Time is short, people are morons, and I've got sh*t to do.

    Notes Part 3, Spring 2005

    Backward space or time become necessary when considering movement through 5 dimensions or 4 dimensions of space plus time. Both of these are in a way the same thing. The object I used was a 5D version of a cube or tesseract, then used its "surface" or 4D wall to understand movement through 5 dimensions simultaneously or 4 intersecting 3D worlds or universes plus time.
    
    All (of the 4D sculptures) ought to be made of glass to demonstrate the invertibility of curved space, or the inverse effect, visually and easily. That becomes so obvious (with glass), that the same view from all outside points (combined) looking inward through both spheres is exactly the same as the outward view from the center sphere looking outward in all directions (from its center point), that few could not be able to glimpse it.

    Notes Part 1, Late 2003

    Most people trade potential for paths that will bring them the most time and fewest problems. I trade potential for what will give me the most understanding of life in the shortest time possible and will give me many problems (to solve). (It is a) question of drawing it out (extending), or trying to cover the most ground possible. The more energy you push outward, the greater the return flow inward, dimensional donut.  Physical facts (are) unimportant, change is the only real existence, or happenings without manifestations, or creating their own.

    You play the cards you are dealt at each moment in time. Trying to second guess things now, either what you should have done then or what you should do at any given time in the future is to blind yourself from seeing them clearly (or fully that moment) at (that) time, or believing now has undo relevance upon whatever then.

    What you know is all that enables you to do anything. What you don't know is what drives you to do anything. Making a past path creates a lacking or wanting of a future destination. Both grow outward from the center.

    Notes Part 2, March 2004

    Center-periphery of time as well as space, any thing or event seen as the center, dual or multi-centers in space connected by time, dual or multi-centers in time connected by space. Events center multiple times and spaces.

     Notes Part 2, June 2004

    People whose minds are completely focused on and around their own life's circumstances will understand almost none of these notes and that is good. The only way to bring most of it into focus is to develop the ability to step back from your own life's perspective and add up all the perspectives of all else around you. That ability will be come key to all else and survival. It is to be able to see your life and circumstances dually simultaneously from within it and in time, and from an outside perspective upon it and time, from all other points and perspectives outside of it at once. (Like in curved space how the all points furthest away from the center added up looking inward are exactly the same as the inward out point of view from the center, and everything else lies only in-between the one point you perceive with you at the center and the non-definite sum of all others points furthest away where you could be which are both, the one definite and the sum of all the others possible furthest away, are exactly the same single point's perspective).

    After the accident, my perception of time was briefly interrupted and began to wrap around itself coming away from the future and past equally at the same time, pushing some perceptions into somewhere equally away from both, yet forward in another direction impossible to place in current descriptional guide points. To see the future and past as both self-perpetuating creating itself out of itself and the other, you can see what they create themselves in outside of both, which are of course, the same thing. The "new" experiences this seems to create to me, also are in a sense, very old hat to me, ancient history, at the same time and I only bother to repeat it because it is far away as well as near, and it is something to do, and inevitably all I can do as well. Curved space and curved time are similar in this fashion. You are able to understand how the very far away (in all possible directions in space or all timelines in time) are the same place. Figuring out how to understand such an environment forces your mind to grow in new directions you did not have to deal with previous to perceiving things in a curved environment. These notes, Time Roads, Universe Inc.'s Paradoxes and Probability Waves, and 2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple were not accidental but the logical result of the grasping to come to terms with new means of perception pushing to new levels (to understand it) as the Universe itself is inevitably trying to always out-do and build upon itself as well, though it too already knows, has been there before, and always is there. The Yoshoe need to always keep it fresh, different, only works so far (against the Yoshomee desire for continuity), yet enough to make it worthwhile.

    Notes Part 1, December 15th, 2004

    It is strange to reread 2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple again to get back to where it left off. With the foundation it laid framing the notes beyond it, I can cover the same ground much faster and have more to relate it to, yet still remember 2 years ago fighting to cut that path one paragraph at a time like hacking a path slowly through a very thick jungle which I can now cover in a much shorter time, and can imagine in the future those who can cover the same "ground" of reasoning as easily as cruising in an SUV down a superhighway.

    With 2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple, I understand that not everyone will be able to understand all its concepts. I even allow that much of it might not make sense or be applicable to the real world, but because it is based upon logical deductions on straight-forward reasoning, it has value, and I am reasonably certain it covers ground which has yet to be covered because its logic is so simple and puts many complicated things into an easier to digest perspective, much of its concepts are either unknown or scattered about in this time or I would have come across them in books rather than to assemble it from parts I must invent myself. …

    Notes Part 3, Summer 2005

    As I put in my most recent post there, 'Einstein as Newton: God or Gospel only for awhile, Super Bonus Days 41 and 42,' most people really cannot say what I mean by “events” or “direction” but that was probably intentional. For me going over these notes in the present and doing so, trying to guess how they match up with things going on in the present is like peeling an onion backward in time, then forward, then backward again. …

        Planners for what is going on now, though, have no idea what that means. Not that some would call me risk-adverse, but our war planners have gotten punch drunk that because the world has not yet been blown to sh*t, if we keep doing the same stupid things over and over again it will not be. That “God” has our backs. That our monumental f*ck-ups were fated, part of His plan. The road is running out on where that mentality can take us. You can only play Russian-roulette with the fate of humanity for so long before the odds catch up, and there are no do-overs.

        As mentioned above, I know the importance sometimes of buying more time. I did a lot, wrote a lot, to get to this point, much of which was not always easy to explain. I am not perfect nor would I ever claim to be. On many a day I have to try very hard to give a damn whether humanity lives or dies, rises to the troubles confronting us all or continues to hide our heads in the sand and think it is not our problem, that when it all blows to hell, it was not our faults. That there was nothing we could have done.

        On a “good” day, you can count me in on that group of blissful lemmings just waiting for a cliff to throw ourselves over, so long as we are doing what we are told, unquestioningly. Unfortunately, sometimes I get it in my head that there is something I could try to do about it. From what I have written above, just because sometimes these ideas are not as moronic or suicidal as they might otherwise have appeared if things did not turn out as well as they did, it is not to say they were not, truly, as crazy as they appeared to be. But a chance, any chance however slim, is sometimes enough when you are staring into a complete loss of control of events, and watching an otherwise attractive species and planet about to go down the drain.
     
        The time for rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is nearly up. It is too bad the world seems to be controlled by those, not only with little sense of morality, humanity, but also a very poor sense of time.

 Real Men Fear Nuclear War, Not In Kansas Anymore
Truthrevival.org
Sunday, August 5, 2012

                "Correct," Inventor added. "Each axis which is perpendicular in reality slightly bent of a curved reality flatted out a bit to be visualized to us."

                "I would think this is leading us to bent time, as that is the way the story is progressing but if we are no longer to be in it, there is not really any point in trying to go in that direction," Assistwo said glumly. "Plus," he said slyly, "if World War III is about to begin, there would be no time or point in it anyway. Bent time or not, no time equals no time."

                "But never rule anything in or out," Inventor corrected. "Getting here once, and getting here an infinite number of times are one and the same thing. The new title of Book Two, Infinities Overlapping: Two to One to Two is more telling than you know, but I will leave that to my successor to deal with or try to explain, should she even have time. Sad to think of the utter waste and pointlessness in humanity in cutting everything short now."

                "Damn, out of time yet again, and all of this only to set up a stupid clip show for a stupid blog!" Assistwo exclaimed. "Foiled again, just when it was getting to the good stuff."

                "Don't forget," Inventor reminded, "if it weren't for that end appearing on the horizon, we would not have had something to move toward to have taken us to where we are now. For us, in our case, that end was literally our reason for being and beginning all of this in the first place."

                "True," Assistwo said looking bored, "but your name isn't Preacher so get on with the clip show already!"
    

    Breaking 'Stick of History' and Inventor's New Goodbye   (Stick Jokes, the  Inventor/Assistwo  clip show, and born in fear of WWIII)

    Jareddubois.blogspot.com, Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

        In November of 2005, while in my dorm room in Sweden, I had music playing and the song ‘Time’ by Hootie and the Blowfish came on. It hit me at just the right moment to make an emotional impact. I was thinking about time, I was worrying about time, and I was writing about time. But most of all, I was out of time.

    “Time, why you punish me?
    Like a wave bashing into the shore
    You wash away my dreams.”


         This was a few days before my second and last political asylum attempt, and one could say I was fairly stressed about it and what might happen afterwards. I was going over my notes, trying to get as much done on them before time ran out, again, and the song had words that just seemed to fit what I was thinking around that exact moment. It was a song I liked to sing along with typically, one of a handful that I don’t completely suck at singing to, and I put so much feeling into singing it that by the end of the song, I had tear lines down my cheeks.

