Can life exist in 2D? The physics of two dimensional Universes


Why is everything three-dimensional? We
have three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension.
You don’t need sophisticated scientific instruments to confirm this. This is
obvious to any observer. Why aren’t there four dimensions? Or two dimensions? Is
there something special about three dimensions that makes life possible?
Scientists have presumed that life could only exist in our three dimensions
because the laws of physics, as we understand them, wouldn’t quite work the
same way. But is this really true, or is this just our self-centered anthropic bias talking? Could it be that this bias is not really rooted in
science? This is the question that cosmologists dr. James Scargill recently
examined, and released in a preprint on June 2019.
I personally spoke to Dr. Scargill, and I think you’re going to be surprised what
science has to say about this. Can life exists in another dimension? And what
does this say about our place in the universe? That’s coming up right now… There was a great story written by an
English school teacher Edwin Abbott in 1884 about geometrically shaped creatures that lived in a 2-dimensional world called flatland. There was a strict
hierarchical social structure based on the shape that you were born with.
Besides being a social commentary, it examined what life would be like from
the perspective of sentient two dimensional beings. And more recently, on
a TV show called The Orville on Hulu, which by the way, I think is the
real heir apparent to Star Trek, the TV franchise, even though it’s not in the
same universe, the crew of the Orville encounters a
two-dimensional universe. They didn’t get into the details of the two-dimensional
creatures that lived in that universe, but it was an intriguing concept. This
idea of creatures living in two dimensions has been the purview of
science fiction. But is the science really all that far-fetched? Let’s look
at the case for higher dimensions first. One reason we don’t see four or five
large spatial dimensions is that, according to science, life cannot exist
in more than three large dimensions, at least not life as we know it. Why?…because
stable elliptical orbits around stars are not possible in more than three
dimensions. The force of gravity gets weaker the more dimensions you add. For
example, in four dimensions, gravity varies as the inverse cube of the
distance, rather than the square of the distance. As a result, even small
disturbances such as the pull of other planets, would send an orbiting earth
either toward the Sun or spiraling away from the Sun. No orbits means no solar
system, and presumably no life. And thus life presumably could not exist. Another
good reason is that the latest data from the detection of gravity waves, using
LIGO, suggested that there was no higher dimensions because if higher dimensions
existed, we would expect to see some of the gravity leaking into these other
dimensions, weakening it by the time it reached earth. But this weakening was not
seen. So if higher dimensions exist, they exist on a very small scale, on the scale
of Planck lengths, where the tiny strings of string theory can vibrate. You might
ask, “why can’t life exist on these small scales?” Well, these scales are so small
that not even atoms could fit on these scales. If an
atom was the size of the earth, these dimensions would be much smaller than
even the size of a ladybug! But what about two dimensions? Why can’t
life exist in two dimensions? Unlike higher dimensions, we know for sure that
two large dimensions actually exist. Most scientists had believed that
two-dimensional life was impossible. But Dr. Scargill found that the barriers to
existence of life in two dimensions are not insurmountable. I spoke with Dr.
Scargill and he generously agreed to be the technical adviser for this video. The
link to his website and paper are in the description below. There have been two
main arguments against the possibility of life in two dimensions. First, because
gravity according to general relativity requires three spatial dimensions and
one time dimension. In other words there would not be enough degrees of freedom
for space to curve in two dimensions. And second, scientists have believed that the
neural networks for complex brains which require hundreds of connections per
neuron could not form enough connections in two dimensions, because the number of
connections would be physically limited compared to three dimensions. Let’s first
look at what is needed for life to exist in two dimensions. And let’s start with
the problem of gravity. In two dimensions if only the equations of general
relativity were applied, it turns out gravity would exist only inside the
mass-energy components. And so outside a star, where there is no matter, space-time
must be flat, meaning no gravity. And hence there are no orbits. Why does this
happen? Simply put, there’s not enough freedom in
how space-time can curve. And it is instead, completely determined by the
matter energy content of the space-time. This seems to present the same problem
of no orbits that we had for four dimensions. But nothing forces gravity to
be only defined by general relativity. In particular, there could be other degrees
of freedom, such as a simple scalar field. It would allow stable orbits around
point sources. And it really would be equivalent to the kind of
two-dimensional bending, like a rubber mat, or trampoline that you
commonly see for 3-dimensional gravity, except that it would be a more accurate
representation of the two-dimensional gravity. You should note that this
graphic is not what scalar gravity actually physically looks like, because
there would be no third dimension for the two-dimensional universe to bend
