Flaw to "3Dness" thinking.

[Holiday20310401]

I have realized that my thinking of the inevitably of the "everythingness" (whatever you call it) can have an outside and an inside is flawed.

You see, it only works through a 3D spatial sense. 4D places everything as inversed upon itself, and 2D 1D objects seem like an impossibility for something to be within them, unless they are of a lower dimension. So 1D can fit in 2D.

However I can't help but make a general rule with dimensions. There is always an inside and an outside view for a dimension. We can, with 3D perception, see every bit of a 2D object, however we can't see every bit of the 3D object we're in. That would require 4D perception.

Rule: A dimension is always within the boundaries of another dimension and bounding another dimension. (theory ofcourse).

We could say, well, we can place a 3D object within another 3D object. But there is the potential of the enclosed 3D object of coming out of the other. So they are not binding one another absolutely. But with a dimension enclosing another dimension, say, 4D enclosing 3D, they bind the lower dimension while being bound to a higher dimension. (that is of course wrong that they are spatially "bound"); simply causally.

Because they are of no potential to each other, but that is the same as saying they have full potential on one another, in that they actually determine eachother, creating linear cause, thus if we had 4D perception we would literally find 100% order withing a 3D system but be able to do nothing about it because the link of the two dimension systems (3D, 4D) are not linked, (the link is the potential on one another).

But another important factor is that if 2 different dimensions do not have potential upon another, in other words linearity, then I can't say that dimensions can in any way enclose one another. I mean, they simply don't existentially construe with one another, spatially. In our universe 2D is the same as nothing, spatially, and rightly so, because once again, no link of "potential".

However, in the 3D universe, we must in some way rely on a 2Dness and a 4Dness. This would solve the problem of infinite. While under 3D perception, we can't help but visualize infinite expanses, the universe never ends going up down, sidedways, frontwards, etc. But right when we break out of the 3D snag of thinking, the 4D encloses the 3D, the 3D is no longer infinite, becoming inversed upon itself so as to remain rational. But 4D has none, and absolute potential upon us, so we can't just supersuppose such that we will be able to get rid of the irrational realm.

We could say that the 3D universe's actuality is stable by means of it causally linked to the 4D realm. There are underlying features to the universe we percieve that can hint us at the flaw there is to dimension itself. It is pretense to knowledge's very being.

We can say that the reality we perceive is a dimension that holds no potential to the actuality, being that the actuality of the universe is dimensionless. The actuality of the universe, I have realised is nothing at all, and at the same time, one absolute thing; equaling to the everything we need to "opposite" the nothing. (they are both the same).

So, while dimensionless in actuality, because we are conscious, reality is every dimension, potentially. lol. Oh this is such fun.

Dimension is only an analog means of organizing experience to raise consciousness to a level that processing can take place and be of potential. We are at the 3D stage.

Side note: Though I wonder why peolpe judge transcendence as something that goes above our experience. What gives that assumption. What is beyond the 3D dimension is what can't be known of our form of knowledge, being, so 2D counts as much as 4D.

Thus, a dimension does not follow another one, dimensions can't be ordered into a series, also explains lack of potential upon eachother. But at the same time 100% potential and as such, reality makes the potential of us comprehending infinite dimensions, even though, actuality holds none.
The idea that above and beyond are mutual. That we must order experience, give it potential, is underlying to the nature of our perception, thus reality. (Well actually that's an assumption, but ).


Thankyou for letting me sort of rant on, I mean the subject is certainly philosophy, and thanks for reading.

Anything you wish to correct me on, I like the input.

[Holiday20310401]

I realize now that this is hardly general chit chat, so is it possible to move this to metaphysics, assuming thats what it is.

[sarathustrah]

i dont believe in 1d, or 2d for sure... everything is 3d right? or is it 4d? but alot of what you said is beyond me....
i do think the concept is necessary though... geometry and stuff... but there is no true dot or line or square...

cause even something drawn on paper, even with the trick of perspective... it is raised... even if the paper absorbs your medium, the paper has a thickness... no matter how incredibly tiny...

have you ever heard of the book "flatland" by edwin abbot... its awesome... i think they even made a movie... i think i seen an animated clip on youtube..


i dont believe in circles anymore.. not even true spheres... take a stop sign, add a line... add another... and another.... x10 million... you get the appearance of a circle...
you know the epcot center at disney? its a sphere right? WRONG! its a bunch of triangles :P

lol i prolly didnt explain my thoughts well at all.... its easier when i can draw it out for people

[Holiday20310401]

Well I guess forces like gravity are fundamentally circular or spherical in that they enact a singularity. There will just be some slight variables and problems making distinct circles impossible, so it would seem.

Maybe you can get a sphere big enough so that it will eventually be a true sphere. Perhaps stars would be an example if they got big enough (now I'm disregarding the obvious solar flares and such, of course)

Although I wonder what it means to have a singularity in a black hole. Doesn't make much sense. A singularity seems rather "asymtotical".(for lack of a better word, I can't think right now).

[sarathustrah]

my whole point is the bigger the thing gets, the less we can distinguish its true shape/shapes that make it up... it appears a true sphere... just like if you zoom in on the computer screen and see each individual pixel... its squares... but zoom out and we see the whole picture... ok im soooo sayin this all out of order and wrong lol

thats why i said its easier to draw in person... maybe i could upload one of my drawings tomorrow... to illustrate my theory/concept

its 3:20am here and im entirely sleep deprived :P

[TickTockMan]

Originally Posted by sarathustrah

i dont believe in 1d, or 2d for sure... everything is 3d right? or is it 4d?

From a physics standpoint, our reality (at least the one we are capable of interacting with) is indeed 4D.

X, Y, and Z (up/down, left/right, forward/backward), and the 4th dimension, which is time.

When things get really interesting is when you consider the possibility of 11 dimensions as proposed by string theory.

For a good time, google "M-theory," "String Theory," or pick up a copy (book or DVD) of "The Elegant Universe."