"Flatland" nitpick: How can A. Square, even in Spaceland, see anything but line segment?

In Flatland, by Edwin Abbott Abbott, the Sphere tries to explain 3-dimensional space to A. Square. He just doesn’t get it, so the Sphere pops A. Square out of Flatland, into Spaceland, and all of a sudden he can see in 3D – well, that is, he sees two-dimensional images from which 3D space can be inferred, as you and I do. (We have the added advantage of stereoscopic vision, but it’s still just 2D images we see.)

But, how is that possible? A. Square is still a two-dimensional creature with a two-dimensional eye that, as has already been explained, is designed to perceive nothing but line segments, i.e., to see in one dimension – just as a Linelander can see nothing but points to either side. It seems to me all A. Square would see in Spaceland is a jumble of incomprehensible 1D images.

I believe he describes how things look in his world; you determine the shape of the line segment by the shading. A line at 90 degrees to you would be one shade, but in general things don’t approach that way, so if it were in any other configuration, you’d see one end darker than the other. A triangle would show two line segments darker on one end. A circle would have a more gradual shading, etc. While there are problems with anything that had a single side facing you (say the hypotenuse of a triangle), they were finessed away.

Yes – but how would things look any differently to A. Square when he leaves his world? His environment has changed, but he has not – he still has a two-dimensional eye.

In Flatland, this has been my contention: while in Flatland, the Flatlanders would see nothing but line segments because they are seeing everything edge on. A circle would look like the edge of a circle and a square would look like an edge of a square. In Cosmos, Carl Sagan uses this analogy to say that if an apple appeared and intersected the plane of Flatland, the Flatlanders would see increasingly larger cross sections of the apple. I say that’s not possible, they would merely see the edge of the cross section that is intersecting the plane at the time. The edge lines would go from small to large then disappear.

However, if the square were knocked into a third dimension, it would give him a different perspective, however, would his 2-dimensional brain be able to understand what he was seeing?

:confused: That’s what Sagan was saying.

The main problem is not his brain, it is his eye. His retina-analogue is a semicircle, not a hemisphere like your retina or mine. How can it get any images that are more than line segments?

Is the text unambiguous that he is seeing an extra dimension?

Yes.

Does A. Square have binocular vision?

No; but that’s not what I’m talking about. You and I have “three-dimensional” vision in the form of a stereoscopic image the brain composes out of two two-dimensional images, one from each eye – but the result is still a two-dimensional image, i.e., not what a four-dimensional being would see. If A. Square had two eyes, the resulting images he perceived would still be line segments, just with some depth added.

It’s like this: Close one eye. You’ll notice you lose depth perception – but you still have some depth perception, because it comes not only from the stereoscopic effect but from all the subconscious ways you have learned to judge the relative distance of objects from relative size, shading and shadows, perspective, etc. That is why it is possible to paint a picture that looks almost three-dimensional with the proper use of perspective; it is also what makes a lot of optical-illusion puzzles possible.

However, all you’re seeing, with one eye or two, is two-dimensional images.

I noticed this the first time I read it. But I later encountered parts that seem to indicate that the sphere just kept showing him stuff until he got it mathematically, and the he let him FEEL him, which would include feeling from the inside, and thus give him 2D images to work with.

And it seemed that A. Square was picked specifically because he was a a great and gifted mathematician, and would be able to handle it.

So I specifically disregarded anything that said he actually sees in 2D, believing it to be metaphor.