into. The bending just represents the effect of gravity encoded in the
geometry of space-time, including 2d space-time.
Dr. Scargill showed that even though there are fewer degrees of freedom for
space-time geometry in two dimensions, the equation still allows scalar gravity
to exist in the spaces between the masses. What about the rest of physics?
Would the other three fundamental forces from the standard model still exist — the
strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and electromagnetism?
According to Dr. Scargill, they would. Two dimensions would not be a limiting
factor since two dimensions provides enough degrees of freedom for the
respective equations to work. So for example, two-dimensional atoms could
exist, because the strong nuclear force binding protons and neutrons together in
the nucleus would be present. electrons could orbit around the nucleus,
since electromagnetism should also exist. In addition, the Higgs field would exist
with no problem, in principle. Dr. Scargill says that it is interesting to
note that the Higgs field and the weak nuclear force are probably NOT required
for life to exist. Only about two percent of the mass of an atom comes from the
Higgs field. Almost the entire mass of atoms, and presumably then most of the
universe’s mass, comes from energies present in the nucleus of atoms. I have a
video on that if you want more details. And scientists who have studied the idea
of the universe without a weak nuclear force have concluded the such a universe
would not be devoid of life! And what about the complexity of life, because of
the limitations of a number of neuronal connections that you could have? Dr.
Scargill shows in a series of planar 2d graphs, that connections could be made
with nodes such that they exhibit complex communications networks. They
would not have the complexity of three-dimensional brains,
but they could come close if the brains were much larger. A human brain has about
a thousand connections per neuron. Because of the limitations of 2
dimensional planar connections, the two-dimensional neurons would have an
average less than 6 connections each. But our neurons are limited in active and
inactive phases. In other words, they can only process so much information. It’s
estimated that only about 10% of the connections are working at any given
time. So the effective number of connections is about a hundred per
neuron. Two-dimensional creatures, on the other hand could be 100% efficient. So
now we have a ratio of 6 to 100. But if the two-dimensional brains were about 16
times larger (16×6=96) than the human brain, it’s possible that their processing capacity
could approach that of the human brain. Now this may be a stretch, but perhaps 2d
creatures could emulate less complex brains. It’s known, for example, that
nematodes, or roundworms, have about 300 neurons with 30 connections each. A
two-dimensional creature could probably more easily match that kind of
processing power. So what would be some of the real limitations for
two-dimensional life-forms? The 2d universe would be a surface. Planets
would be solid circles, and creatures would be 2 dimensional beings composed
of molecules which would be like two-dimensional strings of beads. The
organic chemistry, that we’re used to, depends on the 3d shapes of molecules, as
well as their composition. So this kind of chemistry would be a limitation in 2d.
However, this does not preclude some other form of equally effective organic
chemistry to rule the 2d universe. In fact, in the 1980s, scientists such as A K
Dewdney thought a lot about biochemistry of 2d molecules. And their studies
suggested that 2d chemistry, while simpler than 3d chemistry, could be quite
sophisticated. For any organism to exist and thrive, it has to be able to consume
and process energy. It could not have a digestive tract going one way completely
through its body like you and I have, because this would cut the organism in
half. But it could consume food in the same orifice that it releases its waste.
This may be disgusting to us, but again that is just an anthropic projection of
our values to other life-forms. Heat dissipation would be an issue, because
the relative surface area for 2d creatures would be much smaller than for
3d creatures. So for example, in 3d, the surface area of a sphere, is 4*PI*R^2, whereas the surface area in 2d would simply be 2*PI*R. So for any given
radius, the surface area would be much smaller in two dimensions. So the
creature, in order to increase its surface area for heat dissipation, would
likely not be smooth. It would have multiple folds, like a radiator in your
car, to dissipate more heat away from its body. It may also have a sophisticated
cooling system like your car. Everything inside the creature would likely be
connected to everything else, so the inside of the creature might look nearly
like a solid. There’s a famous line from Jeff Goldblum’s character Dr. Malcolm in
the movie Jurassic Park, “Life finds a way.” I want to emphasize that just because we
can show something can exist, does not mean that it does exist. Can we
demonstrate that 2-dimensional life exists? We can’t even demonstrate that
three-dimensional life, outside of Earth, even exist yet. So demonstrating
two-dimensional life seems out of the question right now. But what Dr. Scargill
shows is that to understand the true nature of our universe, we need to think
beyond our self-centered anthropic point of view. In other words while every
indication is that earth is rare and indeed, we’re lucky to be alive here and
now, each of us would be well advised to get over ourselves. This universe does
not revolve around us. Life in our 3d universe may not be all that unique. And
we may not be all that special.

