Can life exist in 2D? The physics of a 2D Universe

[@manofcultura]

Somewhere in a 2d universe, someone is complaining about 2d girls and claiming 1D girls are better and never break your heart.

[@cmbaz1140]

So true...here is a pic of my gal .

[@derpgaara2295]

2D guy can only see 1D stuff

[@fumomofumosarum5893]

@@cmbaz1140 she's hot, dude.

[@heliusuniverse7460]

@@derpgaara2295 but the 1D line would look the same when rotated,contrary to what would happen to say a square

[@ironsnowflake1076]

〰 〰 👈 Thicc one dimensional girls 〰 ---- 👈 oof :(

[@eden7010]

Meanwhile, in a 2d universe: "Could Life Exist in Three Dimensions?"

[@tiqosc1809]

no because third dimension creature will lose too much heat to surface

[@efini_fc4276]

@@tiqosc1809 which creature?

[@Aureus07]

Meanwhile in a 4d universe: can life exist in 3 dimensions

[@StarSpawnMusic]

@@Aureus07 No. The laws of physics as we know them would be so different as to not allow life to exist.

[@thelosttraveler5808]

@@StarSpawnMusic And i will repeat "As we know them" currently science still doesn't know lot about the universe, maybe future studies will change completely the vision of the universe as we know it :)

[@ub880]

Some creatures in the 2D world: "The earth is not flat, it's a line!"

[@rasyad9048]

Line is flat...

[@FishyDaGamer]

Rasyad Line is 1 dimension

[@rasyad9048]

@@FishyDaGamer got me there, i did not know that. Thanks

[@aaale376]

LoL XD

[@parishna4882]

@@rasyad9048 :) a line is two points. indicating 1d. the 11'th dimension is a point. with no where else to go from there. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpvWmKKOq9OGqrs

[@matthewb6743]

2D people want our soda pops, theirs is too flat

[@Callofdutymaster22]

ha i see that

[@Cl-2048]

If it weren't for my love of jokes, I would be sabotaging your O2 for that.

[@SweetStaticBun]

So is their earth lmao

[@madkirk7431]

LMAO

[@TheGamer-hf7ql]

Soda Flat

[@huhneat1076]

Meanwhile in 4-D: "And thusly, 3-D life is impossible."

[@Ntrinzc]

Huh Neat ya but no, humans actually exist in 5 dimensions but just don’t know it yet, otherwise imagination wouldn’t work how it currently does

[@GloryBlazer]

You are both thinking too much, 4D beings would be far beyond our complexity and would figure this stuff out.

[@taventube2151]

@@Ntrinzc what is the 5th dimension

[@VytenisR1]

@@Ntrinzc how do you know?

[@Ntrinzc]

Yaboku Last you underestimate how deeply I've dived into this subject, I don't blame you tho I phrased my statement too simply jumping ahead of a ton of shit, but trust me I didn't just make that up haha

[@newton_lod]

According with my weeb friends, life does exist in 2D

[@Dexuz]

I can confirm that 2D girls are superior to the 3D ones.

[@itsmauro9693]

According to my penis, 2d life is real

[@tadicahya6439]

In 4 dimension,there's some dude who complain 4D girls is suck and 3D girls are better

[@spookyhogan]

There it is

[@brainmind4070]

HENTAI

[@stimpy_thecat]

I used to know a guy who was a two-dimensional being. He was a nice guy but a total square.

[@sonicfon]

@@krisematics6501 folding , if I say.

[@bright-noise]

Get out

[@thesovietflaganthemguy2344]

James I wanted to say that

[@latefordinner4513]

Well damn

[@robynb7083]

Hahahahaha Hahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ah ah.... Hahahahaha

[@ziggy8253]

“2D life, uh, finds a way.” -Goldblum

[@MouseGoat]

uh, warry cool. uh.

[@DaP84]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/h4jckK2ZotSjpbM

[@l.l.9806]

Chaos theory , uh.

[@WaterPidez]

Meanwhile in a 2d universe: Could life exist in a 1d dimension

[@sometree2744]

A 1-dimentional dimension? Naw, dude. Self-replicating molecules? Maybe. Living organisms? No.

[@WaterPidez]

@@sometree2744 yeah lmao its impossible and even if it was it would be impossible to move anywhere as u cant avoid an obstacle in 1d

[@匚尺丂乇-k3v]

It's like being spaghettified by a blackhole

[@parishna4882]

I see your POINT.

[@siddhantnikam768]

"We don't know about the universe, the only thing we might know is that 3d does exist" - Siddhant Nikam (7 grade physicist)

[@MidnightSt]

"It is estimated that only 10% of synapses are active at any given time." This is where the myth that we only use 10% of our brain comes from. Someone doesn't understand that "10% of the lights are up at any given time" means it's different 10% of the lights every time, therefore 100% are being lit up overall, but by 10% big chunks.

[@MolecularMachine]

It's also best not to forget that 100% of your neurons firing at once is called a seizure.

[@paulol7224]

@@MolecularMachine when I tell that to someone I explain it like playing a piano

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@MidnightSt]

@@elaiottoiale4216 what the...?

[@manofcultura]

Yeah I remember reading it’s because the neurological connections of the brain can only have a certain amount of ohms to operate properly. Too much brain activity will disturb the resistance needed for the electrical synapses to fire. This is probably why people who have been shocked directly to the brain have neurons literally burn out like fuses. Essentially the needed amperage for neurons to effectively work is so high, but the material of our neurons so fragile, that our brain is limited to charging only 10% every cycle.

[@BenjaminBjornsen]

I have a question a little bit off topic: If you can fit infinite 0 dimensional points on a 1D line, and infinite 1 dimensional lines on a 2D surface, and infinite 2 dimensional surfaces in a 3D space, do this continue into 4D where say you can fit infinite 3 dimensional cubes in say a tesseract ?

[@ArvinAsh]

You got it! ...Infinte 3D cubes in a 4D cube.

[@omnipotent1992]

A 4d box containing every 3d instance. deterministic universe anyone?

[@offzard]

Nice, finally a interesting comment

[@olbluelips]

@@omnipotent1992 For sure! You could think of every state in the universe frozen in time as 3d slices of a 4d object. That's how time is like its own dimension

[@fenn_fren]

0 dimensional point sounds like the amount of common sense I have lmao.

[@piggyman1568]

I got real confused when you almost zoomed in on my house

[@MeedyMedia]

Bruh

[@corneliuscorcoran9900]

The Earth is not 'your house'... share peeples. 'Zoomed in on OUR house.'

[@lukewatson8848]

Guys, I found the communist

[@zfloyd1627]

@@corneliuscorcoran9900 lol ur a communist.

[@カスカディア国人]

Cornelius Corcoran did you call comrade?

