✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

We’re not as 3-Dimensional as We Think — LessWrong

lesswrong.com · 4,385 words · saved by 1 readers

While thinking about high-dimensional spaces and their less intuitive properties, I came to the realization that even three spatial dimensions possess the potential to overwhelm our basic human intuitions. This post is an exploration of the gap between actual 3D space, and our human capabilities to fathom it. I come to the conclusion that this gap is actually quite large, and we, or at least most of us, are not well equipped to perceive or even imagine “true 3D”. What do I mean by “true 3D”? The most straightforward example would be some ℝ³ → ℝ function, such as the density of a cloud, or the full (physical) inner structure of a human brain (which too would be a ℝ³ → whatever function). The closest example I’ve found is this visualization of a ℝ³ → ℝ³ function (jump to 1:14): (It is of course a bit ironic to watch a video of that 3D display on a 2D screen, but I think it gets the point across.) It is true that having two eyes allows us to have depth perception. It is not true that hav

x We’re not as 3-Dimensional as We Think — LessWrong Evolutionary Psychology Gaming (videogames/tabletop) Neuroscience Psychology World Modeling Frontpage 46 We’re not as 3-Dimensional as We Think by silentbob 4th Aug 2024 7 min read 20 46 While thinking about high-dimensional spaces and their less intuitive properties, I came to the realization that even three spatial dimensions possess the potential to overwhelm our basic human intuitions. This post is an exploration of the gap between actual 3D space, and our human capabilities to fathom it. I come to the conclusion that this gap is actuall

Explore this link on the map →

related reading