100 thoughts on “Can life exist in 2D? The physics of two dimensional Universes

  1. IT IS HARD FOR US HUMANS TO REALLY CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE THEN US BECAUSE OF OUR FIGHT OR FLIGHT. Meaning that we will survive above all else. AND, nothing else in the universe CAN exist but US. But, THAT is SUCH erroneous behavior and a construed AND destructive way of thinking. We AS humans have, in the process of this kind of thinking, almost completely destroyed THIS planet earth and there is no GOING back.

  2. Me again even with 2 eyes we still see in 2d but with shadows our brains trick us into thinking we see in 3d. We see spheres as circles and cubes as squares. If we were in a 4d world then we would see in 3d I'm guessing

  3. Who says intelligence must come out of only neurons, and life comes out only from organic molecules, or even molecules? lol

  4. If I read your comment correctly during the premier, I think you stated that life can't exist without dark matter. Some astronomers believe that the galaxies named DF2 and DF4 have little or no dark matter present. Upon further scientific scrutiny if that turns out to be true, might it cast doubt on the claim of dark matter being necessary for life to exist at all? Or is there some other reason to believe that a galaxy without dark matter can't support life.

  5. You didn’t cover information storage (DNA or whatever). There would have to be a way of storing information for constructing each life form and replicating it for passing down to offspring. Can the 2-D chemistry allow for such storage and replicating molecule?

  6. Life is impossible in two dimensions, because it is impossible to have two dimensions independent of the third dimension, this is impossible and unreasonable, and the proof is that there is nothing in the universe that has two dimensions independent of the third dimension, for example, a computer screen has two dimensions but this does not mean that the third dimension does not exist but it does not matter to us when seeing, or we say it is not clear to us … etc. the same is true for the area of earth or the area of ​​the paper on which we write with a pen, but in the end, the computer, the earth , and the paper, All these things have three dimensions or volumes, we give another example, in general the vehicle is moving on the earth in two dimensions, but the vehicle has three dimensions, the Earth also has three dimensions, space also has three dimensions, so If something in the universe has only two dimensions and the third dimension is equal to zero, It means that this thing does not exist at all in the universe because he does not have any volume in the universe , where we find: ( V= D1× D2× 0= 0 m3 ).
    It is not possible to determine the amount of one or two dimensions except for something that has volume,the entire universe is a volume, and therefore there are no two dimensions independent from the third dimension in the universe ….

  7. The first Line of "The Rig Veda" is:
    "That thou art"
    ~This creation is most precise work of architecture and my friend, you are awesome.

  8. This was intriguing. One of the other commenters has said that "matter can't exist in two dimensions". Surely this is true. If you have a mathematical 2D surface (x and y), then any matter object, prom particles to lifeforms, would have to be part of that surface, not even a "filled circle" is allowed since having that "on" the surface necessarily introduces a z dimension to the 2D surface making it 3D.Or… is there really difference since no other matter can occupy the 3D space I currently inhabit (at least outside sci-fi) unless i move out of the way?

  9. Another Arvin Ash video ! check the earphones "Test test !" , grab some chips ! fix the screen ! good angle ! , oh yes , full screen … Et voila !

    Thank you Arvin !

  10. No …… Even protons, neutrons and electrons need 3 dimensions to exist.. .. Any force needs 3 spacial dimensions… Even gravity would needs 3 !!! Nothing could ever form without it.. Nothing physical could possibly exist.. Not even a 2 dimensial line. Not even consciousness.. Even photons need 3.. I think the string theorists stand a better chance.. This is the 3rd edit of my comment but I'm sure it wont be the last. Einstein's mass to space curvature has been tested a million times.. Rutherford tested them a very long time ago.. They were sound.. A 2 dimensional universe would contradict all that is known and has stood up to countless tests and scrutiny ?

  11. No …… Even protons, neutrons and electrons need 3 dimensions to exist.. .. Any force needs 3 spacial dimensions… Even gravity would needs 3 !!! Nothing could ever form without it.. Nothing physical could possibly exist.. Not even a 2 dimensial line. Not even consciousness..