    “Time, you ain't no friend of mine
    I don't know where I'm goin'
    I think I'm out of my mind
    Thinking about time
    And if I die tomorrow, yeah
    Just lay me down in sleep

    Time, why you punish me“




         I can talk about the political asylum attempt very much without talking about ‘2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple.’ It obviously was not done because of that set of writings. But when discussing that set of writings and why they occurred, completely, why I have said in the past that they were “compulsively written,” to do them justice at why they were written, to be entirely starkly truthful, it would be impossible to do it without mentioning the political asylum attempt. And that is why this is one of the hardest posts to do correctly, so I put it off and had to think long and hard about how to word this, as well as when it should be written.


             First off, there is a blurring to me between that story and the set of notes I am covering here. I do not see them as two different sets of writings. The notes were written alongside ‘2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple’ and at least at the beginning they were intertwined both in the topics they covered and the reasons for writing them. What began as what I would later call ‘2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple’ was just another math problem put to words like the one a few days before called ‘Universe Inc.’s Paradoxes and Probability Waves.’ I did not really think about why I was writing it or what purpose it would serve. It was just a way to frame an idea that I had about dimensions which came about because of a concept a few days before. The original story, and what became Part 2 or Section 2, they had two different purposes going into writing them and ended up as two different forms, though obviously it was a continuation of the same story line, if one could actually pin down a story line to it.


            Beginning with the second section, character names were given and it developed into a dialog-based set of writings. The idea by that time was to bounce back in forth between the 2D and 3D universes to set up how a 4 dimensional universe might appear, and eventually introduce it. It took a long time to get to that point and I was more interested in the structure. In the past I have written about it saying that I did not really know where it was going, but must have known because it had a framework and was predictable to me, so that I must have known where it was going, but was a bit surprised by how and when it got there.

    With many things you can think you can see the beginnings of them, though you never really can. As I have written previously here, the beginnings of each thing factor back into everything else which came before it and not only is dependent upon them happening as they did, each is the logical result of all that which came before it. I think I can see the beginnings of things I started to write and while writing them, in the flow so to speak, have (had) an idea where they were going pointing to conclusions I must have known before starting them or that progression would have been coincidental in the extreme. (2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple is a particular model of what I mean). Nothing can be THAT coincidental. Yet at the same time as knowing or sensing slightly ahead of the progression where (things) are going, I am equally clueless how they will end up or I would not bother to write them. It could either be that that willingness to finish would evaporate or that I don't really want to know sooner than that time. I also can see how what I start no more begins with me than my life (began with me)(as if the Universe began with me) and how what I do is logical extensions or expansions (only) upon what came before. It is not that I am (theoretically creatively) incapable with a complete break with the past, but that to relate things to others (in a way that makes sense to them) and bring people together, common ground must be found and weave together everyone's past into something (more inclusive and) new. Since the roots (of everything) come together looking back far enough in the physical world, using that framework is easy. What people do with it is the end I prefer not to see. Inevitably it would disappoint and I would not wish to bother, or maybe also I don't want to see or know before a certain time, if any one way can become more real than any other outside of my own life's sight or experience.

    Notes Part 1, December 15th, 2004

         That is true in a way, but obviously while writing it, I did have ideas of what I wanted to work into it. I know many parts that were never written, and obviously what I called the 5D notes got so big with so many difficult and challenging concepts, there was no way most any of that could be worked back into the story line. The early notes, Part 1, developed as they did because of the structured ways of looking at things built up in the fictional story. By that time, I felt I had a framework for thinking about dimensions and time and constantly went beyond that framework.

           As I said before in a previous post, in the latter part of 2003 in Lithuania, with the Notes Part 1, I was coming up with radically different ways of thinking about time and dimensions pretty much every week. Some of those ways I quickly abandoned or merged with other ways of thinking but it was pretty much open-ended and I began to think there was no one right way to look at time. Some explanations worked to explain some things, some incompatible ideas explained other things. Not being sure about anything but being completely open to new ways of thinking was better I thought at the time, and probably is always better.

           So though I had ideas which I wanted to write about even back in late July/August 2003 (2 months previous to the Notes Part 1), I did not really know how to set up what I was thinking, so the fiction story was what I call conversationally driven.  I would sit at the beach thinking about the story, come up with some good questions, then go home and have the characters talk about them and see what came out of it. The framework was there, or at least potentially there, so long as I took my time at it and got the math right.

           That did not always occur. I never screwed up so much with it as the very first day. The entire first section was not meant to be added to. It was to be a stand alone short story. I had a vague idea when I began it of where and how I wanted to end it, so it was not so open-ended as the larger story was which began with Section 2. But that first day I went off in a wrong direction, and left the titles of the sections in to remind myself of how much I screwed up to remember to never do that again.

           Before the story even had a name, not that the existing one now is very good, I started to try to get a handle on it by going back and breaking it off into sections with ‘Winnie-The-Pooh’ type chapter names.

           Where I screwed up majorly was called 1.7 ‘Where 3 + 1 seems to equal 6 (Deleted for brevity)’ and 1.8 ‘Where 3 + 1 definitely is not 6 but really really looks that way.’ I had not thought it through enough before writing and I had written myself into a box. So when realizing that, I just switched tracks and kept on writing. I went through these two sections a lot when trying to salvage something readable in Lithuania by moving paragraphs around and merging these two sections into one, but I kept the old titles, again, to remind myself to at least get the fracking math correct.

           The story most obviously was influenced by ‘Flatland, A Romance of Many Dimensions,’ written by Edwin Abbott Abbott in 1884. That I believe was not the first of that type of story line either, but it was eventually the most famous, at least by the 1920's. I was first exposed to that story in a Physics course but I doubt that I have ever been able to get through reading it. It just seemed really really boring. Thus I can proudly say that however boring anyone thinks ‘2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple’ might be, at least the bar I was aiming for was not very high, no offense intended for ‘Flatland’ fans.

           After finishing the first section, I looked at it and saw a potential framework to build upon. I did not exactly know where that framework was going, and much much later, I can say I continued the notes and the story because of the political asylum attempt in that I needed something off the charts in weirdness. Something that would seem very technical and hard to explain, and the more obtuse and seemingly unintelligible, maybe the better, but that would come later. That is not precisely why I went back to working on it at first, though really I did not want to nor could I afford to time-wise.

           As mentioned in the last post, I did not think Einstein’s Relativity Theory would survive the test of time, not even beyond much more than a few decades at most into the future. But saying or proving any of that certainly is not within my range. But in reading many books about 4D space, I knew they were seriously flawed and I thought, "Ok, I think that with a little time and effort, I can show how some of that mistaken reasoning is quite obviously deeply flawed."

         But setting out to use that story to show how published books by Physicists about 4D concepts were wrong would take time, and I did not think I had the time, nor could I accurately predict how much time if it could be done easily would take. The story seemed like a road going off into a hazy distance. I had a feeling it led somewhere but I did not know if it was leading to what I was looking for.

           Unlike in Sweden when I thought I only had days left to work with, 28 months earlier, the reason for writing was the same, only at that time I though I had about 6-8 weeks to go before the political asylum attempt. How 2003 turned into 2005 is a longer story than I will deal with now. But guessing I had about 6 to 8 weeks of relative freedom to do or write anything I wanted is what made me think to continue the story. If this was really all the time I had left, I thought I could get the story to a point which I was aiming for, to show how concepts, accepted by science in ways of thinking about 4D space, where severely shortsighted.

           Really, thinking that I had even that many weeks left was being optimistic. I figured the proof I needed for the political asylum attempt had a short shelf life so to be effective it would have to be done quickly or not at all. But my health was another ultimate wildcard. As I have covered here already, what I have described as health problems does not even begin to cut it. I had something like cancer, though I am glad that it had never required treatment or been diagnosed, spread through my entire digestive system. I could not eat much solid food for months. Even milk made me sick. Eventually it passed but avoiding doctors was important. Being diagnosed with anything serious would have made the political asylum request more complicated, not that it was not already mind-f---kingly complicated to begin with. Being accused by anyone of medical tourism or trying to get access to a non-oligarchy based health system was the last thing I needed or wanted.

           To give an idea of how painful those months were, immediately after that time, though I was much improved, if asked whether I would have wanted to go through that again or take a bullet to the head, I swear without hesitation, if those were really my only two choices, I would have asked for a bullet. Time has removed me from really remembering that much about the pain, I have been excessively healthy for 9 years now, but I have to take my own word for it on how I saw it at that time. I really believed on balance, life would not have been worth going through that again.
 
