[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/jp/ - Otaku Culture

View post   
  [?]In ghost mode, only threads with non-archived posts will be shown
File: 24 KB, 221x221, 1334816470047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8974068 No.8974068 [Reply] [Original]

You say you would like to spend time with your waifu, but would you?
Just, imagine it.
Imagine a 2D girl, in a 3D world.
It's just horrifying to me.

>> No.8974078

What a terrible person, to turn away the girl you love because she looks a little different.

>> No.8974084

>>8974078
It just seems like it would be horrifying!
I'm going to...I'm going to get a ball, and draw anime eyes on it, and a mouth.
You'll see what I mean.

>> No.8974088

your mind wouldn't be able to comprehend it. it's physically impossible.

>> No.8974089

It'd basically be the kigurumi thread but flatter.

>> No.8974091

She would become three-dimensional.

>> No.8974095

that's why I'm transforming myself into 2d so she won't have to come to this rotten dimension

>> No.8974100

>>8974095
This is the obvious solution.

>> No.8974101

It's actually possible.

http://www.tulpa.info/

>> No.8974102

>>8974095
how

>> No.8974103

>>8974100
>>8974095
If you were two dimensional you could only see in one.

>> No.8974105

It'll be like /fig/, but...I can't see how a living breathing person would work like that.

>> No.8974123

this thread made me remember a post from a few years back that said we're actually 1D/2D or something

>> No.8974136

But anyway, OP, it would be bizzare but fascinating. Since we're moving across dimensions I want three dimensional vision, if at all possible. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

>> No.8974151

>>8974103

No, if you were 2 dimensional you could only see in 2.

>> No.8974156

>>8974151
Nigga you're retarded. No, seriously, get the fuck out.

>> No.8974165

>>8974089
horrifying

>> No.8974168

>>8974151
If you were two dimensional, you could only see in tanasinn.

>> No.8974240
File: 1.44 MB, 1953x2274, 1294032675114.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8974240

"2D" girls are actually 3D in their 2D world and that would carry over to this world. They wouldn't look like they were drawn anymore, but instead like a 3D girl.

>> No.8974246
File: 313 KB, 772x1018, Flatland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8974246

Read this, it explains it.

http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/97

>> No.8974247

Well that's why I don't want her to be real.
If she were real she would get tired of my bad personality pretty quickly.

I prefer it being imaginary

>> No.8974253

guys what if m-theory turns out to be correct and we're actually living in 11 dimensions

>> No.8974288

I've thought about this a lot, actually. I tried to simulate this in my head.

Either manifest 2D in 3D, or project yourself into a 2D world using VR, or make your surroundings look like 2D using VR.

The problem is, you wouldn't be able to function. With lack of depth in 2D the only way you'd be able to move about fluently is with shadows, the 3D level of detail and depth of field. If you take that away, you have massively restricted the set of inputs that allow you to perceive your position in space. You'd be walking into walls and it would take immense conscious effort to do anything that requires even a moderate perception of depth. Try walking around with one eyes closed, you're a little clumsier when grabbing things and it's harder to catch things as well. If you also take away depth of field and the perspective change / detail that makes things look ``3D'', you'd be completely catatonic.

>> No.8974305

>>8974288
I'd like, for my waifu to be implemented onto a robot screen, and her face would be there, she can move around and stuff!

>> No.8974336
File: 7 KB, 170x195, Holly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8974336

>>8974305
http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-085

>> No.8974349

>>8974288
2D as we see it in an anime or whatever has enough information for us to walk about comfortably. You could play Doom well enough, are you really telling me you couldn't wander around in a sort of real-time anime world?

Or you could have your 2D world be like those anime which combine 2D animation with 3D graphics. Which has gotten kind of annoying, but I guess some people like it. It would be like a computer game with some Photoshop filters applied.

>> No.8974352

>>8974336
Yeah, I wish I had something like that!
:(

>> No.8974367

>>8974349
There's still the fundamental problem of a two-dimensional entity would see in one dimension, so even if you could bring out your favorite, she all around wouldn't work. She has to be 3D.