[@niranjanr8075]

I feel something when he says “it’s coming up right now”

[@Sorrelhas]

"Oni-chan, I'm going to... ... I'm going to... ...another dimension!"

[@noahway13]

I get caught up in the story and forget and when he says that it usually surprises me a little.

[@logiticalresponse9574]

Its called an erection . In sept 2001 new york city got caught shaking its towers more than 3 times 15 years later someone said "its cumming up rite ......... .... to be continued

[@niranjanr8075]

Murfie's law Defined oh god

[@dainmeister]

So this is where the myth of "only 10% of the brain is being used" comes from. It's just a misinterpretation

[@pilotavery]

Well 10% of your brain is on at any given point in time but you definitely do use all of your brain hah. Like... Sure if you take a photo of your engine only one cylinder is actually ever firing at any given point in time but that doesn't mean that you only need that one.

[@the_sophile]

he only said that we uses 10 percent at a given time.Watch it again.you will understand

[@williambarnes5023]

If 100% of the circuits in your computer were on at the same time, it would just melt and destroy your data. If 100% of your brain is in use, that's a grand mal seizure. The pattern of what parts of your brain is in use and which ones are not is the important part of the job.

[@admiralotter9338]

William Barnes It’s not 100%, but we do use a lot more than 10% at a given time in most situations. I mean, your brain has to keep all of your organs and organ systems running, create memories, call for chemicals like endorphins and adrenaline to be created, constantly receive signals from many, many nerve cells and then make sure the signals it sends go through, etc. If you only were using 10% of your brain, that would probably just be some of the things I mentioned above, however all of them (expect perhaps certain chemicals like adrenaline) are happening at the same time at a given time when you’re awake. This misconception is understandable as it was widely spread due to a 2013 study/paper, if you or someone else reading this wants to know more or if you just want a source instead of some random KZbin commenter then I would recommend this article: www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321060#how-much-of-our-brains-do-we-use

[@admiralotter9338]

Oh and I forgot to specify, sorry, the 10% of synapses thing doesn’t necessarily mean only 10% of the brain at all is being used, because they may turn off and on very quickly, so unless you could stop time you might not even tell that the synapse turned off instead of just not transmitting info (which is also possible)

[@AndrewDotsonvideos]

This is an awesome idea

[@KRMLZ01]

This is the least liked comment that was made by someone verified i have ever seen

[@SunGodAtomes]

Hi

[@eschatonthemustafa7041]

I thought about before alot of time ago

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@daugirdassvitrigaila5644]

I have to diss agree with no life on higher dimentions. Higher dimentions have different physics that we cannot or can barely understand. Some we might. 4 dimentional objects APEAR to move and be unstable in 3 dimentions like for example a 3d cube in or spere changes shape and size while passing trough 2 dimention. And I have a theory that god exists on 10 (or 11 or whatever dimention is the final one)dimention because according to scientists this is the final possible dimension and apparently you wouldbe so powerful that you could create anything. Like being able to teleport and pass solids In 4d. But. This is MY theory. You can believe it or not.

[@pladselsker8340]

"you are unique in the world, like everybody else"

[@gri5in862]

Plads Elsker hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[@jrlopez1027.]

Doesnt that make you not unique...what if everyone is unique? Does unique loose its meaning? Why am I asking you all these questions?

[@purplefish2787]

Jrlopez r/whooosh

[@thomas.thomas]

@@jrlopez1027. nah, everyone can be unique without everyone loosing it's uniqueness

[@thomas.thomas]

@@purplefish2787 this is not reddit

[@rovertn7521]

*Flat Earther has entered the chat*

[@williamcozart9166]

Jesus Christ, every damn YT chat I see has at least one guy saying "research flat earth people!" Usually it's this one guy named Flat Earth Jackal. What the hell dude?

[@timmy18135]

Tell him to drink 🍸of deeper understanding

[@smilinggeneral8870]

more like weebs

[@joemck85]

2D flat earthers: Earth is a line, not a circle! Wake up, sheeple!

[@44חוגטגקשידל]

more like *LINE EARTHER*

[@Sorrelhas]

This is one of those cases where I know exactly why KZbin is recommending this to me

[@ArvinAsh]

And why is that?

[@Sorrelhas]

@@ArvinAsh Oh boy, sorry for the wall of text! Basically Waifu culture and the "2D women" meme. A growing trend in today's internet culture is men taking fictional women (usually of Japanese origin) as their significant other (sometimes in actual relationships). This is both an interesting phenomenon and an in-joke among anime fans. You may have gotten other comments referring to "2D women" or "waifus". Obviously I knew the video wasn't going to be about this (and the video's really interesting and well put together, by the way), but it was really funny to see it in my recommendations.

[@ArvinAsh]

@@Sorrelhas Ah, ok. Thanks for enlightening me. I guess I've been living under a rock.

[@user-hm9fj9nc1o]

@Thomas Cath-Fawcett depends on perspective, 2d could be up down, left right, but imagining a life form in it would be the same as left right, forward backward, only difference is the orientation you look at it from (assuming a 3d viewpoint)

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@camerongray7767]

Imagine how complex life in the 4th dimension would be. Amazing

[@SonsOfMars.]

thats just it, you cannot imagine it. its unfathomable. then theres the 5th to 11th dimensions.

[@Arnþor]

@@SonsOfMars. It's not really unimaginable. It's just hard to visualize looking forward and seeing your space in multiple different variations of itself on (potentially) different times all technically happening simultaneously. (speculation)

[@SonsOfMars.]

@@Arnþor lol let me know when you find any sort of depiction of the 7th dimension.

[@Ligerbee]

@@Arnþor it really is. we evolved in a 3d space. so we never need to have the ability to know or think what a 4d space look like.

[@helmetongrass1893]

@@Ligerbee But maybe one day when we figure it out, we could possibly open a gate to the 4th diamension, just the fact that we discovered it means we can possibly one day interact with it, it would be like magic! you could fit tons of stuff into your pocket cuz it would have unlimited space, you could kick a ball from today to tomorrow, its insane!

[@circular17]

Here is a solution regarding limitations in connections and pores: have 3 types of matter. Type 1 interacts with all other types. Type 2 and 3 do not interact with each other, but interact with type 1. So to make a hermetic surface use type 1. If you want to make a pore that lets type 2 through, use type 3 locally. Conversely if you want to let type 3 through use type 2. Regarding neurons you can make connections using either type 2 or type 3, so that's twice as much possible connections. Or you can even make crossover by switching type where the the crossing is. Basically you can have a type 1 axon but when it crosses with another one, it becomes type 2 locally while the other becomes type 3 locally.