           Just when I was getting over that unknown but potentially deadly serious medical problem, then I got hit by a car. Things were not looking up. I had problems remembering some things. I was getting dizzy all the time, and though that gradually subsided over the summer, it did not stop entirely until the fall. The last dizzy spell I had was not until I was in Belgium, when I was fairly committed to the whole political asylum attempt, so all along, whether I was up to that was always a concern, thus the delays and always looking for alternative courses of action.
 
           As with the ‘Evolve or Die’ post previously, covering that period and what became the "Super Bonus Days" running count of a limited number of “extra” days, I never looked most of the time beyond saying, "I may have only this many days left to work with. What is the most I can do in this extremely limited amount of time to try to change things?" The political asylum attempt, though warranted and at least for a short time provable as at least debatably justified, was really more ammunition than I could ever had realistically hoped for, but obviously it was not something I was in any way pleased about. But it also was never the main thing to me, only what must be done to enable other things to happen.
 
            If I was committed to trying to change a few things on my way out the door, so to speak, to work it would have had to be extremely complex and multi-pronged, not just as simple as only moving in one direction at a time. Even if that direction was toward such an unthinkable collision as what actually did go down. The asylum attempt (possibly) was not successful but it deescalated in a way I could not have predicted in 2003. The world of 2005 was substantially different, at least for me than the world of 2003 and by then I was far more perceptive again in understanding how. A major reason for delaying it for so long was because my brain was healing itself after the serious concussion, and I was getting ever more intelligent quickly adapting to circumstances unique to that situation at the same time, which actually required nothing less.
 
             So as I said, though the political asylum attempt while not yet having occurred in 2003, still set everything in motion, but it was not the only card in play, only the one I had to keep close to my vest, for obvious reasons. That perspective alone never could get worked into the notes directly but it was there in other ways. I even kept a running travelogue for awhile in my head. Today is the last time I probably will ever see my family again. (Turned out not.) Today is the last time I will ever drive in Boston again. (Turned out not.) This is the last time I will ever have an ice cream sundae at Friendly’s again. (Made it a Jim Dandy, 5 scoops with 3 toppings and bananas! Figured what the hell. Probably got sick too. Maybe turned out not. Can't remember if I went back there yet or not. Only DQ here.)

 
          So, getting back to ‘2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple.’ With all those future events and concerns running around in my head, and only a few weeks left for me on the horizon before that all began, I looked again at the first section after it was done and decided with the short time I had, I might be able to use it to explain at least what bothered me most about how people misunderstood 4 dimensional spacial concepts. Not that I was any expert for having screwed up big-time with the first section. But I thought as long I kept it simple-stupid like in the first section and was more careful about how I went about constructing it, I thought that I could get the story to where I wanted it to be in that short of a time-frame. Though I knew I was shooting into the dark so to speak on how it exactly might get there, if it might get there at all. It took only 4 or 5 weeks to get it to where I wanted it, finishing at Section 6.4 and Inventor’s “New Ground” chapter right when it was time to leave for Europe.

 
           So now that I have covered the reasoning behind writing section 2.1, ‘Building the Machine,’ and beyond, I will now cover how Section 1.1 began. The image for what became the story came a few days before. In the notes it was written as…

    7/29 (2003)
    -----
    Over the rainbow, perfect sunny day, close eyes, feel falling through infinite space, infinite time, infinite other consciousnesses down and back into yourself.

         What that refers to is what happened on that day. I was driving on Puunene Ave in front of McDonald's and the Post Office in Kahului with the top down on my Ford Mustang convertible. Iz’s ‘Over the Rainbow’ (Iz is Israel Kamakawiwoʻole) came on the radio and I had to close my eyes for a second (while driving, not good, but then remember the part about the recent head injury, but hey, only for a second mind you), and just feel the beginning of the song. It was a perfect day, and though I remember it differently now, outward in all directions as I put in later notes, at the time it was inward in all directions, then the same wave coming backwards from all directions in space and then back into yourself. It is a four dimensional spacial concept. The “dimensional donut” concept from the later notes. Think of it like that episode of "Mork and Mindy" where Robin Williams keeps getting smaller and shrinking through different universes. In a non-70’s-sitcom sense, like the old description of Nirvana or whatever as a castle within a castle within a castle with the last inside the first. [BTW, the Hypercube Cubix 2014 game I just released was meant to show that concept. Unlike the previous game from the time of these notes with a single hypercube, this one is "stacked" hypercubes with each "inside of" the other and the last of the chain inside of the first.] That is another, or the same, 4 dimensional concept.

          So when I woke up thinking about the reverse of that image or feeling from few days before, it was outward in all directions at once as one dimension not 2 or 3 or 4, and still half asleep, I started telling myself a story in my head. I got the first paragraph, then the second, then the third. Then I started forgetting the first, then forgetting the second. Well, it IS hard to remember the same thing awake that made sense to you when you were half-asleep or dreaming! The mind just does not work the same when awake and you tend to forget it quickly unless you write it down. So I wrote it down.

           It was not worded exactly the same but it was the best I could remember and then I just kept writing from there. If I stressed too long on getting the first or second paragraphs right, I thought I might lose the train of thought so I just keep on writing. All day. Without stopping. When I had to stop to get something to eat eventually, I wrote that into the story too. It was at that point that the characters in the story were written as self-aware, that they knew they were characters in a story. It was not the first time I did that. ‘Universe Inc.’s Paradoxes and Probability Waves’ had a tiny bit of that and I thought that it was fun to do. Basically I kept going ahead in the story while I was eating and I wanted to save time and get right to the new stuff that I simply had the characters read what the other characters already said as a way to skip over re-explaining stuff. Though they were supposedly in different dimensional universes it was helpful to me to keep them staying on the same page somehow on how the overall story was progressing. It also was the first glimmer of humor in it, as it was nearly as boring for me to write as ‘Flatland’ was for me to read!

           Speaking of humor, Assistwo was something unexpected and by far my favorite character. Once Inventor graduated and was named, (at first like most non-characters in it, he was just a plot device or a math problem angle) he needed someone to talk to or to “bounce ideas off of.” Entree Assistwo! Writing those parts were a lot of fun. While going on and on trying to explain how a two dimensional person would view three dimensional concepts, for the purpose of later having the 3 dimensional characters dealing with the same concepts with 4D problems, I would eventually get bored with what I was writing and throw in some Assistwo comments in between. It was something for me to look forward to writing in an essentially boring really long math problem story.


           The notes immediately before the longer story, written on Super Bonus Days 43 and 44, are below. The comments in blue below included with them were written on December 15th, 2004.


7/29(2003)
-----
Over the rainbow, perfect sunny day, close eyes, feel falling through infinite space, infinite time, infinite other consciousnesses down and back into yourself.

Mathematics of a hug and a smile.

Full of living (life) - desire to do, be, accomplish or actualize possible events into real events, wanting to do a million trillion things before you go to bed, walking into a library or bookstore and say I want to read all of these books, go all of these places. Regardless of what you have done or accomplished, but to feel all of these possibilities before you and boundless desire to do or experience them all.

It is not what you do that really matters, everything happens, somewhere somehow. What matters is feeling that you can.


Pages 4 and 6
=============
(Note: These next two are a little embarrassing. The idea was to kick around the notion of how I knew all of the chapters of Time Roads, what they were about, before writing it, kind of like a blurred focus or outline, and what that concept, if true, entailed. Like the Vestabur poem, I know all the parts not written and probably never will be, though they in a sense exist to me without having to write them. Other authors know this in a way. Tolken believed that a Middle Earth would have in a sense existed even if he did not write about it. LeGuin has talked about Earthsea as if it is a place which develops on its own with little for her to do but "check in" on it once in awhile. These two paragraphs kick around that idea and should not be taken literally. I don't ascribe to the points now, and at the time, had no intention of using them for anything but to sort out ideas. As an excuse, I did have a recent head injury at the time. :-)

Atemporal paradox - Time Roads should never be fully written. The more realities it exists in incomplete cause a greater shadow cast in those fewer realities it fully exists (in). To have one foot in existence and the other in non-existence is to be partially potentially anything. To be fully in existence is to be only one thing. To have no existence is to be potentially anything. To be partially both is to evolve and grow through time. (Note how this statement relates to much of the "Growth" section, and being in-between existence.) The wanting to know something out of reach creates the satisfaction (that would not occur otherwise) once finally figured out, the bigger deal it becomes. No matter how eloquent the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem was, doubtfully one he himself might have come up with, no doubt was nothing compared to all the bountiful ideas the problem itself inspired or ignited. Something to have the most value needs to be whole and defined enough to capture everyone’s interest as being solvable, knowable, and nothing more. The more times or dimensions it exists in only longed for or pined after, the more valuable it seems to become the more and more often conscious beings become obsessed with its supposedly one definite answer. It literally becomes more the more often it is seen to be lacking, and becomes a cause in its own existence. It can be temporal or atemporal. The Universe is a temporal paradox like the chicken and the egg, it is its own causation. Unlike the chicken and the egg which both grew together out of something else in a way, the Universe literally created itself, though it never really did, will, or can exist in actuality, by (through) the act of perceiving itself.