>> No.8974409

>>8974349

In 3D games you run into walls and objects are ephemeral half the time and lack proper collision.

Even in if you were VR'ed into a game with Crysis-like graphics, it'd take you a long time to learn how to grab objects and maneuver yourself without bumping into things without proper 2-eye depth of field. The perspective is just too different as is the world level. Until real-time ray tracing is possible in games, VR would feel awkward. You have no idea how much information that gives the brain about your environment (the shadowing and lighting). An emulated 3D one would be uncomfortable, a 2D one would make you barely functional.

>> No.8974439

>>8974367
For argument's sake let's assume we exist in three dimensional space, but see things in "2D" (as in, how they would appear in our cartoons and comics).

>> No.8974447
File: 900 KB, 1000x1000, nocturnes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8974447

Stopping spam.

>> No.8974450

this nerd talk is giving me headaches

>> No.8974463

>>8974439
You already see things in two dimensions, being a three-dimensional entity. Which is why I requested the ability to see in three since we're screwed around with Euclidean dimensions.

>> No.8974466

>>8974367

That's actually not the problem. You could easily have a generic humanoid robot with tessellation, so it could restructure it's skin / features to fit the 3D representation of the character. It wouldn't look at all like the character because of the different lighting and perspective in real life, but you could use augmented reality glasses to project that character's image in real-time. It would look like a 2D character in 3D space, but you could interact with it depth-wise.

>> No.8974488

>>8974466
I think it could work. I get why you/OP find it strange, but look at things like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. That was popular.

>> No.8974509

>>8974488

I don't find it strange, the augmented reality stuff would work fine, but those dolls made to look like anime characters are too creepy. In reality each one of our eyes sees in 2D, since it's a plane array receptor. If you close one eye your world doesn't turn into Anime. The big difference is that the lighting effect given by photons in our 3D space (like ray tracing does in computers) makes things look incredibly different. It's just not possible to have the kind of "texture" and lighting that's in Anime.

Maybe if we develop some material that is able to bend mess with the laws of optics in certain ways, like the metamaterials that can make things invisible, you could have that, but I'm not sure if it's possible, and if it is that's far far off. Augmented reality with humanoid robots is more realistic for now.

>> No.8974980

The dimensions stuff is nonsense, anyway. This stuff all comes down to the fact that anime, game or VN characters/``2D Girls'' would look disgusting in 3d because they lack human features.

You can have a philosophical pissing contest about perception and dimensions all you want, but you are wasting your time, really.

>> No.8975036

>>8974463
That's why I added the quotes and parenthetical note at the end.

Don't we see in 3D anyway? I mean, our retina is a curve or a cone or whatever, and we have two eyes.

>> No.8975089

>>8975036

The retina may as well be 2D. We have two eyes, but that doesn't mean we "see" in 3D. Your brain merges the two different perspectives together to allow you to perceive depth more efficiently. That's going down the philosophical / axiomatic path a bit, but in reality, a slice of 3D space as seen by our eyes is 2D. Two different slices from different angles, are still 2D slices. Combined, they can give you more information on the 3D space you are living in, as your brain will use "trigonometry" to calculate distances in the space, but in reality, even combined, the images are always 2D. They just have transformations based on the angle.

>> No.8975165

>>8975089
We can percieve actual depth, so we can see in 3d. Literally speaking, we're fed 2d images, but we see 3d. It's a matter of semantics, both 3D and 2D is correct.

>> No.8975182

>>8975165

We can understand the concept of 3D, but I don't know if we "see" in 3D. I guess that depends on what definition you give to "see" in this context. I'd argue that we see more in 2D, because you can look at a 2D object and see the entire thing all at once. This isn't possible with 3D objects because it would require a 4D sensor.

>>
Reply to thread [?]Don't expect anything heroic. Your post will not be uploaded to the original board.
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Action