[@kylek4202]

Idk. I’m an idiot but I think that we may be looking at “life” as being something only possible if strictly similar to us. Same with gravity. Perhaps gravity behaves differently in a higher and/or lower dimension, and perhaps life in these higher and/or lower dimensions require different things for survival; I.e. maybe flatlanders don’t require food sources like we do. Maybe they don’t have a digestive system like we do. Maybe they don’t need stuff like water, protein, sodium, sunlight, etc like we do. Maybe they collect energy in a far different way than we could ever possibly imagine. Idk. Like I said, I’m an idiot, but I’d think that anything beyond our 3D realm wouldn’t be bound by any of our physics and sciences. Just a thought.

[@samuelcloud2782]

Is a good thought. It’s similar to the trivial solution in algebra though, cause we have no way to compare the “it would work...somehow” to anything we’re familiar with.

[@lukaszykas5095]

Thats a true

[@scart3redup304]

That is how I think when it comes to finding other life, people just look at what what we need. But maybe these creatures dont need air, water and light....

[@samb.6579]

Irrc we define life as capacity to 1) Grow 2) Metabolize 3) Respond to stimuli 4) Adapt 5) Reproduce We’ve already found things (viruses) which check a few boxes like respond to stimuli, adapt, and reproduce, but don’t really grow or metabolize so we don’t actually consider them to be alive. So there definitely is a line that’s being used to determine what we’re looking for.

[@lambda113]

mate exactly what i was thinking

[@greydeath4273]

I watch these videos like i actually have any clue what he's saying

[@laribibadro9588]

the entire universe is a place, and the place has three dimensions, so it is clear that there is no two-dimensional world in the universe, this world is nothingness in the universe, so is it reasonable for nothingness to have two dimensions, this is unreasonable and is an obvious contradiction, because nothingness has no one dimension, two dimensions, or anything else, because it is nothing. the nothingness has no distance, you must understand that the concept of one or two dimensions is only for something has a volume, the origin of the three dimensions is the volume, so if there is no volume, this means that there is no any dimension it is inconceivable to believe that there is something that exists equal to nothingness in the universe, this is a clear contradiction.

[@thewhizkid3937]

The concepts are not that hard

[@KanedaSyndrome]

I do have a clue, and you will too if you enable yourself.

[@nareshlathia5334]

It's a start. Like a start of a journey of a million miles. It starts with a single step.

[@greydeath4273]

I dont believe half of these comments, yall trying way to hard, it doesn't make you look cool acting like you know all this shit

[@giovanniyanez9294]

I've been facinated about higer and lower dimension. It's incredible that we barlely understand our universe but we are so prone to say no to others posibilities.

[@shaily191]

Exactly! I've been fascinated by multi- dimensions as well. Especially after learning about string theory. If there's multiple universes and multiple earths then there must be a plane that supports it, just like how our universe supports the earth. Also, why we have to assume that physics would be the same everywhere? If one can assume that parallel worlds exist with a physics (masses of electrons and particles) different from ours then a higher dimensional plane could exist too. For example, God. I truly believe he's a higher dimensional being living in a higher dimensional plane called heaven. Hence why no one has seen him but felt and hence why so many speculations about God)

[@outofthebox9699]

And you deny God yet you cant see higher dimensions?

[@ravenlord4]

The dimension wars of "The Three Body Problem" series got me thinking about this again. In the series, the universe started out with 10 spacial dimensions. and enemies would collapse dimensions against those who could not adapt to wipe each other out. The current universe is of course 3D, with a few 4D pockets remaining but growing smaller. And the 3D universe is being hit with 2D attacks, apparently by beings who can survive in 2D. This part makes it almost more horror than Sci-Fi.

[@thickfingersw.1730]

The series has got me spooked ever since I read the last book of cosmic horror a month ago. The Singer part got me in tears, but it also provides a horrifying answer to the silence of our universe. The notion that 3D-species are voluntarily choosing to collapse into two dimensions is terrifying. They'd obviously be sacrificing a lot doing so. Would their future state resemble anything of their old selves? I think if universes of lower dimensions exist, their laws of nature (fundamental forces, light, matter, any constants) would resemble nothing we know. Maybe entirely different principles would be at play in such a dimension, but to comprehend let alone hypothesise it would require a fundamentally different way of thinking for us in our three dimensional universe.

[@itsgoubie]

This video made me realize that we are actually an elaborate tube through which food passes

[@ezrakristianto8069]

Guy:"there's simply not enough freedom" USA:"allow us to introduce ourselves"

[@MaxCE]

* Forces a third dimension into the 2d world *

[@farmervillager8651]

but do they have 2d oil?

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@H1H1-d4g]

@@farmervillager8651 they can't It's 2d since there is no top or bottom Unless if axis z or x is removed

[@lilye7487]

The Plainverse is a great sci fi novel that goes pretty in depth into how 2D life would function.

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@WildStar2002]

Written by the same A.K. Dewdney mentioned in the video - great book!

[@amazonhaokip8888]

Maybe simpler.

[@IncompleteTheory]

Maybe somewhere there is a 2D Arvin pondering the possibility of 3D life?

[@dinil5566]

They video is 2D. So he is basically doing what you said.

[@reagame8700]

Doubtful. As far as we know, life in 3 dimensions is impossible.

[@RandomUser-tj3mg]

@@reagame8700 *2

[@mikehunt3688]

It simply isn’t possible for life to exist in 3 dimensions, heat would radiate from the being too much and it would quickly die from the cold

[@reagame8700]

@@RandomUser-tj3mg that was a joke.

[@aidenburrell1895]

I was wondering what these 2-dimensional molecules would be made of? If you think about it, when we reference something that is 2D and say you draw an example of it with a pencil and paper. The pencil is depositing very small particles of lead onto the paper, something that if you look close enough would have 3 dimensions. Another example, atoms are described as having a cloud of electrons, how is that possible in 2D? I haven't done much research on this subject but it just seems to me that the scientists glossed over the actual material aspect and went straight to the fantasy aspect. What would these "molecules" be made of? Is there anything that is really actually 2D in our 3D universe? Is 2D possible on an atomic scale? Even atoms have mass, is mass possible in 2D? So many questions.

[@dennistucker1153]

Love subject matter like this. Can life exist in 2D? To me, it is a matter of how we define life. So much scientific communication rely on everyone understanding and agreeing on 1 common set of definitions. I see so much lack of this everyday.

[@randomdude3066]

As creatures existing in 3 dimensions, we live on the surface of a planet, which is roughly spherical. What surface 2 dimensional creatures exist on? It would not make sense for them to live on *top* of a circle-planet surface, because that would mean more than 2 dimensions. The creatures would need to exist along the outside circumference of the circle.

