How many eyes needed for higher-dimensional vision

It is an interesting and non-obvious fact that geometric optics only works in an odd number of spatial dimensions. But let us gloss over that fact and assume that light travels as rays along straight lines no matter what.

Abstractly, assuming your eyes function as pinhole cameras, the information you get from a single eye can be thought of as a function from the sphere $S^{n-1}$ to some colour space $C$. In other words, for any given direction specified as a unit vector, you can tell what the colour of the object is that first meets the ray from your eye travelling in that direction. Given this distribution of incident light, you have some sort of internal image processing machinery that infers the outlines and identities of objects in your field of view, and has to deal with ambiguities and what not, but let's not worry about that. The key point is that you have angular information in terms of the direction that things are relative to your eye, but no radial information in terms of how far away they are. So if you identify a particular point source of light somewhere in your view, for example, you know it lies somewhere along a particular ray; there is exactly one degree of freedom left. All you need to determine its depth is to locate it in the other eye's view. And then, since the the separation between your eyes is fixed, you can find the intersection of the two rays and determine exactly the location of the point in the world, relative to your eyes. (This is really what happens subconsciously when you look at something with two eyes.)

All this is independent of the number of spatial dimensions you're living in. If your retina is an $(n-1)$-dimensional surface in $n$-dimensional space, depth is one leftover degree of freedom which you can determine using a second eye. Of course, your internal image processing machinery will have to be more sophisticated, but in principle two eyes are enough.