Two Dimensions can never exist . Physically . Can you not understand this ?
You dont understand that i am not saying 2D physical objects exists.
I dont know any physic proposition that would fully met the claim.
So i propose, perhaps some quantum definition, and perhaps we could use the string theory to claim that 2D "objects" can be observed in our world.
I think that your confusion about that comes from that you dont take in account that "exist" has nothing to do with our good sens of what reality is.
If someone (a scientist i suppose) can propose a physic definition of a 2D physical object, this mean that "it exists".
Nothing more, nothing less.
If you cant admit this point, you cant understand scientific results and you will always be confused about what reality is (so you would do philosophy (i like philosophy, but it is not what we talk about here), not science).
What you see has depth . Distance .
Thats the point.
What
you see... has
no depth because it has
no distance !
If you were like the owl, you would have the ability to hear in 3D (using his brain) !
We, on other side, can only hear in 3D restricted to left/right (so we can not distinguish very clearly up from down signals).
With one ear, we and the owl, can partialy hear in 3D, but why are we not able to see in 3D ?
Because when we hear, the signal (the sound) coming from distant source do not travel very fast.
So we can distinguish little difference in the time of arriving of "some sound" coming from some object doing sound and have some partial 3D direct sens.
But with light, the time of arrival are blured because all photons come at almost the same time when they come from a standard common source.
Now, to gain better representation of how the sound is in 3D, we use our brain (like for the visual system).
With 2 ears, we can so distinguish the left or right origin of "the sound" (that is composed of many sound waves...).
Owl has "an ear" placed higher that the other on his face (its a hole like for every birds) and so het can also distinguish the up and low origin of the sound.
We can not use the differential in the time of arriving of the sound wave like the owl, to distinguish the up and down origin of the sound.
We use an other not so efficient system (related to the shape of the ear and the absorbsion of the sound wave by the flesh).
Saying that, you see that the differential system that can permit to recognize directly the origin of the wave is not
possible with light waves.
Light is too fast and we dont see any difference in time arrival even if the objet would be 1 km tall.
(We use the optical blur/clear system to do some distinction of course, but... it is not on the retina, but in the visual system so into the brain that these operations occur)
The system used to see 3D for light, is to use the projection on the flat retine : And
here we loose the information of the 3D origin of light.
So no, we dont see in 3D,
because we loose at first glance the 3D information because of the projection of the light on a flat support.
The molecules that make up the brain are Not a piece of paper . They have depth . Three Dimensional dimensions .
Yes, probably, but it has nothing (or is very far related) to do with the problem.
This discussion is interresting i think, because it help to understand what we talk about reality.
Per example, here, we talk about waves (sound waves, light waves), but a wave has nothing in it (it is not a local self property like we could say about mass) that say where it comes from...
Furthermore, wave is generaly composed by a tremedous amount of "particles" (so yes phonons and phtons are not the same but let say that), and if we want to talk more fundamentaly about the 3D ness or 3D ness of objects, we should, in my opinion, restrict our toughts to the particles.
)... and to choose between science and religion.