[@oblomovIG]

Random Dude yes, that’s right - 2D planets would be circles, and 2D creatures would live on the circumference. A. K. Dewdney talks a bit about what this would entail for the creatures and their society in his novel ‘The Planiverse’

[@Dexuz]

@@oblomovIG Though a scene like the one depicted on this video could still exists, if the creatures lived in water, being able to move on the totality of their dimension.

[@FireyDeath4]

All this time I knew it would be like a platformer but didn't consider water

[@Dexuz]

@@FireyDeath4 Well even in Super Mario's "2D" world, he can still move in all possible directions, with the requirement of staying in water.

[@martiddy]

Well yeah basically, but 2d life could still live on the circumference of the circle as long as the properties of the fundamental forces are fine-tuned for 2D life to exist.

[@Nemoticon]

Ahhh, 'flat-earthers' are from the 2D verse! xD

[@sametcolak7409]

2D people: Aah line-earthers are from the 1D verse .d Think about it lol

[@shurik3nz346]

Dot-earthers

[@sametcolak7409]

@@shurik3nz346 Could there be negatlve dimensions? If there is, this could solve the problem of where did antimatter gone at the bigbang. (totally talking without sources)

[@thiccchungo1041]

Flat earther brains are from the first dimension

[@Nemoticon]

@@thiccchungo1041 Or possibly the last?

[@erdmannelchen8829]

Everything in a 2D World would float around freely though, as the creatures can't have a 'ground' to walk *on*. They'd need to swim to some sort of medium to move aswell.

[@avalanche6987]

This is true

[@KingOpenReview]

Unless it's like Mario.

[@Nekusa]

@@KingOpenReview ehhhhhhhh.

[@DonVigaDeFierro]

Well, if these hypothetical 2D shapes have hypothetical mass, they would inherently attract other 2D shapes with their own gravity. 2D planets, or even 2D galaxies are entirely plausible. I mean, we are technically floating freely through space, just bound to Earth because of its gravity.

[@lukaszykas5095]

Thus this could meen the micro organisms live like this in our 3D universe?

[@ganeshprem3043]

it fascinates me how much we've learned about the universe from practically the absolute basics. It saddens me that we'll all die without ever truly knowing the answers, yet we search for the answers so that the future would know. Mind blowing!

[@abhignathota9304]

True..it is sad..that we will leave..without knowing everything we want to..

[@amazonhaokip8888]

Maybe we all start off from a 1D world, from 1D world to 2D world, 2D world to 3D. Who knows death maybe a way we get promoted to a higher dimension.

[@LOKJAV]

I was thinking about this a while ago and now this apperead in my recommended. So, does Google have mind reding device or something?

[@ArvinAsh]

They come pretty close with their algorithm!

[@MrWildbill]

How could there be any mass in a 2D universe?

[@ArvinAsh]

Great question. Most of the mass of atoms comes from the binding energy in the nucleus. As long as the strong nuclear force and gluons exists, which they should in 2D, mass could exist.

[@ArvinAsh]

@Justa Fool Well of course they are not observed. The point is there is nothing in physics that prevents them from existing. BTW, the binding energy of our everyday 3D atoms is not observed either.

[@Baal1one1]

Justa Fool there you are. I was wondering when the smartest guy in the room would show up. I’m sure you were too busy earning all your fancy degrees in multiple fields to find the time to study how not to come off like a complete douche bag but that’s ok. Your expertise on all subjects more than makes up for it.

[@jeremybyington]

How would you measure mass using only 2 dimensions?

[@dueldab2117]

@Justa Fool 😂😂 love your Xmas cheer

[@abhijeetnarayan8566]

There would be some species living in a 4D universe making a video like about "Can life exist in 3D?".

[@Lumberjack_king]

A 3d video. 4d projected onto a 3d surface

[@Lumberjack_king]

@Felix Stotts yes

[@4slime0]

5:50 so is our 3 dimensional space bending into a 4th dimension? (Or 5th if we count time as a dimension)

[@oblomovIG]

weinerRinkler just like the 2(+1)D scalar gravity, GR is a theory of the *intrinsic* curvature of spacetime, so in our universe there also doesn’t need to be an extra dimension for it to ‘curve into’

[@4slime0]

@@oblomovIG ok thanks

[@captainblackbody6350]

1D , 2 D or 4th dimensions is based on hypothesise and philosophy , there is no certainty what is dimensions.

[@matisle119]

@@4slime0 James Scargill is right. But as an intetesting side note: There are two possible ways to describe our spacetime mathematically. 1) You embed our spacetime. Then it is represented as a surface in higher dimensions. 2) You describe spacetime with local mapping into a 4-d coordinate system. (That's what Scargill mentioned) GR uses 2), because it doesnt want to introduce extra dimensions, that we can't see. But if you want to use the equivalent description 1), then our spacetime is represented as a 4-d non intersecting surface in 5-8 dimensions. How many extra dimensions you need depends on the geometry of the spacetime, but we need 8 at maximum. This is secured by the Whittney embedding theorem (google it) lol

[@omnipotent1992]

@@captainblackbody6350 A little more than that. The 4th dimension could almost be deduced from things like time dilation, delayed choice quantum eraser, and superposition. Basically past present and future are all equally real and everything that could happen or did already exist.

[@eneskahraman2973]

Meanehile in a 4d universe: "look at these noobs they tryna find life in 2d universe

[@zfloyd1627]

Life is impossible in a 4d universe! Did you even pay attention??

[@ayyubi1235]

Z Floyd actually if 4D life can exist than everything has to be 2 times as complicated as 3D or should I say 3 dimensions of course

[@Kadori1]

I

[@FunkykappaCat]

@@zfloyd1627 it's impossible for our 3D parameters, not at all.

[@lebens3585]

@@zfloyd1627 Can you take a joke?

[@ANURAG-pb8ve]

Arvin, you deserve more subscribers man👍👍

[@AmaroqStarwind]

So, four dimensional life could exist if you don't use the same rules for gravity.

[@AlexoOrange]

Yes

[@samuelmatheson9655]

those are what we humans call "gods"

[@marcusavey8529]

are you people really that stupid? the guy tells you that 4 dimensions = 3 measurements + time (aka another measurement) so you guys seriusly think time isnt applying to you? by the bullshit in this video you are already 4th dimensional beings, of course this isnt what dimensions are, its funny how easy it seems for everyone to be bullshitted on the subject, but considering you guys are claiming that time doesnt apply to you, thus making you 3d it speaks for itself really, the real dimensions are energy, frequency and vibration, please educate yourselves or dont have kids, the planets already fucked as it is

[@jrlopez1027.]

@@marcusavey8529 who ever said that time wasnt applying to them?

