameras. It is very easy to make things bigger or smaller than they are. In group pictures, short people can look tall and vice-versa, depending on where they stand in relation to the camera.
When we look at the same object from two points of perception at once, we add a definition of the percept. Some archers use only one eye to aim because two eyes produce two lines of sight, producing two images in turn.
With two eyes, our view is flat and horizontal. It resembles a plane perpendicular to the ground, like a cinema hall screen. We don’t see too much above or below it. The object we focus on becomes an element on the plane and everything else becomes its background.
If we add another line of sight that is higher than the other two eyes, we would develop a sense of/be able to perceive vertical levels. We would have a much better idea of how high something is in relation to things below and above it. The object of perception would be defined by a flat plane and a horizontal plane. The horizontal plane is the additional definition yielding the perception of vertical levels. It would be clear that everything above and below the plane is also part of the background.
Light rays coming from an object on the horizontal plane would reach the horizontal eyes and the third eye at different angles. Thus, the image produced by the two horizontal eyes would be vertically apart from the that produced in the third eye. The brain can use the additional information to create a sense of vertical definition.
Here is a thought experiment to understand this. Imagine two kites flying at the same height. They are horizontally apart. With two eyes that give us a good horizontal definition, we should be able to tell which kite is closer to us. However, if we are to look at two kites flying at different heights but along the same vertical line, our horizontal definition wouldn’t help much. Telling which kite is closer would be a difficult task. In most cases, our two lines of sight are horizontally apart, not vertically {they can be vertically apart if the object is high enough and to the left or right enough for light rays reflecting off them to reach both eyes at different angles of inclination}. Therefore, they produce images that are horizontally apart, not vertically.
If the third eye is vertical, then the visual experience may become much more extraordinary. Both horizontal and vertical definitions would be top-notch.
The number of eyes, their placement, and the frequencies they process all contribute to the visual experience. By no means is our experience authentic or definitive. Imagine we had four eyes looking in four directions, the world would probably look curved. Front, back, right, and left would mean nothing without the reference point of two horizontal eyes that can't look behind. We would never even think that there might be four directions (they don't exist anyway). We wouldn't express our sense of location in terms of distance and direction but in that of radial separation. Imagine we had six eyes, four in four directions, one looking up, and one looking below. Now, our view would likely be spherical. We would be able to perfectly tell how far and high an aerial object is. The concept of dimension would likely not exist.
To sum it all up, as I like to say, the Universe is not what it looks like. It is merely resolved that way. Either the concept of dimension is bogus or there are infinite dimensions.
