>>10838257You can imagine 4D shapes.
All varieties of visualization involve imperfect workarounds and inferred assumptions. It's not like when you look at a real world object you're really seeing some pure and exact vision of that object in itself. That's why so many optical illusions have been identified and documented. The eyes and brain have all sorts of tricks to try to cobble together the end product of what you believe you're seeing.
We have good evidence people can visualize 4D given you can set up a digital simulation of 4D objects / environments by using some arrays of 4 different numerical values instead of 3 or 2 and have people learn how to manipulate the objects / navigate the environment successfully.
Also, just as you can use shading to create a sense of depth where there isn't really any in a more typical drawing or painting you can use shading / colors to create the sense of how deep or shallow along a fourth dimension different parts of a 4D image are. Charles Howard Hinton used differently colored cubes to learn how to visualize four dimensional shapes for the same reason, that shading / color is a way of representing a dimension.
The claim 4D visualization is impossible is just a case of putting 2D / 3D visualization on a pedestal. You can process 4D shapes as well as any other shapes because you're always using hacky workarounds when it comes to visualizing in general. If we actually had some special, "correct" view of regular objects then you wouldn't be able to create the impression of a distant large object through use of a nearby small object, or vice versa like in those pictures where people make it look like they're giants standing taller than the tallest buildings.