[@marcusavey8529]

@@jrlopez1027. everyone else in the comment list we're discussing in, but i'll drop names, since reading and using your brain is a struggle, amaroq starwind, alex neiman samuel matheron theres also countless more in the rest of the comments, but im not name dropping every dumb ass i'd be here all week

[@CstriderNNS]

so how would EM propagate in 2D, considering the E field, M field and direction of propagation are all 90 deg to each other, meaning f the em field exist in the 2D space, then the only direction for propagation is out of the plane ???

[@Chad_Thundercock]

Cheyne Simons That's a really good point. And the EM field is required for chemistry, and thus, life.

[@omnipotent1992]

@@Chad_Thundercock If we're talking 3 dimensions. 2d could have completely different forces.

[@samuelcloud2782]

Thinking about what I remember of maxwells equations (which frankly isn’t much) I think it would work if you assumed that the magnetic fields were always the ones going out of the plain. to the 2D creatures, the magnetic field would not be pointing any particular direction, but would appear to have either “positive” or “negative” values.

[@samuelcloud2782]

Magnetic fields would not seem to point in any particular direction, so there would be no concept of compasses (or earth magnets, I think) but electromagnets could still attract each other just fine.

[@CstriderNNS]

@@samuelcloud2782 then its not 2d it is 3d

[@FireyDeath4]

I think 2D creatures should be able to split and join themselves into sections at places to make up for their loss of tracts which would cause them to be split anyway. Like, they should be quite malleable. Surely they can just be made of lots of cells that can lock like dovetail joints so they can be whole _and_ process stuff.

[@hdufort]

Could gravity or an equivalent force exist in 2D as a compression force (e.g. makes the 2D medum's density vary)?

[@ArvinAsh]

Good question. It probably would. But the effect should be minimal.

[@allenamenwarenbezet]

The case for three dimensions often suffers from circular logic: a problem pops up when we try to amend 3d organisms to a 2d world. In thinking about neurons and digestive tracts we're already trying to make 2d life suspiciously similar to higher extant terran lifeforms. Chemistry is indeed more limited, many interesting phenomena (e.g. aromaticity) require a third dimension. Most work on 2D chemistry relies on 'artificial chemistry' (e.g. the work in the video shown around 9:10). These artificial chemistries may provide instructive explorations of self-organization due to simple algortihmic rules, but normally these models are not thermodynamically consistent and are not grounded in quantum chemical equations. The claim that 2D chemistry can be quite sophisticated might well be true, but if we wish to make that argument based on physics, the works referenced in the video are highly inconclusive. As the editor of "A Symposium on Two-Dimensional Science and Technology", A.K. Dewdney summarized some arguments by J. Hornstein against 2D life due to chemistry: ".. in two dimensions, the rotation group is commutative, so again there is no Pauli exclusion principle, and hence chemistry is trivial and there is no possibility of life". It may also be instructive to note that in 2D, the Schrödinger equation for a hydrogen atom (with logarithmic coulomb potential) has unbounded energy levels, which dramatically alters the notion of 'ionization'. Such considerations do not seem very favorable towards the idea of sophisticated 2D chemistry.

[@DoktorIgnaz]

One thing I never get when people talk about some beiings/life existing in 2D: If you are in true 2D Space, there can be no Volume, you just have Area. So everything has a width of 0 in 2D, which leads to the conclusion that they can't have mass. And I can't Imagine any kind of beiing without mass. Therefore I would conclude that there can't exist life in 2D. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in my argumentation, I'm happy to be corrected, let's discuss!

[@ArvinAsh]

What makes you think there couldn't be mass without a third dimension? Most of an atom's mass comes from the binding energy within the nucleus. If the strong nuclear force exist, as it should, according to Dr. Scargill, there is no reason to think mass could not exist.

[@DoktorIgnaz]

@@ArvinAsh Wow, didn't knew that, thank you!

[@svnms8841]

@@DoktorIgnaz You are confusing Mass with volume. Think of a 4D creature that believes that 3D objects have a length of 0 along the 4th dimension, therefore, they would have no mass.

[@tarno89]

The problem is that we invented the 1D and 2D in order to be able to measure and calculate our Space (which is just one dimension - we subdivided it into x y and z in order to measure it in the most efficient way). But there's no 2d in nature or universe. There's no such thing. And the problem is that, based on this we started to escalate to 4D, 5D etc. But there's no 3D. It's just the space we are living in. No wonder our gravitational wave detector prove there's no additional dimension. Maybe there is another dimension, but not in a way we expect it to be. Because we expect the extra dimension (4D, 5D) based on our non existent 1, 2 and 3 D. But our original hypothesis is wrong. Where's the 1D and 2D? According to science we should be able to see what's below 3D but not over it. Where's the 1D and 2D?

[@captainblackbody6350]

@@tarno89 well shadows are true example of 2D objects you can put many shadows at one point but you didn't get any thickness dimensions "Z" . Our concept of dimensions is based on hypothesis and philosophy which is very misleading

[@reedjasonf]

Define "2D life" because if a lifeform can not have height - only width and length - then 2D life is physically impossible. Organs, neurons, and cells need some finite height or thickness. Bodies made of matter can not have 0 thickness.

[@reagame8700]

As we know and understand it, but you need to let go of your self centered ideas if how life should operate. Life finds a way.

[@omnipotent1992]

If we're talking about a 2d universe then it wouldn't be ordinary matter, and would operate completely different. As for forming life I'm sure theres numerous ways it could work, but you must lose your anthropic bias.

[@hapetE]

@@omnipotent1992 and that my friend, is why this whole 2d question is a waste of time. Physicians should focus on our REAL universe where their physics work.

[@GamingTrifilm]

Gluteus Maximus in a way focusing in smaller dimensions helps us focus in our own universe as it has to have been built in smaller dimensions first

[@reedjasonf]

@@GamingTrifilm saying lower dimensions "had to come first" is just stupid. Nothing suggests that. Trying to appear that opening our mind to 2D life is somehow casting off anthropomorphic bias is being sanctimonious. 2D worlds is a fun mental game. Nothing more. But the truth is that just because we can imagine lower and higher dimensions does not mean they exist except for in our minds.

[@ChimeraArts]

I can’t wrap around my head on what a 4th dimensional orbit would theoretically look like.

[@GamingTrifilm]

ChimeraArts you can’t it is physically impossible

[@mrsigmagrinder8737]

We're 3d so can't imagine it.

[@SrmthfgRockLee]

think beyond the matrix like neo

[@FireyDeath4]

Well generally the reason it's unstable is because it has one extra dimension allowing for an extra independent plane to exist. Like, XY and ZW. So I guess a lot of the planes they create for orbits would interfere with each other.

[@Kromiball]

It could probably look like a sphere, but that is just speculation, we will never know.

[@bobcourtier4674]

A sheet of graphene is only one atom thick but you can still see it, how many dimensions is that?

