All you have to do is smoke DMT to see a hypercube, 4 dimensional visuals where any where you look, every side, is perfectly 3D. That's an oversimplification of that experience but if the brain is able to "see" it through experience, there's probably something to it, scientifically speaking and beyond just the brain, lol

Hey ChoasEngine, yep, you're right on the money. In a normal vector space, the dimensionality is pretty much defined by how many perpendicular (or orthogonal) lines you can have. So to get 7, you'd need a 7 dimensional space.

You can do it other ways, but the most common way of expressing things in a vector space is as multiples of the "standard basis", which is a bunch of lines all perpendicular to each other and one "thing" long, as you describe.

Mathematically speaking, there's nothing particularly interesting about 2, 3 or 7 dimensions, although you'd have a real hard time drawing lines in a 7 dimensional space on a 2 dimensional board.

Incidentally, a hypercube wouldn't cut it as it's only 4 dimensions. Maybe a wonder-mega-super-hypercube?

Actually, now I'm curious.

2 perpendicular lines.. easy

3? why not, just extend the third line along the z axis (of course any 2 representation of this wouldn't be perpendicular, but still)

Could you have 7? In some crazy n-dimensional space graph (ala a hypercube)?

Any maths geniuses want to weigh in on this?

>> ^dotdude:

There are two films made after:
sequel: "Cube 2: Hypercube"
prequel: "Cube Zero"

I still prefer the original to these two.


I do as well. although #3 was better than 2 in my own opinion.

I didn't like the sequel, "Cube 2: Hypercube" nor the prequel, "Cube Zero."

yah i dont think u could realy call this a 3d factal

im pretty sure in order to navigate and look at a 3d fractal you would have to look at it from a fourth dimension. ethor that ar you would have to render it animated in a simular way to how people represent a hypercube.

if you think about it a fractal is infinatly large and infinatly small , there for there is no dead space for the object to construct a 3d illusoin , esentualy what u would end up with is something that looks 2d to the viewer and you would just be clipping through its walls constantly , making it apear to the user to be a 2d mess.

I actually watched that whole thing and listened to that dialogue ALLLLL OVER. Just to concur. Hypercube is what it is from, my least favorite of the 3. I think I might watch one of them tonight.
sift bot u non quoting r tard.

>> ^BoneRemake:

UPVOTE for a .03 second clip from CUBE


Wasn't it actually from Cube 2: Hypercube?

>> ^ant:
I can't cross my eyes.


Neither can I

If you think of time as the 4th dimension, then a cube held still over a length of time is a hypercube.

There are two films made after:

sequel: "Cube 2: Hypercube"

prequel: "Cube Zero"


I still prefer the original to these two.