Comment Re:N-dimensions -1 (Score 1) 156
You are right but your argument is extremely flawed.
There is nothing to say that regardless of dimensions you will only ever be able to view things in a dimension below. The reason why we cant manipulate a true 3D display is because we dont see in 3D.
3D is an illusion of 2D images and perspective, your brain does an exceptionally good job of it, ask anyone and they will tell you they see in 3D but ask them to tell you whats on the other side of an object and theyll have to go around to the other side to see it. If you were truly seeing in 3D that wouldnt be necessary.
This is something you see demonstrated in programming where in order to display anything you have to effectively remove a dimension in order to project it to the screen. (The same can be said of every representation of 3D, photographs, paintings, neither of them have actual depth.) Everything on your display is 2D whether it looks 3D or not, likewise everything 3D in reality is viewed in our eyes in 2D whether it is or not, and there in lies the problem.
When you make information 3D it doesnt change your ability to only see in 2D and as such you will have to do more complicated tasks in order to get to the information. 2.5D which is what we commonly call the current desktop layout is the minimal amount of effort to get to the information. (Drag and slide something away and you see whats behind it.) ITs precisely how we organise information in real life. E.g. Fileing cabinets.
The more you dabble in 3D the more you have to do to get the information and the less intuitive the interface becomes.
Ultimately it becomes a case of more information on screen weighed up against complexity of viewing it and so far nobody has come even remotely close to beating 2.5D and there have been _a lot_ of attempts.
However, this is nothing to do with some invented axiom of how much something can see in a given number of dimensions. If our eyes were very different and could somehow see and take in the world in length, height _and_ depth then our displays would no doubt be very different. Probably having to be 3D holograms to seem anything other than extremely primitive to something with such visual prowess.