[@ArvinAsh]

three

[@TheViralClovers]

I don't think planets may exist, or atleast life on planets cannot exist, or else it won't be 2D anymore ( as there would be a little thickness)

[@splycer172]

"A lot of jobs today, in Flatland."

[@parishna4882]

That'd be the covid 1d virus :/

[@kaitay9707]

@@parishna4882 Cov1d

[@parishna4882]

@@kaitay9707 poor flatlanders can't even wear face masks, either... :( no ears.

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@skeletorx8529]

exactly high enough to watch this video right now

[@graph100]

Havent watched yet but i was literally just thinking about this subject

[@jamesfarrell8339]

Happy New year Arvin. Have a great year.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you my friend! Happy new year to you too!

[@eriong.7446]

Umm, I have a question, why would we expect gravitational waves to weaken if there were more than 3 spatial dimensions? Would we not measure the same waves at the same distance anywhere in space? If we consider every slice on which the origin of the waves sit as 2d spaces, arguing that gravity should leak into the 3rd dimension it would mean we would have to measure the same weakening anyway. So do we observe that? Do we observe an expected weakening due to waves traveling to another directions as well, not just between the point we measure them and their origin? If we do not, then why would we expect it if there was another direction that the waves could radiate to, that we are just unable to observe? I don’t see how that is different than just waves radiating in every direction in 3d space with the same force. This of course assuming that the 4th spatial dimension is larger just like our 3rd is larger than the second and the 2nd is larger than the first. So our 3 dimensions would be just a slice in the 4th dimension, just how it’s made up of infinite numbers of 2 dimensional slices. So please some explain to me why it would cause the waves to weaken. Thanks.

[@ArvinAsh]

Gravitational waves would weaken because they would propagate through an extra dimension, so instead of the frequency decreasing by the square of the distance, they would decrease by cubed of distance.

[@eriong.7446]

Arvin Ash thanks. You actually mentioned that in the video, I just didn’t put two and two together. :)

[@condemnembrace96]

Alternate title “Can our 2d waifus exist”

[@maikv750]

Well we would see their organs and everything from our 3D perspective so making them exist wouldn't be worth it.

[@themorningping9075]

@@maikv750 finally

[@siyacer]

@@maikv750 these losers see their organs all the time

[@parishna4882]

THAT IS ALL THEY ARE YOU FOOL.. YOU WAIFU IT, YOU LOSE YOUR EDGE.

[@parishna4882]

@Hi last name I do it in 4d. Ask her... when she gets back.

[@yourfriendlyneighborhoodotaku]

We all know why we are here and what we are hoping to learn

[@sungilroh920]

Memes aside, this video really helped with my questions about 2 dimensional lifeform.

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@mohammednajl5950]

So someone said to me: what would it look like if there were 2 temporal dimensions? And I’m currently going crazy trying to visualise it.

[@mohammednajl5950]

Unfortunately it’s literally impossible to visualise it.

[@Kimikashimoo]

if we're talking 2 dimensions, then how exactly do you propose that the organism lives on the planet? it can't be on top of it since that dimension wouldn't exist, and 2 objects cant be on the same place at the same time so... edit: ok if i changed the pov to something more 2d videogame like it makes a little more sense... but in that situation how would the beign stay on the surface? due to the 2d gravity situation specified on the video

[@parishna4882]

each and every potential plane would be inhabited... we're infested with flatlanders man, infested... Oo

[@ibimssss]

the same way we can live in air

[@parishna4882]

@@ibimssss But air, if you're small enough, is like a fluid. Tiny bees swim through the air, they're so tiny, that the viscosity of the air causes them to almost swim in it. We don't live in air... we're trapped in a bubble surrounded by a vacuum that wants to kill us. And we're human. So the inevitability of it is, should we develop the means to, then ... one prick and it's gone.

[@andrewsheehy2441]

It is impossible to have a physical reality that has just two dimensions. Even the thinnest, teeniest, weeniest , skinniest third dimension (even if is is just one atom thick) is still three dimensions. A 2D reality can only exist as a purely virtual construct. I’m sure Arvin knows this - but it’s a fun video anyway!

[@ArvinAsh]

This applies only to the reality we are familiar with, and is likely an anthropic perspective.

[@anwarulmamoon4299]

May be in two dimension or in four dimension, different form of life can exist.Even if they are already existing we are unable to detect them.

[@laribibadro9588]

he entire universe is a place, and the place has three dimensions, so it is clear that there is no two-dimensional world in the universe, this world is nothingness in the universe, so is it reasonable for nothingness to have two dimensions, this is unreasonable and is an obvious contradiction, because nothingness has no one dimension, two dimensions, or anything else, because it is nothing. the nothingness has no distance, you must understand that the concept of one or two dimensions is only for something has a volume, the origin of the three dimensions is the volume, so if there is no volume, this means that there is no any dimension it is inconceivable to believe that there is something that exists equal to nothingness in the universe, this is a clear contradiction.

[@fishbrainCTRL]

@@laribibadro9588 smoke salvia and come back to me on that one. 😉

[@anwarulmamoon4299]

@@laribibadro9588 What do you mean by nothingness?

[@laribibadro9588]

@@anwarulmamoon4299 the nothingness is the opposite of the existence

[@aa-to6ws]

*"Everyone is unique, but some are more unique than others"* -Me?

[@Ferkeshu]

Nope , me

[@corneliuscorcoran9900]

Certainly not us. Is the ultimate in 'unique' a uniqorn?

[@sebastianlaplume461]

So the main problem I found when watching this was that planets would be kind of pointless as organisms could only inhabit the circumference, atoms and molecules couldn’t stack so life would be restrained to a very small sliver of a planet with no way to really access anything inside and would eventually starve out

[@anantbansal5901]

Hey can you please explain a bit how gravity is proportional to r^-3 in 4D‽

[@saiford8116]

If AI develop enough to make the characters in a videogame (simulation) interact with each other and expand , can we considered that a 2D Life?

[@TheConnorKeene]

Dwarf Fortress

[@creativebeetle]

I wonder how electromagnetic waves would self-propagate if there was no perpendicular direction for the electric and magnetic components to go? Wouldn't they interfere with themselves?

[@parishna4882]

Why are you asking about our 3d physics in a 2d concept? Obviously, everything would be different. They wont have wifi for a start.

