First let us define an $n$-ball as the euclidean sphere in $\mathbb{R}^n$ including its interior and its surface where $n$ refers to the number of coordinates needed to describe the object (the geometer's notation), NOT the topologist's notation which refers to the dimension of the manifold. All $n$-balls considered here are of radius 1 centered at the origin. So an $n$-ball is the set of points
$$\{x=(x_1,x_2,...,x_n)\in \mathbb{R}^n : \sum_{i=1}^n x_i^2 \leq 1\}.$$
It is well known that the volume of the unit $n$-ball is given by
$$V(n)=\frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma(\frac{n}{2}+1)}$$
and before anyone points it out, we will consider all volumes to be unit-less so that they can be compared with each other. So for example
$$\pi=V(2)<V(3)=\frac{4}{3}\pi.$$
Now, my question is why does $V(n)\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$? This behavior is independent of the radius. Depending on the radius, $V(n)$ may (or may not) increase at first, hit a peak at some $n$, and then monotonically decrease and converge to zero. Considering $n\in\mathbb{N}$ to take on only discrete values, for the unit $n$-ball, the max volume is achieved at $n=5$.
I have read all I could find (here/wikipedia and elsewhere) and I do see that the $n$-ball occupies a smaller and smaller portion of the circumscribing cube $[-1,1]^n$ and I have seen the arguments that the diameter should be used as the fundamental quantity instead of the radius. This way, the volume monotonically decreases to zero for all $n$ at least for the unit ball. I also see the analytic reason why the function converges to zero. The gamma function in the denominator grows much faster than the numerator and eventually the whole fraction converges to zero even if the radius is a googol.
But my question is, intuitively speaking (as if intuition is a good guide in higher dimensions), $V(n)$ should be monotonically increasing or at the very least non-decreasing. The way I see it, a 2-ball is contained in a 3-ball and a 2-ball can be rotated in $\mathbb{R}^3$ to create a 3-ball. Similarly, you can rotate any $(n-1)$-ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ around the appropriate axis to create an $n$-ball. I know that any $(n-1)$-ball in $\mathbb{R}^n$ has Lebesgue measure zero but inside any $n$-ball, an $(n-1)$-ball can be rotated around any of the $n$ axes so $V(n)$ should be larger than $V(n-1)$. This specific "argument" hasn't been addressed on any of the previous questions that I could find.
Any geometric interpretation of what's happening? Bonus points for something intuitive and/or 1-2-3 dimensional examples to show me the fallacy of my argument. Thanks!
Addendum: I have seen this thread (and even this one and many others on stack exchange and math overflow) and like I said, they don't address my argument presented in this question. They do mention other arguments such as comparison with the circumscribing cube or analytically looking at fraction to see why it goes to zero. But those I already know...namely by reading these very threads.
