1-Dimensional Screens

[Novarender]

What would it be like to have a 1-Dimensional screen? Well, it would just be a line of pixels. A long, long line of pixels.
What could we do on this? Well, practically nothing. Unless you want to play Moving Dots.

Wait, maybe there's some potential in this. If we can represent 3D objects in a 2D screen, could we represent 2D objects in a 1D screen?
Sadly, no. I think. You see, probably the reason why we can interpret 3D objects in 2D is because that is how we see in real life. We don't really see in 3D-- We are actually seeing 3D objects projected onto a 2D surface.
But then, how come we can perceive depth? Well, we see two slightly different images from each eye. Our brain can then compare those images to see differences and understand that as depth.

Because we actually see 3D in 2D, this is probably why we can see 3D objects in a 2D screen-- that's how we already see them. Therefore, we cannot see 2D objects in a 1D screen because, well, we don't see in 1D. That would be weird.
If we did see in 1D, however, that would be a different story. What would it be like? I bet we would actually be able to see 2D objects in a 1D screen. Also, there is a chance that we would not be able to see depth anymore.
Think about it-- it would be hard to convert that well as 2D to 1D, and we can't see 4D from 2D. (We can't normally see 4D)
Yes, there are 4 dimensions in space. In fact, scientists say that there are up to 10 dimensions! This is probably just a theory, though, and we most likely can't see any of them because our viewing dimensions are out of thier range.

Why don't we see in 3D? That would actually be really wierd. Think about it like this-- your eyes fill the space all around you, and you are able to see every inch and angle of every 3D object. *shudders*

Well, this has been interesting. I'm off to play Moving Dots.

[The Dwarven Digger]

Super Mario 1D Bros, anyone?

[chuckster]

You lost me at "What would it be like"

[PixelPest]

Not physically possible as a screen has two dimensions. In one dimension you only have a single axis. You could argue that a line of pixels is 1D and positioned and moving along a single axis, however the fact that it is however many pixels by 1px makes it 2D, therefore your "moving dots" wouldn't actually be true 1D. As soon as they have both a width and a height it can be argued that they are 2D objects in space. Try making your moving dots have a width and no height

[Novarender]

Not physically possible as a screen has two dimensions. In one dimension you only have a single axis. You could argue that a line of pixels is 1D and positioned and moving along a single axis, however the fact that it is however many pixels by 1px makes it 2D, therefore your "moving dots" wouldn't actually be true 1D. As soon as they have both a width and a height it can be argued that they are 2D objects in space. Try making your moving dots have a width and no height

Yeah, you're right. Also, it is to be noted that 3D screens don't exist either, but are known as "holograms". What could be used as a 1D screen?

[PixelPest]

Not physically possible as a screen has two dimensions. In one dimension you only have a single axis. You could argue that a line of pixels is 1D and positioned and moving along a single axis, however the fact that it is however many pixels by 1px makes it 2D, therefore your "moving dots" wouldn't actually be true 1D. As soon as they have both a width and a height it can be argued that they are 2D objects in space. Try making your moving dots have a width and no height

Yeah, you're right. Also, it is to be noted that 3D screens don't exist either, but are known as "holograms". What could be used as a 1D screen?

Not possible in a 3D world. A 2D screen works in our perception of three dimensions because it is a flat surface terminating at four edges. We see a flat face with no depth (z-axis). However, we can't remove any more dimensions as we'll always see at least two. If we lived in 2D space a 1D screen would be possible by the same idea of removing an axis and losing depth. If we consider 2D space of having x and y-axis like a Cartesian plane, neither are immediately depth. If you were to draw a rectangle on these axes, it would have a width and a height, however if you interpret an object, also in the 2D plane moving towards it, there would be no perception of depth, so it wouldn't view the rectangle as we would. If it was moving parallel to the x-axis it would arrive at a 1D surface (an edge of the rectangle) and then perceive the width of the rectangle as its depth. From that you can deduce what a 1D screen would appear as

[chuckster]

Spoiler: show

Not physically possible as a screen has two dimensions. In one dimension you only have a single axis. You could argue that a line of pixels is 1D and positioned and moving along a single axis, however the fact that it is however many pixels by 1px makes it 2D, therefore your "moving dots" wouldn't actually be true 1D. As soon as they have both a width and a height it can be argued that they are 2D objects in space. Try making your moving dots have a width and no height

Yeah, you're right. Also, it is to be noted that 3D screens don't exist either, but are known as "holograms". What could be used as a 1D screen?

Not possible in a 3D world. A 2D screen works in our perception of three dimensions because it is a flat surface terminating at four edges. We see a flat face with no depth (z-axis). However, we can't remove any more dimensions as we'll always see at least two. If we lived in 2D space a 1D screen would be possible by the same idea of removing an axis and losing depth. If we consider 2D space of having x and y-axis like a Cartesian plane, neither are immediately depth. If you were to draw a rectangle on these axes, it would have a width and a height, however if you interpret an object, also in the 2D plane moving towards it, there would be no perception of depth, so it wouldn't view the rectangle as we would. If it was moving parallel to the x-axis it would arrive at a 1D surface (an edge of the rectangle) and then perceive the width of the rectangle as its depth. From that you can deduce what a 1D screen would appear as

I am so confused.

[l0g1c]

Since the universe (or at least our interpretation of it) is 3-D, then technically 1-D and 2-D don't exist outside of theoretical concepts. For instance, a screen may be perceived as two-dimensional, but it is impossible to make a monitor with zero depth.

[PixelPest]

Though if you see only the 2D surface of the screen it could be justified as being a representation of two dimensions, however to see it you'd still need three dimensions such that you have depth, because whether the screen has depth or not, to see it as perfectly 2D you need to be perpendicular to its plane on a z-axis, encompassing three dimensions. So even if you could have a 2D screen you wouldn't be able to see it without being in 3D, though you may be able to perceive it as being 2D which was the basis of my previous post