[@creativebeetle]

@@parishna4882 Thank you for the reply I figure this thought experiment hinges on the prospect of a universe akin to our own but without a 3rd spatial dimension. I don't really see how one would arrive at any interesting conclusions if literally everything would be different. Hence, the paper refers to atomic structures, gravity, and each of the other fundamental forces and interprets them with 2 spatial dimensions. Also, the concept of a sun providing light or the concept of energy traveling through a vacuum quickly is only really possible if some form of electromagnetism exists. (though maybe the particles emitted in solar wind could provide energy instead of light.) The original paper detailing this concept does mention the propagation of electromagnetic waves and derives seemingly consistent equations for them by considering the magnetic field as a 'pseudo-scalar' (pretty wordy to read though, I can't make sense of half of it yet.) So the paper seems to suggest that, funnily enough, a 2D universe would have WIFI.

[@contessa.adella]

Woa.....we went from a conjecture of “can 2D life exist?” To...having to prove the viability of a whole 2D universe! What happened to 2D life existing in our current universe?

[@thesovietflaganthemguy2344]

It would be crushed by three dimensional gravity in an Uknown direction not accessible to us possibly turning the ET into an infinite point of direction a 0D point of Lineland. I say that because we don’t know what exists before 0 Dimensional space if anything

[@enjerth78]

@@thesovietflaganthemguy2344 I don't know that 3d gravity would do anything perceptionally in lineland. The 2d form can't really be reduced except under huge gravitational forces. As for warping, that might make a notable effect to an observer in lineland if two ends meet. But gravity curves our space and we still see the curve and think it's a straight line.

[@creativebeetle]

Our universe has 3 dimensions of space, and is made of 3D matter. Therefore 2D life would not be possible as there is no 2D matter in our 3D universe. All life, even if it's one atom thick, would be inherently 3D. Edit: A 2D world within our 3D one would be pretty cool, but the physics of that are way fuzzier than the physics of a purely 2D universe.

[@philipfahy9658]

I'm a bit confused. Why do you focus on life in our universe when discussing higher dimensions and discuss life in a different universe for 2-dimensional life. What if you just had a 5 large spatial dimension universe, why couldn't that have life? Also, your assertion at the end, "just because something can exist does not mean that it does it exist" is interesting in a lot of regards. For one, it gets into the concept of infinity being less than everything. And if the universe is infinite, and an event has a non-zero chance of occurring, statistically speaking it will.

[@nekad2000]

When 2D life is discussed, is it referring to literal two dimensions or two large dimensions and one tiny, maybe negligible dimension? If a creature had a height equivalent to the planck length, it would be invisible to us forever

[@DavidJones-tp7td]

Great video! Not only does it show the methodology used by science to demonstrate what is possible and finally address the issue of assuming that all life must conform to earth life standards. It also clearly demonstrates the usefulness of thought experiments. They are a wonderful way of changing our way of thinking when the old modes fail to find a reasonable solution. Thanks.

[@haikwin]

This is why it is wrong. Life shouldn’t be based on our standards.

[@eltonester6531]

This was the exact kind of channel I was looking for. You, Arvin, ask the most fascinating questions and follow them with inexplicably simple explanations, I don't know how you do it but I feel lucky to have found you.

[@donjr5400]

Who said 2D is flat is could be rippled then stacked like a book giving a 3D aperance they could travel through the ripples . Just a thought

[@omnipotent1992]

This is analogous to duration. Moving through the different frames would in essence be them moving through time

[@donjr5400]

@@omnipotent1992 we all move through time every second of our lives

[@omnipotent1992]

@@donjr5400 Yes! So instead of square reference frames moving in a 3rd direction, imagine cubical ref frames moving in a 4th direction - Time.

[@omnipotent1992]

To add. I'm stating reference frames weather they be 2d, 3d, 4d etc.. are by themselves in essence timeless States. What creates time is the succession of these frames through the dimension above.

[@donjr5400]

@@omnipotent1992 I believe that what make quantum mechanics so interesting. Things moving as if time isn't in the same space just passing through as a wave functions when it's measured

[@san.cochado]

So what about the "missing" dimension (Z)? It still needs to exist in order to accommodate matter doesn't it? I just can't picture a slice of space with a thickness of 0? So what would its thicness be? Planck length? Help.

[@ArvinAsh]

No, this 2D theoretical world would indeed have zero thickness. The concepts discussed could exist in such a universe.

[@san.cochado]

@@ArvinAsh I was afraid you would say that since our world seems not to require any "thickness" in the 4th dimension either. Alright, so I am both absolutely unable to picture not only higher dimensional space but lower as well.

[@RamyaSathwik]

yes 1d 2d are false concepts only 3d exists

[@practicaloccultist231]

*how would they turn around*

[@taesim3283]

There are no mass in 1D and 2D.

[@ArvinAsh]

There can be mass in 2D because mass comes from the binding energy of atoms - strong nuclear force. It that exists, then mass can exist. See my video on "shocking source of mass" for a better explanation of where mass comes from.

[@taesim3283]

Your design of 2D is not actual 2D then your design of 2D is like 3D with one dimension small as atom size. When 2D, there is no atom, no wave = no energy, no force that you talking about

[@ArvinAsh]

Tae Sim There is. Watch the video.

[@mekkler]

2D gravity: mass in a toroidal manifold rotating in 3D, the same way 3D gravity is a rotating hyper[never mind, too soon], life forms, yes it could, in a fractal interlocking system with movable chemical bonds.

[@jeremybyington]

Wow, I was aware of the idea that there may be 2D life but I never knew of all of the obstacles like the single orifice for food consumption. That sounds kinda like what a pitcher plant does. I wonder if 2D creatures would form into colonial organisms and overcome some of those obstacles.

[@ricabel321]

Jeremy, Don't waste your time wondering about 2D Life. Wonder about "Why is trump President?".

[@jeremybyington]

Vote if you can, but do your best to not let the current nationalism spreading throughout the world ruin your 3D life.

[@scrambo6182]

@@jeremybyington great response, king

[@snared_]

4:10 Wait, why is it impossible to do curvature in a 2 spatial dimensions 1 time dimension to have relativistic effects? Seems simple enough to implement it just in 2d.. Distances like sqrt(x^2+y^2+z^2) become sqrt(x^2+y^2), meaning the radius of the circle centered at the origin and a point on (x,y).. And so on, everything should just translate over, right? If you're going like half the speed of light then your clocks when measured along a clock that was just sitting at your destination should now show a huge difference, if they were synchronized any time before the particle was done moving at half the speed of light. So why do you gloss over these details and just say it's impossible?

[@PitzziMr]

What about sound,light or electromagnetism? Or anything that propagates in waves?

[@killasucceeded]

*terraria overworld music starts*

[@fraaggl]

11:33 my favorite moment of the video...

[@kratomseeker5258]

I actually been wondering this for awhile now and hey imagine life in a higher dimension they can see us maybe with a tool like microscope or some other way. This makes everything imaginable possible.

[@alooinfinite2912]

Depending on the size of the universe a microscope would not be necessary

[@kratomseeker5258]

@@alooinfinite2912 well space is curved so you can imagine the side that space is probably just a sliver or less of the size.

