this is NOT a 4D cube

[@SciOne]

Great job, Arthur!

[@SyDatNguyen-r4j]

It’s not a real 4d tesseract but it’s a 3d version of a 4d tesseract

[@JayS.-mm3qr]

That little toy he has is a 3d resprestation of a 4d cube, but only from a specific angle. Kind of like if you look at the shadow of a frame of cube from directly in front of it, it will look like a square, with a square in it. Much of the form of the tesseract is hidden from this angle. A true 3d representation of the 4d cube would have to show all 8 cubes that compose a tessrract. Would be nice if it could rotate too.

[@elliotclark-rv1nv]

It is a 3d representation of a 4d cube on a 2d screen

[@thealientree3821]

It is like if you draw a cube on paper.

[@ffggddss]

Not a 3d *version* of a tesseract (4d cube), but a 3d *projection* of one. Fred

[@YugiDmega]

"Or match me on Tinder" is a wild sentence

[@АлександрЕвстифеев-ь2к]

The Tesseract. Educational video about the multidimensionality of the world.

[@ValeraFedorov01]

Arthur, thank u for continuing to make content. I was watched ur last channel and will continue to watch here. Good luck

[@itisALWAYSR.A.]

Not only a good description of lower-dimension projections of hypershapes, but also an introduction on how to see Arthur naked. That's thorough vid content!

[@YannY1150]

I tried drawing a tess since 6th grade and 8 years later, I think I've made a version of tesseract that lets me truly understand it for what it is.

[@eugene_mikheev]

I almost managed to imagine a 4-d cube but then my brain got fried. 😀 I used to watch your Russian channel and I'm happy you're now making content in English! Keep up the great job!

[@houseofspadesamoderngarden6425]

You can do it!! Just need to timestamp the video and loop it a few times

[@Golporos33]

What I try is to find every single 3d object inside a 4d one and try to visiulize them all at the same time.

[@markvel8605]

I love your Ukrainian British English

[@tedsheridan8725]

Cool video. Though I disagree that is impossible to visualize or imagine a 4D cube. As you mentioned, everything we see is already a 2D projection of higher dimensional (3D) objects. Over the course of our lives we've internalized how these objects look when rotated. Similarly, we can view 2D projections of 4D objects (like the gif of the rotating hypercube). If you spend enough time studying and learning how the rotations work and how they appear, you can start to internalize 4D rotation. The only difference between looking at 3D and 4D objects is that we're very experienced with interpreting projections of 3D, and totally INexperienced with interpreting projections of 4D. But this can in fact be learned. It is not required to have 3D vision to 'see' a 4D cube, just as it is not required to have 3D vision to 'see' a 3D cube. It's just a matter of learning to interpret 2D projects of either object.

[@XSR_RUGGER]

You have put into words what I have been thinking for a long time. We don't necessarily have to see it we just need to learn to interpret the information our eyes are providing or brains. My brain has not managed to interpret a 4 dimensional object yet but I feel like I'm close 😆. It's the rotation that throws me off I think. I feel like I need to think about it as rotating on two axes at the same time but I could very well be wrong in thinking that.

[@sunnyboy4553]

I agree completely. I read somewhere years ago that we can train ourselves to see polarized light, but once you start seeing it, you will always see it. I can visualize in my mind a tessract, but not in rotation yet.

[@tedsheridan8725]

@@XSR_RUGGER Yes, It's taken me a while to get comfortable with really getting the rotation. A pure rotation only involves two perpenduclar dimesnions - xz, xw, etc. I'm starting a whole video series on visualizing 4D, on my math channel. First video should be up soon. www.youtube.com/@HyperCubist

[@tedsheridan8725]

@@sunnyboy4553 That's actually pretty cool. And yeah 4D rotation takes some getting used to. The hardest idea to grasp is that there are two "depth" dimensions instead of the usual one, and they are themselves perpendicular to eachother. Stay tuned on my math channel - I will have a whole video series on this. First episode is almost up. www.youtube.com/@HyperCubist

[@sunnyboy4553]

@@tedsheridan8725I 'm looking foreward to the new video on this subject. I like to just stare at the rotating 4D tesseracts and the movement of the smaller inside cube moving up.down or sideways to morph onto the LARGER outside cube, as the larger outside one shrinks simultaneously to become the smaller inside one. It brings to my mind sometimes an elevator car going up or down inside the elevator shaft. It also feels sort of organic the way the smaller cube morphs into the larger outer one and visa versa. It seems very natural.A part of nature we've yet to understand, like a moment of time blooming and blossoming forth, then receding back through decay and death. It's so fascinating to watch.

