Higher Dimensional Organisms

[Halcyon]

Halcyon:

Your 2D membranes would not be able to fuse, because that would create depth, the 3rd dimension. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I'm going on no sleep 40+ hours.

Also, a theoretical Flatlander could only perceive and interact with the perimeters of other 2D objects.

I'd love to hear you describe a functional Flatlander, though, if I am misunderstanding you.

I've attached a picture of how I see Flatbob eating a flat-apple. He would extend his 2d surface around the apple to form a ring, not a sphere, which is then drawn into his 2d interior where the two 2d surfaces of his stomach and the ring containing the apple join and his 2d enzymes nibble it into bits.
I dont' see any need for his surface to extend into a third dimension to ring the apple, nor any issue with one 2d circle merging with another - obviously the lines of the circles would break where they touch, but assuming close proximity I don't see why the four ends could not fuse back together.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I've attached a picture of how I see Flatbob eating a flat-apple. He would extend his 2d surface around the apple to form a ring, not a sphere, which is then drawn into his 2d interior where the two 2d surfaces of his stomach and the ring containing the apple join and his 2d enzymes nibble it into bits.
I dont' see any need for his surface to extend into a third dimension to ring the apple, nor any issue with one 2d circle merging with another - obviously the lines of the circles would break where they touch, but assuming close proximity I don't see why the four ends could not fuse back together.

Wouldn't the hole cut a hole out of him?

 

[idav]

In 2D, the line of the digestive system would be the thing that breaks the organism apart, just like cutting a line across a paper to make a digestive system, the paper will be split and dead

Transferring of energy is not limited to a animal digestive system. Plants are more efficient. It simply needs an energy source that can somehow be converted to use.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Transferring of energy is not limited to a animal digestive system. Plants are more efficient. It simply needs an energy source that can somehow be converted to use.

In any case, there has to be an organ or series of organs to receive this energy, and that can't exist for a flatlander

 

[dust1n]

In any case, there has to be an organ or series of organs to receive this energy, and that can't exist for a flatlander

Cells don't have organs.

 

[Druidus]

Cells don't have organs.

Right. They have smaller "organs" called organelles. Even prions, self-replicating protein strands, are three-dimensional. Even a single atom takes up three dimensional space. Simply being kind of flat, like paper, does not make you truly 2-dimensional. You must be impossibly flat, possessing only length and width.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Even a single atom takes up three dimensional space.

That's actually something of an extremely contensious statement.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's actually something of an extremely contensious statement.

A single atom's wavefunctor takes up 3D space.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A single atom's wavefunctor takes up 3D space.

Or not. Mathematically, I can increase the dimensionality of that space without reducing the accuracy of any theoretical predictions of measurement/observation.

 

[PolyHedral]

The universe still has to be 3+1D though, otherwise the fundamental interactions get wibbly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The universe still has to be 3+1D though, otherwise the fundamental interactions get wibbly.

And 3+1 is not 3. It's four. So this:

Even a single atom takes up three dimensional space.

would still be inaccurate. Every atom would then exist in a four dimensional space. What kind of space (Minkowski, Reimannian) or even whether more dimensions are needed, doesn't make an atom existing in 3-dimensional space more accurate.