[@tysondennis1016]

I got an idea 💡 for a superhuman, even though it’s not related to the video: CPT symmetry control. C (Charge)=Can reverse the charge of matter, turning it into antimatter, or reverse the charge of antimatter, so it becomes matter. This can be done on the atomic scale to create tiny explosions, or devastate everything in radius with large-scale annihilations. P (Polarity)=Can flip objects, living or nonliving, on an axis, be it x (left/right), y (up/down) or z (front/back). Reversing a object’s polarity also reverses its velocity, but outside forces will continue working like normal onto it. Speed isn’t changed, but direction is. T (Time)=Can reverse a being or inanimate object in time, and make it continue going forwards in time. This can be done to heal injuries or prevent opponents from attacking, but while the direction of the time flow can be altered, the magnitude can’t. They can’t use their abilities on themselves, because tweaking with C symmetry will make them explode, and reversing themselves in time, if they’re free to reverse their T symmetry again, will make them practically invincible. And if not, they’ll eventually deage themselves to death. For P symmetry, say that they’re trying to get back up a freefall. Unless they accept the landing, their stubborn attempts to regain altitude will do nothing.

[@vincentskywalker8479]

Just a thought but what about Depth? Isn't Depth a dimension in of itself? You have Length Height and Width to make up the 3 dimensions but shouldn't Depth also be used to explain the Depth of objects

[@ArvinAsh]

Sure in our 3D universe, but such a dimension would not exist in a 2D universe.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

8:30 Nematodes be like: Look at what *I* can do with just ONE dimension!

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@peoplez129]

There's no such thing as 2 dimensional. Even the smallest parts of matter are 3 dimensional, just like a flat piece of paper might be considered 2 dimensional but is actually 3 dimensional. The closest you can come to 2 dimensional is something made out of 1 "layer" of 3 dimensional matter, which is not even accurate then, because again, even the smallest bits of matter are 3 dimensional. On top of that, such a creature really couldn't exist. For radiation to transfer between the object, there would have to be 3 dimensional space, otherwise the walls of the body of the organism would need to have holes in them which would create the same problem of a digestion tract cutting them in half. The same applies to circulation and any other body processes. In order to allow anything to pass through or secrete, there would need to be holes / breaks in the structure. It would be like trying to draw one of those mazes you trace through. Now look at those mazes. Try to print one out and cut out only the black maze lines and try to hold it all up as one piece. It won't work, it will fall apart. Why? Because you need breaks in the surface in order to allow things to travel through, and in the 2 dimensional world, any breaks in the structure would effectively unravel the organism to the point where it can't possibly exist as an organism. Even if we were to say "OK, then it can be like a long string bending this way and that, with some structures on the edges". And that sounds plausible at a glance, until you once again think about how its structures would have to operate, and then you're back to square one where there has to be breaks in the structure that effectively cuts the organism up to the point where it is not bound together. That doesn't just affect eating, that affects every process of physics, making it impossible for any real complex interactions to take place. To put it simply, a 2 dimensional universe of physics can't exist, because it wouldn't be able to form anything that makes up the basic fundamentals of physics. You wouldn't have radiation. You wouldn't have light. You wouldn't have matter of any kind even. There would be no way for it to interact. No way for things to pass through things, and most importantly.....no way for the laws of thermodynamics to operate. It would be like a universe where the laws of thermodynamics meant that you could heat a circle up to 500 degree's and it would just stay that temperature forever, unable to dissipate and transfer to other materials. It's literally as impossible as a perpetual motion machine. But you wouldn't be able to heat it up in the first place though, because there would be no way to transfer energy to it to heat it up, and no matter that exists to heat up either. So the reality is, a 2 dimensional universe could only be in a state of zero energy and zero matter.....which is just another way of describing a lack of existence.

[@MAPLEBG]

Well said

[@MAPLEBG]

But what if theres something thst we cant even imagine like 2d

[@BelieveOneGod]

i found 2D life when Mario game came out back in old days

[@mrsigmagrinder8737]

Ok

[@FireyDeath4]

Then the clouds disappeared as he jumped into them and reappeared as if they were just layered below him

[@jjt171]

ok boomer

[@mrsigmagrinder8737]

@@jjt171 *Miloomer

[@Derdzerk]

This video seems to emphasize that gravity is necessary for life to develop, but couldn't there be other forms of life that don't require a gravitational pull to converge? I feel this is especially possible when considering other dimensions

[@the_sophile]

BY the way,What s the name of the book written about flat landers as said in 1:10 ?

[@kelly2fly]

But my mom says I'm special.

[@ArvinAsh]

You are buddy. Just not anybody else.

[@kelly2fly]

@Arvin Ash Awww and here I was about to have an existential crisis of the 3D kind.

[@mrsigmagrinder8737]

F

[@levitheentity4000]

how does youtube know what I wanna watch? this scares the f out of me

[@Fetablue]

Finally, a scientific take on Flatland!

[@Breakfast_of_Champions]

Rudy Rucker also wrote some 2d (and 4d) stories in that vein.

[@jmanj3917]

I loved the "painful" squeal when the 2D animal was split in half...lol

[@3dpprofessor]

I find interesting the idea of gravity in 2D being define by scalar space. If I understand correctly, essentially non-euclidean geometry, but still flat. If that could be the case, how do we know that gravity in our dimension isn't in effect scalar 3D space? [Reads the rest of the comments] Oops, wrong crowd.

[@rarzwon8761]

"Only 10% of connections active at any one time" Are we back to the "You only use 10% of your brain" now?

[@brostelio]

Exactly. How hard could it be to finally determine this answer.

[@brostelio]

@Steve Owen I was just referring to the long debunked (as far as I'm aware) statement that we only use 10% of our brain at any given time, and was curious as to how we don't yet have an answer despite our great leaps in technology.

[@mcray79]

Me: Is this possible to have life in 2D Flat Earther: *Well yes, but actually no*

[@elaiottoiale4216]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZ6nlH1tfM6qjMk

[@svenandersen]

I'm not surprised weebs always exist if someone bring 2D topic even though this is educational video.

[@marcusrees5364]

Is the heat dissipation point valid? In 3d the volume of a sphere is 4/3*pi*r^3 and the surface area is 4*pi*r^2, so there are 3/r units of surface area for each unit of volume. In 2d the area of a circle is pi*r^2 and the perimeter is 2*pi*r, so there are 2/r units of perimeter for each unit of area. Wouldn't this mean that heat dissipation would be roughly 2/3 as efficient? That's not a very dramatic difference I feel, at least compared to the difference in heat dissipation required for a mouse and an elephant

[@Manojav7]

Can you please make a video on 3 body problem and quasi particles.