  12. Thank you Arvin.
    Biggest mistake I have seen science make is to equate life as we humans know it, and invalidating every other way. For example, if a planet does not have oxygen, then it does not or cannot have life. Why? Because we cannot live without oxygen. Isn’t tht ridiculuous?

  13. great video..I see that you change your mind, in 1 of your videos, including in this 1, you say that all evidence points that we are unique, that the Earth is unique and its place in universe and that likely we are alone, there are no aliens-no advanced life..I'm wondering about your personal belief, not necessarly the evidence, did you change your mind Arvin?

  14. Interestingly, in one of his books Stephen Hawking argued 2D life could not exist because a digestive system can't form in 2D and would split the "animal" in two halves. I found this a bit odd, because why couldn't a 2D amoeba digest stuff on its perimeter?

  15. No matter how many times I hear about this, or how long I ponder what 'dimensions' may be in 5d, etc., I still have no idea how to process the idea. Just like the 'universe is an illusion' ideas, or 'holographic' still has no relevance as to how to actually live our lives, if you know what I mean. 🙂
    We humans are great at pondering things that we ourselves cannot comprehend. Humans are pretty neato.

    Thanks for the video

  16. Time is not a dimension it is a concept explaning that no 2 or more objects can exist in the same space and time but this is not true if there are other worlds/universes then 2 or more objects can exist in the same space and time.

  17. Ugh, I LOVE your channel. You ask questions and give explanations that make sense. Keep em coming man! I love your content!!

  18. he entire universe is a place, and the place has three dimensions, so it is clear that there is no two-dimensional world in the universe, this world is nothingness in the universe, so is it reasonable for nothingness to have two dimensions, this is unreasonable and is an obvious contradiction, because nothingness has no one dimension, two dimensions, or anything else, because it is nothing.
    the nothingness has no distance, you must understand that the concept of one or two dimensions is only for something has a volume, the origin of the three dimensions is the volume, so if there is no volume, this means that there is no any dimension it is inconceivable to believe that there is something that exists equal to nothingness in the universe, this is a clear contradiction.

  19. Great video!
    I have reason to suspect that not only do higher dimensions exist, but that there is also life there. Life of a kind we can not even suspect at this point. Any equation that assumes the space-time continuum will have a tricky time confirming this. Once we give up our bias of time as a dimension we are going to discover how amazing our reality really is. I believe that i understand the arguments against this, yet i insist that it has to be taken seriously.

  20. Just thinking that a "duct" going through the creature wouldn't have to split it in half. It would have to not be permanent. Could also provide a way for reproduction to happen. Imagine the two halves of the creature joined by curved hook like structures that allow interchange between the parts. As food is absorbed in an end of the canal, the hooks disconnect from each other, straighten up and connect to the food, absorbing a certain type of nutriend. As the food is depleted, the food moves further inside, straight tubes rejoin and curve back, and the reverse process happens further down, just that absorbing a second nutrient. It all goes so on until it reaches the end. Also, both parts, theoretically self sufficient, at least to some extent, could split and rejoin another individual, penetrating it and splitting it in half, exchanging genetic material to form a new offspring, then going back to it's other half.

  21. One thing I never get when people talk about some beiings/life existing in 2D:
    If you are in true 2D Space, there can be no Volume, you just have Area. So everything has a width of 0 in 2D, which leads to the conclusion that they can't have mass. And I can't Imagine any kind of beiing without mass. Therefore I would conclude that there can't exist life in 2D.

    Maybe I made a mistake somewhere in my argumentation, I'm happy to be corrected, let's discuss!

  22. What if WE are 2d lifeforms in a 2d universe just projected into the illusion Of a 3 dimensional space inside of a black hole? Or for that matter 8 dimensional to 4

  23. This goes so against my gut feeling that life could exist in 4 or more spatial dimensions but life in 2 spatial dimensions could not exist. If higher dimensions exist and we are a 3 dimensional slice of the higher dimensions then our physicists would be merely creating a working set of equations and theories to explain this projection without having any idea that was what was going on. It would be fallacious for them to then take the body of physics that explains a 3-D projection of a 4-D reality and run it backwards to a 4-D reality and say "It doesn't fit therefore it can't exist".

    As for 2-D life – you would be unable to have functioning tubes. Is that enough? In a 3-D reality, stored energy from the big bang provides all power for life. How would such energy be transferred down to the cellular level in a place with only 2 dimensions?