Time Roads is becoming a paradox, but a first for me anyway fully consciously (and remembered) attempted to purposefully be one. It had a beginning point in one reality and exists in actuality in a finished state in at least one other reality. By spreading its effects outward into other realities it will never exist in fully other than potentially, yet affect them as if it did exist, it becomes a paradox, having sideways effects without sideways existence. As I said, it is what it isn't and it isn't what it is. It is both grounded in at least one solid known reality and (having) potential with shadows from it bleeding into other realities where only parts of it are known. Those shadows or parts merge or converge in a reality not in the future or the past of the realities they exist only as potential or as shadows, they point to a reality parallel to one that exists with their own. Without having to necessarily "pull" it into existence in any one particular reality, I can "see" it from multiple potential realities points of view at once, like something in a reality can be "seen" or experienced from multiple points of view of different individuals. Though this is in a sense in my head because I will and can seem to only live one of these realities at a time, by projecting awareness of how the same event can, would, and seem to both occur and not occur at the same time, or at different points in time, I can see it from a multidimensional "me" point of view which is similar to how the same events are perceived by multiple individual's points of view all in one reality. Multiple others in this reality I am not saying is the equivalent or the same as multiple "me's" across other realities, but how they can be thought to converge, overlap, upon interpretation of "seeing" the same event from different angles, are analogous to each other. Knowing something's existence without actualizing it is to potentially see it from many angles at once and let it grow outward into a shape no single reality can contain or hold. It becomes too big or (too) complex to be defined by or limited to any single version of possible events, (a) single Universe, or (a) single timeline. It grows outside of time and across dimensions and can only exist partially in them at once. "Seeing" the potential of anything this way is to "see" the potential of anything and everything else as well. The pattern of things that could be beyond how they only can, will, do, or seem to exist only at once, or in one Universe's history of time.

(Note 2 on these 2 paragraphs above. If it seems disjointed, please reread the first disclaimer above, especially the part about a head injury. Its not that I don't see what it was referring to, it is just a bit too complex of an idea not rendered particularly well, yet picturesque enough not to want to try to revise or reinterpret it now. It is basically about describing perception in a sense if the Many Worlds Theory is correct, especially about growing sideways into parallel realities like things grow into successive realities over time, but a bit cryptic, unformed, though not worthless.)


Page 5
========

No such thing as a line, (a) square or cube shape each must have an  inner to outer thickness.

(And thus that single one sentence idea grew overnight and I woke up writing 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D Thinking Made Simple, Section 1, or woke up thinking that and then began the rest, not really sure. Still, the concept of inner to outerness constantly pushing up levels of understanding dimensions thus turned my life upside down. The dimensional contortionist and mouse-in-walls view at the beginning of the Notes better framed it to proceed to where I am now.)



2D 3D 4D 5D Thinking Made Simple begins…


    1.1: Where moron's from 3 different modes of space "discover"  inner to outer dimensions and ascribe it by different names

         "Eureka!" says a 1 dimensional being in a 1 dimensional world. "I have proved conclusively that points cannot exist. To prove this," he says to another 1 dimensional being, "lets imagine a point here but it has no 1D'ness, no height (that is what they describe and measure their sole dimension by). I can pass right through it, so with no points, I don't have to do math anymore."

         The other says to him, "Yes, we know points cannot exist in space, they are mathematical constructs but we imagine they exist by cheating and giving them minimal height."

         At the same time in a 2D world sometimes referred to as Flatland for some strange reason, a 2D being realizes lines cannot exist. "Look, lines with length but without width cannot exist if you look at them head on. I can make a square prison made out of lines but they could not hold me. I could pass right through them as if they were only made of laser light. Since lines cannot exist in reality, they must be mathematical constructs, therefore I do not have to learn geometry," he says.

         "No duh," says another Flatlander. "We know pure lines cannot exist without width but we make them by cheating and giving them a minimal amount of width in addition to their length to imagine and construct them."

         Unfortunately for them, simultaneously a 3D person reading "Flatland" realizes planes, and therefore 2D worlds, cannot exist.

         "Look," he says to the ever present other person in this analogy (it is nice to save words to have another present without having to go look for another to enlighten him or her), "without having any thickness, a box made up of 6 planes in 2 parallel planes in 3 pairs would not confine me. It would be like squares of lines with only 1 dimension, width but without length or length without width. A prison made up solely of opposing planes would confine no one!"

         "Idiot", says the other. "We do not make prisons out of planes, we make them out of walls. Walls like the area they confine or wall off have height and length and width. We call it thickness, dummy. Though a pure plane of just length and width cannot exist without cheating or giving it minimal height so we can draw, imagine, or work with it, we know pure planes of anything exist solely in our minds. They are dimensions of nothing until we oppose them with something to make them stand out against it, a slight width though mathematically zero for a vertical plane, or a microscopic height for a horizontal plane to keep it from vanishing from existence from another perspective.


1.2:  In which Flatlanders meet and trap jumping circles

         In Flatland of a 2 dimensional plane which has seemingly no height and therefore cannot to us exist, Flatlanders are having to deal with an invasion of circles which behave like fireflies. They seem to disappear for a few seconds and then reappear slightly further along in the direction they were heading. They seem to go out of phase momentarily with existence and then reappear somewhere else. Though they appear quite of Flatlander origin, this weird act of being able to disappear and reappear somewhere else on the other side of lines, Flatland's minimally thick walls (since we have already learned must have length and at least minimal width to confine anything), makes them a scientific curiosity. Grants were approved to study this new and weird phenomena. Since they could only disappear for a few seconds at a time, one smart researcher reasoned, if the walls were thick enough and the circles were intelligent, and perceived they could not disappear long enough to get through they might not try and one could capture one to study it.

         Around the same time in 3D space, a university received a grant to study a new weird but similar phenomena in their Universe, balls floating about most of the time but disappearing and reappearing seemingly at will on the other sides of walls, which as we previously noted are more than 0" thick or they are not very good at keeping anything in. By making walls much thicker, one could conceivably trap one of these balls to study it if the balls knew they could not move quickly enough and disappear long enough to pass through without rematerializing inside the wall (that would be bad).

         Both in Flatland and in the 3D world, both coincidentally (and conveniently) they realized their "walls" would have to be 1 meter thick. Both wanted to study the movements of the balls or circles in a confined square of opposing sides, a square in Flatland, a cube in 3D land. Both needed to see the object through the thick walls with the least amount of distortion. A mythical, but expensive, substance, we will call it Mythite, was considered the only viable alternative. In Flatland they constructed a square 3 by 3 meters in each direction, or a 9 section larger square with the middle square empty for the subject. Similarly in 3D world, they built a 3 by 3 by 3 meter cube made of 1 meter cubes, and left the center cube empty for the object to study.

         In Flatland the researcher speculated that the circles were momentarily moving into something called 3D space. The objects, he postulated, were not disappearing but moving into or through space he could not see. He reasoned if the Universe was not 2D, something which everything his senses told him to be the case, but actually contained a 3rd dimension in which his Universe was sandwiched between or contained within, the object could be briefly moving through this 3rd dimension he could not see and go "over" or "jump" as he phrased it, through the walls and appear on the other side. Since all dimensions have 2 directions, he speculated his Universe or World would have not one but two other ways to do this, 2 other directions to go in to bypass the line wall. The object could go "up and over" the wall, or "down and under" the wall. These were new and radical concepts but seemed to fit the facts to describe the circles behaviors. Luckily the walls he had were sufficiently thick that the circle could not go over and across fast enough to make it to the other side without rematerializing into the wall.

         In the 3D world, their researcher made a similar conclusion. The spheres obviously were not disappearing and reappearing on the other side but were temporarily moving through a apace or dimension he could not perceive. If the sphere could disappear and reappear at will anywhere else, it could not be trapped. Since its ability to disappear seemed limited to a few seconds and its speed seemed limited too, that 1 meter wall all around it of solid Mythite could hold it.