[@arrivingdrake]

Great video. Remember me before this video blows up

[@MacaroniAndGames]

You are very underrated, this is a great channel!

[@donik4551]

To mention: All 4D objects have a surface volume. So its like an Atmosphere where we dont see where it ends. A Holographic screen could help, not VR, its also a screen what shows something else. Edit: A 4D being can go trough a infinite big and thick wall. 0D, 1D and 2D are more of a flat dimension, 3D is more of a volumetric dimension, can also be 4D and 5D. The problem is that we don't understand the connections between volumes and hypervolumes. We can't see or even feel a hypervolume either. Because something is acting in a higher spatial dimension different.

[@Garfield_Minecraft]

2:58 hey hey hey wait what? calm down there bro

[@أأسماء-ج5ع]

Ikr 😂😂

[@Italian_Isaac_Clarke]

I here see the same problem as when people try to describe time and time travel: Our ancestors have existed long before homo sapiens evolved. They, as we do now, often gave names and internal explanations of the world without understanding the true ways in which it works. The Scientific Method and thus Science has been around for a relative instant in the span of our lineage; the only way to get correct information about the world is not that old. We need to communicate ideas through language and if it turns out that a word is incorrect it must either be modified or scrapped, unless the one using it wants to continue being wrong. The correct definition of time is "our observations of the changing states of our world, or better said in other words, "as long as matter things move time exists; absolute entropy will signal the moment time ends". Many have come to see time as if it were a place, where you can go or come back to. No. Time is not a place, but a chronological description of events based on the data which the entity possesses at any given moment. One can not "travel through time" because there's nothing to travel over. If you lose something in the forest and 40 years later you happen to dig it out by mistake it has not "got there", rather it has always been there (this impression is given by one individual's ignorance at any given moment). On the same note, there is not any "master time" or "index time" to refer to, rather in different portions of reality, space, time moves faster or slower relative to the "amount" (don't dare say anything, I said it this way just to make it quicker) of gravity in it. As said before, TIME is an observation of the changing states of matter, so it is absolutely relative to where this matter changes Now: Space. Space is what we gave the name to a portion of our reality. Doesn't matter its dimensions or shape, if we take a chunk of reality of any kind it's called "space". We observed that we can describe space, objects in that space and movement in that space with 3 planes, each being perpendicular to one another with the same origin point. These are the "three dimensions". These dimensions do not imply the existence of realities or objects that have fewer or more than 3 dimensions because such things can not exist at all. You can not find anything with less than 2 dimensions in our reality because {X * Y * 0 = 0}, while more dimensions are just a combination of X, Y and/or Z or even worse, the implication that TIME ITSELF is a dimension, which is not. Only ideas, stories, imagination can have more or less dimensions; only there time is a place or a physical object or a force that can be bent to one's will, because in reality that is not what observation shows. Now, as closure: The UnFalsifiable are aspects or reality which can not be "proven" (shut up) true or false. What is Falsifiable changes through time thanks to the Scientific and Technological development of a group of people. An example of what once was unfalsifiable is atoms, cells and DNA. Some things, on the other hand, will remain UnFalsifiable forever, such as discovering anything at all that is infinite. Infinity exists in numbers, math, because they are not physical, they are data. In reality discovering that anything is infinite is impossible because to do that you'd need infinite time to measure it and even if you manage to already know that X = ∞ you will fail to prove it to anyone because you'd need infinite time, as anyone else. Things can just and only be proven finite if you find an end to them, because otherwise you can never be sure of their infinity (AKA they either are truly infinite or you just stopped short). Why am I saying this stuff? Because if anyone wants to say "mumble mumble ALTERNATIVE UNIVERSES!" or something of the kind I just want to stop them immediately: that is THE definition of UnFalsifiable. Rather than seriously talk about something as real to us as the toothfairy I'd rather work with the Falsifiable and expand what can be known.