  24. Arvin saw your video on quantom immortality, and i wanted to know, do we live forever if the theory is right?? Seems very scary to me help me understand please help, been thinking too much about it

  25. Life can exist in n0D. Why do I need to think about dimensions? What happens when I'm drifting off to sleep (in that weird place between dreams and 'reality')? Dimensions and numbers break down in pure consciousness (try watching a clock or digital counter in your dreams sometime)…. and it freaks us out!

  26. If you smoke Salvia extract you can experience true 2D reality, or flatland, and if you are with your friends, you will meet their 2D counterparts, who seem to exist independently of the 3D version. And it sucks. Don't do it.

    Like, it's physically painful to smoke salvia, especially the process of being pulled and stretched out, which you actually FEEL. Blergh.

  27. Here is my BRO science interpretation…

    The 4th dimension (or TIME) is actually spatial. However we are FALLING through an endless(tbc) time hole, so all we know is 1 single direction of Time.

    Similarly, in 3D, if you were falling down a bottomless pit, you might assume that SPACE moves in only one direction along the Y axis.

    My theory is that we are just so used to falling through this TIME hole that we are unable to see it spatially, in our unaltered state of mind.

    And so what FORCE is pulling us through TIME? I suspect it is the 4D counterpart to gravity, and possibly the realized/unwrapped mass of a black hole that our galaxies orbit around.

    But that's just a theory, informed by too much LSD & Salvia. 😅

  28. but 2D doesn't have volume, how can anything physical exist without having volume? You can only have shapes in 2D. You can do crazy things with mathematics, but at the end of the day – it's just mathematical shenanigans.

  29. Super interesting video as always. I find the pondering of life existing in other dimensions to be fascinating given it warrants equally the pondering of life "as we know it" per say. I.e.: Life that isn't based on biology or even neurons nor atoms at all. Taking the imagination towards ideas of life in other forms. Energetic life held together by sheer will of conciseness, etc. But leads to obviously far-fringe science if even at all given it's broad meanings. The soul, life outside the body, awareness via mediation, humans who the military once hired to "remote access" other places on the earth and surprisingly with acute accuracy. The true meaning behind dreaming. Reality as it is vs reality as we only can perceive it. If even (because) the body potentially blocking such a larger scope. Interesting indeed.

  30. I believe some arguments against 2D life are abit weak. About the eating and poop part for e.g., what says that 2D life couldn't eat through surrounding the food and digest it without a determined stomake, live on photosynthesis or just by absorbing heat?
    If we on the subject accepts that the fundamental forces converts/adapts to 2D enviroment I believe that we should accepting that life could and in many cases also should look very different from 3D life. So I believe "they could not eat like us and therefore life can't exist" is abit narrow perspective when trying to answer such a large question as "can life exist in 2D?".

  31. Some people talk about life is a holographic 3 protection of a two dimensional surface .
    I wonder if there could be a connection with what Dr James is talking about .
    Thanks for another great video .

  32. I don't think anything living or not can exist in 2 dimensions, seems to me that everything must have some thickness/height no matter how small, take that away and it ceases to exist, even the image on a photograph has to have some depth or it wouldn't be there at all.

  33. Do we think the 2d creatures would be able to move of their own volition? I'm having trouble imagining 2d muscles or similar. Indeed doesn't movement somehow imply displacement of other things? If they can't displace things off to the side – not even the flat gases of their atmosphere – then surely their universe has to either have vaccuums they could fill, or it has to expand each time they move? How do flat things get round each other? I'm thinking of those games with the letters of the alphabet in a plastic square, with one gap. Withput the gap, the letters are stuck.

  34. 2D and extremely thin aren't the same thing. However small atoms are, they have to exist in 3D. Doesn't that preclude the possibility of 2D life? Also, if 2D life exists, eating and eliminating from the same opening is not the only possibility. Couldn't the organism have openings on it 'edge' dedicated to input and other openings dedicated to output?

  35. Yet to watch the video, but my presumption is that it's merely our minds that perceive 3d reality. We can more easily contemplate 2d reality because of our understanding of what flat objects look like, but anything beyond that is out of our league and so unimaginable. We live in the reality we can handle and that is sufficient for keeping us alive. Now, let's see the video.