1.3:  In which Mythos goes to war and shortages lead to new inventions

         In both the 2D and 3D worlds, also coincidentally, the land of Mythos, the only place Mythite can be found (which is why it is so expensive), there was civil war around the same time both researchers needed to build a second device so they could study the objects or creatures in pairs nearby each other but separately confined. Each researcher was given an amount of Mythite insufficient to make a complete container. In Flatland, a larger grant was issued for anyone who could make a container that could hold the creature with less Mythite. One method proposed was, since the square seemed adequate in size, perhaps one could cut off diagonally half of the corner squares. Instead of 8 (9 - 1 in the center), only 6 squares would be needed. However, the researcher was adamant that the 1 meter perimeter be persevered. Though rare, it might be possible for the circle to move at full speed diagonally toward the corner which would not be fully 1 meter across at that point if the corners were cut rounded off.

         One brilliant student speculated he could achieve the full effect of the 1 meter containment on all sides using only 6 squares worth of Mythite by folding the walls into another dimension using a mathematical model of the mysterious "3rd" dimension. If 1 meter squares went "up" and "down" 1 meter on each side of the creature in a dimension opposed to both length and width, they could conceivably wall off the creature from escaping through the mysterious but unprovable "height" dimension. Only the north, south, east, and west squares would be needed, each only 1 meter thick, but now their north and south, east and west sides would be in contact all immediately beside the creature, extending a half meter "up" and half meter "below" the creature.

        "But," said the researcher studying the circles, "I know the math of a 3rd dimension makes a cube theoretically possible. After all, I surmised that the 3rd dimension can be used to describe how these creatures can disappear and reappear at a predictable rate based on speed, time, and distance from when they disappear and reappear. I am not questioning the possibility of a third dimension. What I want to know is how you can envision what this cube will look like, no less how you intend to build one. We are, after all, Flatlanders and not supposed to be able to conceive of what a cube would look like."


1.4:  In which the student demonstrates 3 dimensionality to Flatlanders

        "Here," says the brilliant student,"is where we Flatlanders are not as dimensionally ignorant and less intelligent as 3D world people might imagine us to be. We can easily envision a 3 dimensional cube using a 1 dimensional world. Though only a construct, since a line must have width to exist, imagine if our world were flat like a line. To someone in a that 1D world, our square would be conceivable as a combination of 3 of their worlds all at once in other dimensions or in the same dimension over time. Here is our 3 by 3 square as shown in 3 different 1 dimensional worlds, or on the same 1 dimensional world in 3 different time periods. In the first example we have all three of the base. In the second we have only 2 units each one apart (in the middle) and unit one wide. In the third, we have another 3, the same as the base. Since we live in the real world of 2 dimensionality, we call see all of these 3 levels or dimensions of 1D worlds at once. They could know it over time, putting them together mentally. By recognizing the pattern of the 3 together, then the 3 with the middle one missing, then the three seemingly back again, in a repeatable succession, a 1D person could know it as we know it, as a square."

         "We can," he continued, "use the same logic to represent our 2 dimensional world. Imagine if our 2D world were really flat like a 1D world to those in a 3rd dimension. By using the time analogy instead of dimensions, we can as yet only guess about where they might be located, for as we well know, ordinary space is only 2 dimensional, by switching these "stacked" Flatlands into a third dimension which we cannot see all "sides" of a cube at once, into a time dimension, we can "see" what it would look like. Instead of 3 for a base, it would have 9 and each of those 9 units would have an extra unit of measurement in the extra dimension. As we know them, our squares are exactly that, one measurement of height times one measurement of width, but the 9 squares that make up the base would have to have an extra measurement, in that other dimension, ideally all cubes by themselves, or 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter, or length times width times "height" for lack of a better word."

         "So to imagine," he continued, "what this cube would look like, imagine not 3 at the base each 1 by 1 units of measurement but 9 in 1 by 1 by 1 units of  measurement. These would be stacked solid like the base of our square is solid. Next would come the midsection of another level exactly as we see of our square, one of 8 squares, not 9 for we are leaving the middle empty for the circles to go into. And just like the 1D example, we would have an identical top to match the base with the middle filled in again, to completely seal it off in all, now in 3 different directions at once! All together it would take 26 cubes of solid Mythite."

         "Wait," said the researcher, "I know that if there is such a thing as a third dimension and we only perceive two by comparison, we still have math, and know that the cube of the number 3 is 27, or 3x3x3, not 26!"

         "You forgot the center needs to be empty if you want to put anything in it," he replied.

         "Ok, my mistake. I do remember you said you could decrease the number of squares we needed to house the circles so we could study them from the 8 we are presently using to only 6. So far all you have done is tell us how you could do it with 26. We don’t have 26, don’t even have 8. That is why you were working on lessening the amount we need, not drastically increasing it!"

         To this the student replied, "I was only showing how I can conceive of what a solid cube would look like in folded or stacked 2D space or in our 2D space over time. The cube made of 26, of 3 by 3 by 3 cubes with the middle cube empty, would require much more than 26 sheets of Mythite. Each "block" would be not be a square or hollow cube even, but countless sheets of our squares of Mythite stacked into each block to make it solid in the 3rd dimension, and even that giant number just for each block, and then that number you would have to multiply by 26! No, that is not the cube I am proposing to build, nor is there enough Mythite in the entire Universe to build one (The 3D world's 3D cube of 26 blocks of solid Mythite not withstanding, though that is a different Universe). That would be for a cube of the area you have now, the outer edge of the 3 by 3 square with the 1 block hole in the middle for the circles. We would only need to cover the inner 1 meter square’s area because 4 of the square walls we use now would be "turned" sideways folded into another dimension, and stay joined all along the "up and down" sides now to us invisible. These sides will stay together by adding 2 more to join them together at each of the ends where these four sides meet in the other dimension, one square panel joining them together in the "up" direction, the other holding them together in the "down" direction. You would only need 6 squares, not 8, and the outer edge would shrink from 3 meters across now, to only 1. Plus since the only reason we use Mythite now is so you can see clearly through the 1 meter walls without distortion, and the circles would not be contained because of the width or thickness of the walls, but instead by being contained or walled off in each of the directions of the 3D space they travel in, and since the walls could now be much thinner, they could be made any substance, even glass."

         The disappearing circles researcher was impressed. Only 6 square panels needed now instead of 8 and cheaper and more plentiful materials could be used. Folding the walls into a 3rd dimension sounded promising. He could get closer to the creatures, have lots more room to walk in the lab as the "cage" would now be still the same size on the inside but shrink to only 1 meter across on the outside instead of 3 meters across now.

         He asked, "What's the catch? That is besides I presume you don’t know how to fold the walls into the 3rd dimension?"


1.5:  In which we first confront the concept of Suchness

         "Suchness," the student replied. "Back when I first encountered the example of a 1D Universe of more limited dimensions than our 2 real dimensions, I ignored the implications it was based on a line which is a mathematical abstraction. I used the 1D world example to show how they could understand squares if shown a little bit of them at a time and how they could, if they had memory and intellect enough, remember and recognize this as a representation of a square spread out over time, and then used that to show how we predict what a cube would look like, I left out one key point, or cheated so to speak. To apply the 1D world to our world, you must give them some additional length or width in addition to their regular measured dimensionality since we know the Universe is really at least 2 dimensional. Without some even microscopic length or width opposed to the other which you choose to measure, the line disappears in the other direction or the other means to measure. Lines are to us like points are to them, mathematical abstractions with zero for the value in one dimension but with a real or positive value in the other. "

          "To exist as a physical entity or thing requires Suchness. If I have a value for a line in one direction but zero for width of that line in the other of our two real dimensions, its total mass would be the length times zero. It would not be able to exist in our world. Now imagine that the world where the circles go is 3 dimensional. We or whatever we wish to send there would need to have a non-zero 3rd value of measurement in addition to length and width to exist there. If even one of those 3 values equals zero our total mass would equal zero and we could not exist there. Without that third value we would be a mathematical abstraction without form. If any of the values needed in however many dimensions actually exist, if any one of them equals zero, everything that it describes cannot exist in its space unless it extends to a minimal degree in each of the dimensions of its reality."

         "If," he continued, "if I were to turn a 1 meter by 1 meter wall we now use to hold the circles confined, and turn it 90 degrees into the 3rd dimension, and if it is not minimally 3 dimensional, the wall would disappear since once upturned its width now becomes its "height" and requires the "height" it had before to now become its width. Unless the object we are trying to fold into another dimension already has a value greater than zero in that dimension, it would vanish from our level of existence, but not exist there either."

         "I think I understand," said the researcher. "It is like spinning a line or a rectangle since lines technically have no width. Its length becomes its width and its width becomes its length, and back again. Though its shape never changes, the angle we view it from is shifted so what was once the height now seems to be the width, and vice versa."