[@LDSG_A_Team]

This is a good video. I like this video. This video gives a decent explanation in a short amount of time, without going into excessive detail, and without oversimplifying things to the point of misconception. This is the kind of video I can send to other people who aren't as much of a nerd as I am, without worrying about them getting bored.

[@J7Handle]

To understand the rotation of a tesseract, I imagined looking at the bottom of a 4D glass table and dropping a tesseract from above. Whichever point of the tesseract is closest to the table when it hits will bounce and cause the tesseract to spin away. If you can imagine what this looks like, I think it’s fair to say you understand 4D rotation to a degree.

[@jasbdmsb]

A good analogy is…Minecraft. Minecraft might look 3D, but when you see the flattened view of what a Creeper looks like; it looks bizarre. We see 3D objects using 2D objects in Minecraft and real life. If we were 4D objects would we see 3D objects? Possibly. The tesseract is just a representation; however, is it better to theorize and wonder about the truth or create what we think is true even if the risk is we are wrong?

[@petricastirbu7676]

So if we have 2 eyes and with them 2D vision, then. The flat man has 1 eye with 1D vision. A 4D being has 3 eyes with 3D vision. A 5D being has 4 eyes with 4D vision. And so on

[@ziggyzoggin]

love the 2D tv with a screen on the inside of the device lmao

[@alexanderten9540]

What about color dimensions, not space dimensions?

[@donnlai]

When we copy a dot in zero dimension, where to land the copied one? As there's no space for this dot to land. It is zero dimension. If it landed somewhere in 1D space, could this dot have any relation with the prior one? Is this only our 3D creatures' interpretation on our theory?

[@TheForklifter]

Think about it this way. In one single zero dimension there's only one single infinitely small point. When we connect a line to another zero dimension we are connecting the two different dimensions together. So 1D dimension is two 0D dots connected 2D dimension is two 1D lines connected 3D dimension is two 2D squares connected 4D dimension is two 3D cubes connected

[@sep_sh]

Good stuff ✌️

[@holandreas]

Every non-idiotic presentation of the tesseract specifies this model is the shadow of it rather than the cube itself.

[@CTRLALTDayman1776]

Its a 3d shadow of a 4d object, just like a 2d shadow of a 3d cube.

[@ivann_titov]

I almost get the point, but it's not enough. Guess i needed not only 3D vision, but 3D brain. Anyway, it was interesting and fun to watch, thank you

[@ClaudeSpeed32]

3d vision could be possible in 3d biology, by analyzing light and how much of it reaches then all surfaces of all objects in a certain volume of space, like a hologram for a vision

[@djentlemanb]

You may have heard of the “shadow people” phenomenon… They could be the 3-dimensional shadows of 4 (or more) dimensional beings. Like how we’re 3D beings that cast a 2D shadow.

[@nnomis9349]

5:52 so funny how i fully understand this rotation cause i learned a lot of it

[@chrepuhon]

u can't fully understand it since its just a 3d projection

[@nnomis9349]

@@chrepuhon ofc i can fully understand it because i do

[@houseofspadesamoderngarden6425]

Thanks for adding perspective to my future theory.

[@houseofspadesamoderngarden6425]

I should remember to stretch things in my imagination. Everything isn't as perfect as we think it is lines bend curve stretch and who knows....

[@houseofspadesamoderngarden6425]

Looking past an object yet study the ignored object

[@graziflorida4377]

Finally someone that understands

[@FireChargeBlox_]

Finalmente alguém falando sobre isso

[@JayS.-mm3qr]

Well, a tesseract is a 4d cube, as much as a cube is a 3d square. The 4th dimension is a whole new dimension. We can't even imagine it,and more than a flat square could imagine having depth.

[@graziflorida4377]

ARTHUR, question. A flat square piece of paper, is that a 2d square or a 3d cube? The debth of a flat piece of paper is NOT zero. It is 0.0000000000001

[@cashierexo]

Or 0.01 cm

[@thecommenttater7026]

Something Interesting to explore is what would a 2D persons best representation of a 3D cube look like to them

[@mamashaVedma]

03:09 ha-ha

[@imtheonewiththeage]

1-cube 2-cube 3-cube 4-cubeehr

[@high_rager]

Lot of youtubers show slice method where they show 3D intersect with 2D but why we can just play 3D game minecraft in a 2D screen without slicing why cant we see 4D

[@cardinalartur]

In 3D games it's not slicing, but it's projection. You still don't see the scene in 3D.

[@high_rager]

@@cardinalartur bro i mean they can understand 3D by rotating 3D blocks and your too late i realized now 2D dudes see in 1D

[@evanschoepke6375]

2x2x2x2 go brrrrrrrrrrr

[@soulsofspirit9729]

It HAS to be a cuboid, actually.

[@graziflorida4377]

👍🏻👍🏻

[@blacklyfe6881]

1:17 wrong! There's a difference between depth and transparency.

[@KlaxontheImpailr]

This is not a pipe.

[@dirtbagpoteddirt8202]

this is technically not clickbeit

[@graziflorida4377]

Also, a 2D square is in reality a 3d cube

[@graziflorida4377]

in reality, a flat square does NOT exist. A 2D Square is in reality a 3D cube. It has a very thin depth. If the debth is zero, we would NOT see the 2D square. Do I make sense ?

[@deathereditzzzz]

That would be 0'd dimensional figure not a 2d figure......you're somewhere wrong because 2d figure will only exist when 0'd dimensional figure exists........as it is made of itself

[@waitandhope]

Omg

[@jamesworley9888]

I don't know how people can talk about hypercubes when there is no such thing as even a 2D square. All physical matter has to exist in at least 3D if ignoring the other Dimensions which have nothing to do with the direction something moves whatsoever. A realm has nothing to do with Dimension, all that is, is moving from 1 vibration of matter to another. I call bullshit on 4D geometry in the same way I call bullshit on 2D geometry. Nothing can exist in 2D so why should I believe in 4D??? If you count time and motion as dimensions then nothing can exist in more or less than 5D. Put Mind and Will into the mix and nothing can exist in more or less than 5-7 Dimensions. Length, Width, Height, Time, Motion, Mind, Will. All frequencies of matter work on these octives nothing rivals this.

[@blacklyfe6881]

Try living in a house you can see length depht and width we can see everything.

[@blacklyfe6881]

We can see 3D because we are living in a 3D world!

[@gonegahgah]

Having a "sideways" gives us a better chance to understand 4D than a 2D being has to understand our 3D. There is no such thing as sideways in 2D. So for them where can things be except in front of them or behind them or going over them or being below them? We at least have something to work with to eventually allow us to understand 4D better...

[@DYREL_]

Родину продал

[@blacklyfe6881]

I disagree with this video

[@dreamrestore213]

3D vision to me is binocular vision + time. What I thought you meant at first was the only way we can perceive the 3D with our 2D vision was with perspective. Put your hand in from off your face, you get a 2D snapshot.... Now move it away from your face and you can see the special depth. Time is the 4th on our plane, so the motion of the world, the time it takes to move from one place to another is what really gives our brains the ability to see the world in the limited capacity that it does.

[@slt4463]

Had a manic episode and came up with a theory for what it means for something to be percieved as 4d

[@dreamrestore213]

This is the fundamental problem with this explanation. It is used to help people visualize the concept, while it teaches them incorrectly. People actually think it is possible to see a 2D world, from ANY angle. You need 1D vision to see a 2D world. The only place I can think of where you can actually see a 2D world is on a monitor. But even the photons hitting your eyes have height, width and depth. "If... IF we could see that world it would look like that" the key word is IF .... We can imagine a 2D or 4D plane, but we can never "see" it.

[@JL-pv9vz]

A 2D plane is flat existence your wrong. No depth just length and width (not thickness) or height

[@JL-pv9vz]

Like a paper