  36. If a being has a thickness of even one plank length, that's a third dimension. It would get too weird for us to wrap our heads around. Maybe the entity's capacity for perception is the factor which determines how many dimensions it is conviced it lives in, but in reality we all share a 69 dimensional universe.

  37. 7:24 Weak force not necessary for life, but my understanding is that the weak force may explain why matter exists – otherwise all the anti-matter and matter would have annihilated.

  38. As creatures existing in 3 dimensions, we live on the surface of a planet, which is roughly spherical. What surface 2 dimensional creatures exist on? It would not make sense for them to live on top of a circle-planet surface, because that would mean more than 2 dimensions. The creatures would need to exist along the outside circumference of the circle.

  39. How thick would 2 dimensions be. A piece of paper? I think 2 dimensional life can't exist because there is no such thing as 2 dimensional space.

  40. If it can exist and it isn't forbidden because of physics then it must exist because, as you said, life will find a way.

  41. there is this simple 2D cellular automaton that may exhibit some "lifelike" features:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
    …and is actually turing complete. …soooo in principle, it seems possible

  42. Some great videos, but God created all of this for us. Humanity. So yeah, we are that special.

    In fact, videos like this prove that God created this reality for us so that we would have maximum benefit. We couldn't exist as 2D organisms. More than 3D and the universe would be too unstable for us to exist.

    Think Goldilocks and the 3 bears.

  43. Great video! I have been fascinated by the idea of 2D life as well as 4D. But have often thought where would 2d life reside? And how could we even find it if we live in a 3d universe?

  44. Wow, I was aware of the idea that there may be 2D life but I never knew of all of the obstacles like the single orifice for food consumption. That sounds kinda like what a pitcher plant does. I wonder if 2D creatures would form into colonial organisms and overcome some of those obstacles.

  45. Let's be clear about 2D. There is absolutely no height whatsoever (no 3D) for anything to extend into. As such, it's impossible for us to truly understand anything real about the functionality within such a realm. That world is infinitely far from being able to accommodate even the smallest, elemental particles that we know of. An electron is a 3D object. Take that electron and (somehow) slice it a billion times and it will still be a 3D object–one still possessing a monstrous appendage. The same goes for photons and quarks as well. Upon fully understanding this, you should begin to sense some visceral discomfort. If you don't, you might be inclined, in your haste, to write a book like Flatland…or read it and give it a thumbs up.

    The structure of 3D particles is a necessary component in the creation of what we call atoms. But a "2D atom" is not a thing analogous to that. And there's no reason to believe the properties of such a point-like object would facilitate emergent phenomena like pressure or temperature. Yet those properties tend to be vital in terms of 3D life. There would be no chemical signaling for 2D "neurons" (again, not a thing and not analogous to 3D neurons) to make use of. It would be a particle-free universe. As for how a 2D, infinitesimal sliver of one of the known forces (EM, gravity, nuclear) might manifest in such a world…and then beyond that…how it might support an environment upon which resources could be extracted to sustain 'life'…when we currently struggle to understand whether a 3D thing can be said to be alive (see virus)…well, that's a big bite requiring a lot masticating. And you know what happens when you masticate too much.

  46. Arvin, great video. One thing though: a full digestive trajectory would not necessarily be impossible for 2D creatures. The digestive path could be not a straight gap, cutting the creature in 2 independent parts. But instead it could be something like a Ω shaped curve (Omega) to make the two sections of the creature fit together like two pieces of a puzzle. This way the trajectory would completely go from one side to another without the creature ‘falling apart’ so to speak. The upper and lower section of the creature are still linked together, or more or less (loosely) attached to each other.

    The two sections could touch each other at places from time to time (when there’s no food particles in the way) to connect and exchange chemicals and information.

    Hope this description makes sense 😉

  47. There can't be any 2D life form. For simple reason even if we can make some how 2d organism it will not able to see surface.. and without that it will be confused and. It will not have any picture to see it will just lines. And finally it will die off soon since it will able to find or communicate with anything.

    And I highly unlike in this universe we can find any higher dimension beings. Everything here in this universe has to obey all the laws of this 3D universe.

    And if there are beings outside of this universe we shouldn't be worried since we will never face them. This universe is extremely huge for humans..

  48. Can a 3D creature influence the timeline of 2D creature by changing their past events? And,if so, would the 2D creature realise the change?

  49. I thought 2D space meant zero thickness, meaning it's impossible to exist in reality…merely a mathematical concept much like 1D space.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *