Our conceptualization of dimensions is a limitation of our biology and encoded in most of our logic, mathematics and physics, with some notable exceptions.

—-

—-

In short a set of 360 degree radar detectors arranged in just the right way over a period of time with a holographic memory.Nothing out of reach of today’s technology.

—-

 You can sum them up or you can express them as they come up. I prefer maximum over minimum, a large amount of ideas as they emerge as opposed to a summation. But I’ll take what I can get

—-

I could ask it:“What if humans had 360 radar detectors instead of eyes? How would that have changed how we created mathematics, logic and physics?How would that change our view of dimensions? Geometry?I consider ‘points’ to be analogous to the pain of a needle to the skin. But if we didn’t feel pain that way and had 360 vision with history-vision, would we have points in these systems?

=====

  True, but as the gravitational warping would be part of our sensory organ’s ability to perceive, there wouldn’t be any confusion.Plus while there would be differences in perspective because you can see through objects (no boundaries) and you could ALSO see yourself from every angle (remember there is inner vision here), you’d already have the cognitive capability of seeing from every other perspective.

—–

  I think way we explain and understand mechanics would be drastically different, plus with the entire history of objects stretching before us as no different than looking down a road into the distance (without loss of visual acuity), our ability to predict the future would be improved tremendously. Still imperfectly but far better.

—

  Ah well we’re still rooted on Earth 🙂 I have the assumption that we’re otherwise similar beings that aren’t floating around as spheres in space somewhere bumping into each other on occasion 🙂Great point about simultaneity and light cones — that’s the kind of thing I was looking for.But remember too : there’s no “center” of these light cones. There’s no “points”. They don’t converge on a point.It’s 360 vision. If someone is looking at you sideways and they cut a secant through you, you’d ALSO be able to know what that secant sees. No radii to worry about here.

—-‘

  I like raw thoughts expressed without fear the best. 🙂 Thank you!

====

  good good – yes – that’s the level I’m looking for. Thank you!Ok, so from this perspective, we’d not have to worry about spatial perspectives because that would be far simpler, but instead would be concerned more with time perspectives.

=====

  But – even with that, the likelihood of beings with these sense organs needing to communicate with a being 300,000 k away would likely be small, wouldn’t perspective differences ‘in the local’ regarding time be small enough that we might not develop the ability to compensate for such things?That’s when we’d start concerning ourselves with perspective differences I think. Astrophysics. Still with the history of objects stretching before us, the time compensation shouldn’t be _that_ big of a deal, I’d think.We’d not be omniscent, but our ability to predict would be improved because we’d have so much historical perspective to base our assumptions off of.

====

  [ps – this is the first time I’ve used “secant” in any context other than high school. I had to look it up to confirm that was the right word and thankfully, it was]

====

  They’d be necessary from the way we developed mathematics We’re currently beings who basically see from a limited range perspective, “point-like”. Everything visually comes in a 2mm hole in our heads. We have two for 3D close up vision (well, I don’t – to me, it’s “cyclops” vision because of a lazy eye with no central vision so my brain merges them together in a weird way but not 3D)We can’t see behind our heads. Everything’s streaming in through this little hole.

=====

  Would we still need mathematics? Sure. But I think it would be developed differently

====

====

  That panted rooms illusion is awesome!You’re right in that there’s limitations to our bandwidth based upon our physical size.A planet sized outwards-and-through-self 360 degree vision would have a greater bandwidth of information for its perspective than a 360 degree viewing human or a 360 viewing ant.Having the history unfurling before us gives us a heads up though because in the case of the room, upon your first exposure to this room (which presumably you could already see if you paid attention to it because there’s no blockage of objects obstructing view), you’d see its construction up through and including the present moment, so you’d have a broader view with that.But yes – the bandwidth issue. That’s an important point.

=====

 Oh there’d still be ongoing compression into simpler forms but I think the forms being simplified into would be of a different nature automatically, as one would be compressing an object’s internal and eternal structural elements along with its history, making for a difficult-to-compress uniqueness.But, we do that anyway, finding similarities between people’s lives. Example is the Gilgamesh hero tale — how many tales (histories) are compressed to a similar model? I expect our brains would do much the same as they already do in that way with regards to historicity.’

—–

 Oh I hold to more of a stochastic “error correction” model more than mathematical (I know it’s modeled by math too but it’s more akin to sparsely integrated ‘bit-flips’ for distinctions on inner templates rather than point and line calculations]

=====

 “Why can’t I find my car in the parking lot?” All the combined histories of all the parking lots you’ve ever been in are sorted through simultaneously and because of our over-eager compression algorithms, it’s hard to distinguish one from another. [that’s how I view it anyway]

====

 I’ll have to find it but the idea isn’t mine honestly. I read an article about why it’s hard to find your car and it was based on that principle of over-compression in our internal models. If I find it, I’ll share it. Had a neat picture of the same parking lot over over a period of time to illustrate it.

=====

 Might have been based on this study, although this looks a little different even though it’s a similar concept [formation of episodic memory and association]. Still, I know I saw one with a better illustration and explanation.

http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(15)00559-0

===

 Read a review of it It seems to be a “Consciousness is an illusion” argument, basing it upon our cognitive flaws towards illusions.

===

  Yeah – we have a lot of leaks in our cognitive systems, but that’s what allows for the compression of so much information and room for memory via comparing novel stimuli vs stored templates and noting the differences.Most of what we perceive is based upon memory and very little novel information. The saccading of eyes is great example for that.

====

 I’ve often wondered, “what if” we could process the uniqueness of things without requiring compression into patterns?

=====

  I don’t believe consciousness is an illusion, although we may adhere to many illusions that get ‘stuck’ in our construction-of-self.Encoding errors. Still, they’re correctable with a willing mind.

=====

 I’ve just heard so many arguments through the years. “Because certain cognitives leading up to the N400 mark occur before the grammatical systems ‘kick in’ (we can’t explain it yet), therefore we have no free will, which over the past few years has led to being pointed to a Sam Harris video, although I’d heard it prior to Sam Harris becoming pop guy for that stuff.

=====

 [and i don’t want to get started on Eagleman’s NeuroLaw stuff…. I mean it’s great that he found a niche to pursue but it makes me feel like I’m stuck in 19th century Science – the “we’ve nearly got it all figured out” mentality…. – sorry , I need more coffee

====

 I guess my ‘thing’ is knowing when one leaves induction and starts deduction. My preference is for abductive logic. What scares me is that i know what these things mean now as I still feel like i shouldn’t

====