         "Correct," said the student. "By rotating an object such as your walls for the creatures up and down into the other 3rd dimension, it does not change their shape either, just the part of it we see in our dimension. If it has some measurement in a 3rd dimension, parts of it would vanish to us or from our perspective, but if it had height to begin with, that would become its width. Unless how we perceive the Universe is wrong and we have some even minute 3 dimensionality already, we cannot rotate objects into it without having them disappear completely, which is another story altogether and not very good for building walls out of. We know all walls must have length and width because we know for a fact that the world or our portion of it is at least 2 dimensional. Without length AND width, our walls become lines and mathematical abstractions which cannot exist. Likewise if the world were really 3 dimensional, all walls would need length, width, and a 3rd value I call "height" to keep anything contained within them. All of these values would need to exist or it would vanish without a little of each value in each of its 3 directions."

         "So in other words," the researcher reasoned, "unless we are 3 dimensional already and other objects are 3 dimensional, the world is really 3 or more dimensional already even if we cannot perceive them. If some objects are 3 dimensional and we are not, our Universe is either a mathematical abstraction like a 1D world is to us, or we cannot in fact, exist in or with their Universe?"

         "Not necessarily," said the student. "Different regions of the Universe may have different numbers of localized dimensions, but in the case of trying to fence off an area around you by rotating things into another dimension, as I said are possible with your walls, you can only hope to get them back or have them have existence there if they have a value of that dimensional "width" or measurement already higher than zero. The upside is that if they do have a value higher than zero in another physical dimension, things could disappear from one reality while still existing within another, and return again. It is like the circles you are studying. Unless they are really disappearing and reappearing, a neat trick if you can do it, they are moving their whole bodies momentarily out of what is to us the real world, and then returning as you have already surmised or speculated they could be doing."

         "This would mean the world is really at least 3 dimensional and that they, and possibly we, must be also. They must have that 3rd value in addition to length and width which I call height. As we need our length and width to be constantly joined together in our world, to exist as a single body in a definite shape, if we had a height aspect or ratio that keeps the edges of the circle glued together when it leaves momentarily our plane of existence. Without having that 3rd value, it would dissipate if moving above or below our 2D world!"

         The researcher shrugged. "Now you are getting over my head. I understand that the circle would not be able to do what it does, namely disappear and reappear intact, without having a non-zero number or size in the dimension it is entering into momentarily to keep its structural integrity intact as you describe your cube should have for it to be stronger or stay together as a form. As long as it is connected with "height" in theory, if there is such a 3rd dimension, it can be partly in our 2D world, or most of it here at once, or all out of it, above it or below it, and still be connected to itself. If it did not have a height value at the bottom of a V, it could not stay a V shape and would break into 2 parts if the bottom were to be moved up or down into another dimension. What I don’t understand though, is how can we be any different. If these circles can move into a 3rd dimension, and though I have not proved it yet, seem to come back again unchanged, the Universe must be 3 dimensional, therefore we must have a non-zero height number as well for we exist as surely as those circles do though we do not know how to do what they do."

         "That is not necessarily the case," said the student. "We know or can guess that if they are really moving into a 3rd dimension briefly that they must have a non-zero dimensional value of height to keep themselves together outside of our 2 dimensions and return to our 2 dimensional world. Though by some counts, if some objects are 3 dimensional one can reason all objects can or must be 3 dimensional, there are representations which can state otherwise."

         "As we know as 2 dimensional beings, we have real 1 dimensional shadows which fool us 2 dimensional people all the time when they hit walls and freak us out. What we see as our reality might be a 2 dimensional representation of a three or higher dimensional reality. Though the Universe may have higher dimensions, our perceptions of it are decidedly 2 dimensional plus time. We may or may not have a 3rd dimensional aspect to ourselves as these circles seem to do because we do not, in so far as we know, leave it and return as they do. Our existences and our minds are defined by our perceptions of a world of 2 dimensions plus time. Into that world we were born, or seem to have been born into, and possibly will live our entire lives based on a 2 dimensional understanding of things. While we exist here we do not need that third aspect of height. If we try to leave here, we better have it or else."

         "So you are saying," the researcher replied, "that we are defined by our world. Because we perceive 2 dimensions plus time, that is the world we exist in, even if parts of us stick out into a dimension we cannot perceive. You say it is possible that some things can be 3 dimensional and some things might not be. Three dimensional objects can intersect 2 dimensional Universes, and objects can have zero for a third dimension of height and be fine, so long as they never leave their 2D region of space?"

         "Precisely," answered the student. "Objects or whatever gain the number of attributes they need to function or exist within that Universe. If the entire Universe had 20 dimensions, everything in it would need to have 20 non-zero dimensions for height, length, width, and seventeen other names for other dimensional values. However within or beside that 20 dimensional bigger Universe, parts of it or others might function well with 5, 4, 3, or 2 dimensions. Objects or beings within them would only comprehend or need to comprehend as many dimensions as they themselves seem to have, and the objects that surround them seem to have. If the objects that surround them or they themselves exist in more dimensional planes they can perceive, if they cannot perceive it, it is irrelevant."

         "I’m a Doctor, not a Philosopher damn it!" said the researcher. "Nothing is irrelevant, especially if whether the Universe is 3 dimensional or not, if I and everything around me is 3 dimensional or not, and especially since I am being paid to explain if these disappearing circles are 3 dimensional or not! If I say now, yes, they must be, people are going to legitimately start asking what else might be 3 dimensional and if the Universe itself is 3 dimensional as some science fiction writer crackpots now say."

         The student corrected himself. "I only meant it is relevant to some things but not to others. If the world is 3 dimensional and we always have and possibly always will perceive only 2 of them, in a sense that is, if not our physical Universe, our perceptual one. If you go out and say tomorrow that these circles movements into and out of existence in a predictable fashion is proof of a 3rd dimension, who will believe it? Not most people who only perceive 2 dimensions. If you wish to win over most scientists such as yourself, most might believe you or become less skeptical. Being able to razzle dazzle audiences by sending things into the 3rd dimension and having them come back again might help or hurt your case too. Some might be won over by it. Others would call you a trickster or a fraud. Without the abilities of others to directly perceive this 3rd dimension, it is to most people scientific mumbo jumbo they can’t understand and rightly wonder if it will be believed tomorrow or abandoned in favor of a 4 dimensional reality, or one higher than that."

         "We as scientists," the student continued, "might find understanding these higher dimensions to be better understanding ourselves and our Universe but others will see it as more and more abstractions less relatable to their everyday lives unless those perceptions are direct and real to them. Maybe our Universe began as 2 dimensional and is growing now outward into a 3rd and we will all one day be able to do what these circles can do or even spend longer time, perhaps our entire lives above or below this Universe’s "floor" we are now limited to. Maybe we will evolve a new way of understanding it, in a world of height, when we can experience it as the circles might see it now. Maybe the world was 3 dimensional once and is collapsing into 2 and we are the more evolved because we have adapted to 2 dimensionality whereas these circles find it necessary to pop in and out of existence, not for fun or freedom as we suppose, but because they cannot fully enter into and stay in this one as we can."


1.6:  In which 3D people argue, show off their multidimensional thinking and trip over more dimensions than they can make sense of

         Meanwhile in the 3 dimensional world where the researcher studying the spheres that seem to come and go from existence in which he successfully trapped in a 3 by 3 by 3meter solid cube of Mythite, he came back from lunch.

         His research assistant commented, "Boy, that student sure was smart."

         "What student?" asked the researcher, obviously puzzled.

        "The one in the story we are in. The one in the 2 dimensional world who successfully imagined our cube to house the spheres right down to the exact dimensions, though he said it probably could never be built," the assistant replied.

         The researcher was obviously annoyed. "I expected you," he said, "to work while I went to lunch. I worked while you went to lunch. Besides, it is against causality for you to be reading any story you are in while you are still within it if it is ongoing and you are not dead yet!"

         To this the assistant replied, "It is not against causality. I did not read the parts I was in, nor past now, only what happened previously in an alternate 2 dimensional Universe. Since that was in another Universe, it cannot be against causality."

         "I did not mean here or there," responded the irate researcher. "If you are a character in a story as you claim, there would conceivably be a 3rd Universe of someone reading the story of you reading the story of them in the story in which you are a part of. You would be violating causality in that Universe."

        "Why would I care about causality in that or those possible Universes? Besides I was bored, we were left out for so long. You weren’t tempted to read it too?"

         "What do you mean "we" were left out. You weren’t even a character before. No wonder you did not read any parts with you in it!"

         "I thought you said you did not read it?" the assistant chimed.

         "Shut up. Now lets get on with it or this will all get edited out. While I was at lunch I thought about a story I read somewhere else, not here...." The researcher eyed warily his fidgeting assistant. "Don’t say it. Now where was I," he continued, "oh yes, a story about a 2 dimensional researcher who conceived of how to build a cube using a model based on super-imposing squares stacked over successive 2 dimensional worlds stacked on top of each other or in the same dimensional world over time. Using the same principles, we could build a Tesseract or 4 dimensional cube to house these spheres since our own supply of Mythite has (conveniently) also run dry, and we need a second one just as they did."

         The assistant interrupted politely, "I thought it was the student who thought it up and was explaining it to the researcher?"

         "I said be quiet," the researcher sternly retorted. "I am telling this story and if I say it was the researcher who thought it up, leave it alone. Again, where was I? By folding the cubes of our container into the 4th dimension which the spheres seem to be disappearing into, we should be able to reduce the number of cubes down to 8. Like the Flatlanders did, we start by removing the corner cubes, in their case 4 of a 3 by 3 square. Since ours is 3 by 3 by 3, we can also start by throwing them out. So without the 8 corners, and the 12 edge pieces, we don’t need them either, that leaves the six blocks immediately around the creature. Now without the other 20 blocks around those 6, it would easily be able to slip through a 4th dimension around those blocks and escape. We need 2 more blocks to seal off escape routes "top" and "bottom" relative to that other dimension. If we fold the blocks we have now, if they have a little 4th dimensionality, it would leave a mostly 2 dimensional square remaining in this reality where each cube rotated into the other dimension, just as when the square panels surrounding the captive circles get rotated into what we know as true "up/down" directions, with half going up and half going down. It would look to them to be turning into a thin line. By rotating our 1 by 1 by 1 by .2 meter cubes into 4D space, half of its volume here will go in that dimensions equivalent of up, the other half will block its escape "down," leaving only what looks like ordinary squares here. If we put six of these "turned" squares into a cube shape around the spheres, though it will look completely surrounded, we would still leave it a means of escape in 2 directions we cannot perceive, that dimension’s straight "up" and "down." By rotating 6 cubes we would now perceive as squares and aligning them into a cube formation from our point of view we would have the beginnings of a formidable 4D wall, but then we are still left with a 4D equivalent of a 3D cube with no top or bottom, just sides, as the Flatlanders might build if they forgot they needed more than just 4 sides with 2 completely away and out of their sight in addition to the 4 they can touch. But the squares would still be squares, though the Flatlanders would see them only as lines, they know them to be somehow still squares joining up somehow to form a more narrow but more efficient barrier above and below them somehow."

         "The smart student," he continued, "ahem, the  researcher, realized this super-barrier of all wide squares they could see immediately surrounding the circles turned upwards seemingly into thin lines, needed a top and bottom they could not visualize except that it would block 2 more routes of escape they could not imagine, and that it would attach at regular and even angles with the four rotated sides they could visualize as squares seemingly also turned in a direction they could not perceive into lines. They knew once 2 more sides were attached to these mysterious "top" and "bottom" directions, a full cube would be formed. The Flatlander demonstrated how this would look using parallel dimensions of stacked Flatland "Universes" and how it might appear if part of it existed only in each over time, then one could conceive of the whole as they could demonstrate it the same as they could demonstrate the concept of a square to 1 dimensional people using patterns of a line over time. Using this example on themselves, they would first know a cube as a solid square, then as a hollow square in the same place made of turned mostly away from them sides, then a solid square again. To us, the same example would be a solid cube, then a hollow cube made of turned cube "sides" placed around its edges, then a solid cube again in the same place as the first cube and inside of the six previous cube "sides" which we perceive as squares. Where those extra 2 squares to a complete their cube would go, they did not know but knew their size and that they would affix to the edges or tips of the squares not already touching another square directly in the "above" and "below" directions, as these top and bottom cap cubes would be touching or pressing all of their its six outer sides at once against the six cubes we do see partly, in the "up" and "down" directions of we of 4D space we cannot visualize."

         "They knew," he continued, "each 1 meter square would form a seal with a square of the one to its right and left on 2 sides extending half a meter in one direction and have a meter in the other, and since they know every square has 4 sides not 2, and each square was joined up (from a warped to them viewpoint) fully only with each one beside it, 2 super squares would be need to connect the ends of the 4 squares which they could see directly "above" and "below" the circles, fully out of existence on their Universe or point of view. Likewise our "turned" 6 cubes join up with fully square sides touching in what to us seems a warped space kind of way each with 4 sides of each cubes directly lining up with square sides on the 4 cubes around it where we see only edges touching, not sides. This leaves 2 sides for each cube not touching another other cube directly, thus 12 sides unmatched on untouched sides for the remaining for 2 "cap" cubes 6 sides to touch from 2 more directions in that dimensional version of "up" and "down," each on an opposite sides of the four sides that do touch, which to us looks like "inner" and "outer" but neither term actually can or does apply though we can think of them in that light if we keep in mind that is also very wrong and not the case either. Since the whole 4 dimensional object can be turned on any of the 4 axises, and any side or direction is equally any other side or direction, neither is really inner nor outer but both are equally moving "away" from our seemingly 3 dimensional space or perception, or seemingly getting smaller in both directions at once."

         The researcher’s assistant said to this, "The way I heard it was different. They never actually built it, nor could they have if the squares were squares only and not partially 3 dimensional already."

         "That is correct," said the researcher. "If the squares had no height to begin with they could not be rotated up and down as we know it, width and height become transposed and changed to the other. If the squares were purely 2 dimensional, they could no more enter a 3D world than can my shadow. If we rotate the six 1 meter cubes into 4 dimensional space and move them closer to form the beginnings of a 4D wall, to work correctly to see them at all, they could need to be partially 4 dimensional to begin with or they would vanish completely instead of seeming to become squares. Like Flatlanders knew the size, shape, and relative dimensions of what would be needed to cap the remaining 2 spaces they could not reach by simply rotating the squares which they could see, so too can we know the size, shape, and relative location of what it would take for us to cap our six turned cubes which are still cubes just like they were before they were turned, but now would seem like squares making a new 1 by 1 by 1 meter cube actually made of 6 1 meter cubes, though still uncapped at 2 ends completely outside our dimension. Like the Flatlanders, we know we need to take 2 more cubes like they needed 2 more squares, move 1 cube completely out of our 3D Universe directly "above" whatever that means to us as we are as lost as Flatlanders on imagining what that means, throw another cube "below," equally in unknown space to us in the opposite direction on the other side of our 3D space, and then each of the six sides of the 2 additional cubes completely out of our Universe will fit perfectly in place with the 12 remaining sides of the "side turned" cubes we can see which are left exposed by not being sealed off completely by touching another cube. Of the side turned cubes we can see partially, where their ends which we only see as lines at the edges of where we see them touching in this reality, where those edges end in another dimension, at those two places the extra cubes will meet with the 6 we can see. The 2 extra cubes cover the remaining gaps unable to be sealed by the first six cubes directly, though those two extra cubes become completely invisible to us in 2 different and opposite directions "away" from our space or world." (I thought I would break in here since this is hard linked to visualize. I had  the Tesseract from the cover of Quadranine previously to help explain it. You have to be able to see our 3D plane as sandwiched between 2 others away in 2 different directions. The "edges" where six "turned" cubes touch would be the middles of those sides shown well in this image as being where they intersect our world in the middle and seeming to be bending away into and away from it equally. The inner and outer cubes away from that center cube would be interchangeable, with either seeming to be on the inside depending on what angle you viewed it from)

         "But," the assistant replied, "to us, though the 2 other solid cubes are completely out of our sight, we like the Flatlanders, must know where, if not how, they went."

         "Exactly," said the researcher. "The two solid cubes must reside directly "over" and "under" in another dimensional sense, the sides we can still see as squares forming what looks to us to be a different cube of 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter, but with this "other" cube, each square side to us is really a folded or flipped cube half "up" and half "down" in a direction we can’t see. We see a new cube made up of 6 turned cubes we do see, which may be capped or uncapped since we can’t see those ends lying outside of our space. Though the 2 ends we cannot perceive lie completely outside of our space, the "outer" cap cube's outer six sides would seemingly from our points of view be bent all the way around, turned inside out really, to touch the outermost edges of six sides of the cubes we do see if we imagine them still protruding half outward into our space, or the "outward" invisible half. The "inner" cap cube, to us we would not need to imagine it bent, still looking like a cube, but so tiny as to seemingly disappear into a point in the center if the Tesseract was completely the same dimensions in all of its 4 values. This "too small" cube from our point of view, would touch what appears to us as the "inner" six sides not touching another cube directly away from our space in the opposite direction, not away but seemingly inside (though invisible) though only from our point of view, the hollow middle between the six solid turned cubes which make the comprise the sides of a new hollow cube we could see."

        "And that is exactly how a 2 dimensional person could conceive of a cube looking in 2 dimensions without using perspective drawing. They could conceive of the 4 squares they see bending inwards together diagonally, imagine an "inner" square touching those 4 sides where it bends inwards, and an "outer" touching all of the outside 4 edges all at once though it would look impossibly bent outwards in all directions always from the other 4 squares, or have itself turned inside out like a popped soccer ball so the outside of it is inverted inwards to touch the outside of the more normal but slightly bent other 4 regular sides all at once," the assistant added eagerly now seeing the point clearly. See bottom image

         "If," he continued, "all six of the sides we can see push inwards half a meter towards the center from all six directions at once, not to mention the full size inner cube at the central point, doesn’t it get a little crowded in there?"

         "Yes," said the researcher, "it does seem to get crowded in there but on two counts, "in there" is not just "in there." You have to think of adding one new dimension as like an increase in all the other ones combined. To be able to be turned at all, our cubes would have to already have a non-zero value of the 4th dimensional value, or be 4 dimensional already. If we turn a cube mostly out of our space at its apex where it is thinnest in a 4th dimensional value, we can fit a similar amount of full sized cubes into the same space. For example, if Flatlanders turned their 1 meter by 1 meter, by 1 centimeter square at a right angle to their world, but stacking together 100 squares to us what we call "vertically," to them turned sideways out of their dimension into just lines extending away in directions they cannot comprehend, this would mean from their point of view, they could fit 100 panels in the same amount of floor space, to them floor space is total space, in the same space as 1 panel! Storage space would be plentiful and cheap as large objects could be rotated into and out of their Universe and returned at will."

         "Provided there are no occupants in parallel Universe and down where the objects are rotated to that might damage them," added the assistant.

         "Yes, though the majority of the mass would seem to magically disappear somewhere, they could deduce as we could that it must be going somewhere. So by comparison, if we rotate a 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter by 1cm cube into a 1 cm thick square panel in our space, we know the rest of its mass has gone somewhere, space there is not a problem unless it goes into a parallel 3D world where that space is already occupied by another object. Each integer value "away" from our 3D space could seem like another complete 3D world unto itself, stretching itself "outwards" in "inwards" into multiple 3D Universes at once depending on its thickness in those values, how many Universes or 3D worlds "away" it exists in at once. To trap something in 1 dimension, you need 2 walls, on in both directions it can go at once. With 2 dimensions you could trap something with 3 walls, with 3 dimensions, 4 walls. With 4 dimensions you would need 5 walls," Researcher remarked.

         "Wait a minute," said the assistant. "We need 8 cube walls!"

         "That is because we are going on the square model," the researcher replied. "A square has four lines, a cube has six squares, and a Tesseract, which is what we are building is called, has 8 cubes for "sides." If we started with a triangle, it would have been smaller from the start and at each step it would have been smaller as well but the square model is easier for most people to understand because we see squares and cubes everywhere. Most people live and work in cubical shaped rooms with square and rectangular walls, ceilings, and floors. Understanding square and cubical shaped things are much easier than triangles and tetrahedrons which are simpler shapes but outside of our everyday experiences much more than squares, square grids such as maps, and stacked cubes as rooms in buildings with many floors."

         "Building up is a good example," he continued. "If you lived in 1 dimension, everything would be really crowded and far apart in different ways. It would get crowded as with only 1 dimension, everything would have to be stacked end to end, like when you hear if your brain cells were stacked end to end they would reach around the world many times over. If the world were 1 dimensional, space would fill up fast yet everything, even most of your brain, would be far away. With 2 dimensions, space is not doubled, it increases many times more. Things can be beside each other, not everything in the Universe in one long line. If the Universe was 1 dimensional and infinitely wide, it still might seem small and not very easy to get around it. With 2 dimensions, the inverse can be infinitely wide AND infinitely long, in length spacially that is. Everything can go around each other and it is easier get around and support larger numbers of things. In a 3 dimensional world, it can have infinite height, length, and width. Things can not only go around but also over each other. One person’s home no longer has to dominate all the land as a Flatlanders home would. Many people could live in apartments stacked right on top of each other, all sharing the same 2D footprint or land area. Growing upwards or stacking people over other people seems crowded on one hand but creates more space out of smaller spaces."

         "In a 4 dimensional sense, right near a 3D world or room, you could have many other 3D worlds or rooms only steps away in a four dimensional sense, both giving far greater room to grow or build outwards into on one hand, or seeming more crowded on the other hand with all of them sharing the same 3D footprint or spacial area."

         "As long as they keep the noise down from their 4D stereos and TV’s, I could use all those extra rooms in dimensions I would only have to move slightly to go to. My apartment is kind of small," the assistant mused.

         "Yes, having more room only seems like more room instead of being more crowded when there is complete separation between them. Noisy neighbors in 3 dimension world’s only inches away in another dimensional direction would suck if they were not inter-dimensionally sight and sound proofed."


1.8:  Where 3 + 1 definitely is not 6 but really really looks that way (1.7 was cut)

         "If you are 3 dimensional and you are standing in the same spot as the 3 dimensional block turn into the 4th dimension, isn’t that 2 dimensions too crowded?" asked the assistant.

         "Yes, that does seem to be getting a bit too tight if there are only 4 dimensions plus time. In 4D space, it is possible for 2 seemingly 3D objects to exist at the same time in the same spot sort of.  Since I said every time you add 1 new dimension, it is like you add a new set of the number of all previous dimensions. To understand how 3 dimensions + 1 seems to equal 6, and 4 dimensions + 1 seems to equal 8, let’s go back one step. Let’s give Flatland some real depth! Flatland is a 2 dimensional. Let’s give it a height of multiple planes of 2 dimensionality. Now they can have multiple Universes of 2 dimensional worlds, but that is too confusing. Let’s go to them and tell them, if they were able to build their cube out of their 2D Universe, saying if you can build a 3 dimensional cube you are not really flat but partially 3D like us. We could show them how to use their cube building skills to have multiple layers on top of their 2D world. This new 3rd dimension lets one Flatlander stand directly above another, and yet another directly above him. The world is not really flat at all. This new 3rd dimension actually to the Flatlander appears to enable mostly 2D people to share the same space. Now let’s go back to the 3 dimensions + 1 = 6 dimensions example. We cannot have 4 and 6 dimensions at the same time though it can appear as such by some angles.  If the Flatlanders were not 3 dimensional already, we could not teach them how to build up out of their 2D Universe. Without a height in a 3D world or Universe, no more Flatlander, Flatlander flat-lined! If they were really 3D we could show them how to seemingly reproduce their 2D world on another level above the one they know now, to put their height or 3Dness to use."

         "For me to stand where the block appears to be "above" or "below" in another dimension, it would appear that 2 3D objects are sharing the same space but that can only happen if space were more than 3 dimensional and the block was slightly 4 dimensional to be able to be turned and stay intact somewhere else. A 4D being could show me how I only think or perceive of myself or the block as 3 dimensional, as I could show a Flatlander his perceptions of only being 2 dimensional and the world only being 2 dimensional really do not apply to a 3D world as we experience it, and know they could possibly experience it too if they have some 3 dimensionality to themselves and therefore might be able to build above it, as we know we can in 3 dimensionality, though to a Flatlander it would be confusing and look like 2 objects in the same space, though we know they are not, just above and below, but in normal 2D conceptuality, there is no such thing as above or below. For me to be shown how my block or me only seem to be 3 dimensional, it would be the same as my teaching a 2D person to comprehend 3 dimensionality."

        He continued, "None of the rules I understand would apply at first. I would be amazed at how I and the block, both I previously assumed were 3 dimensional, were both actually 4 dimensional, and though it looked to me like I was a 3D person within the space of a 3D turned block into a fourth dimension, the reality would be just two 4 dimensional objects only seeming to exist in the same space from a limited 3D perspective. From that 4th dimensional point of view, my narrow understanding of how 2, many, or infinite 3D planes can exist within the same space would be much the same, and as narrow, as a 2D person not understanding how another 2D world or plane could exist on top of his own 2D world or plane of existence. It would be as confusing as the concept of going "over" something would appear to a 2D person. "Over where" or "over how" they would think. Though 2 dimensions + 1 <> 4 (or more), to a 2D person’s level of understanding it would appear so. For a 3D person experiencing a 4D experience, it can seem like standing in the same place at the same time as another 3D object is not possible. But if the 3D person were really 4D and only understood or perceived 3 spacial dimensions, standing where he knew another 3D object stood in another extra one dimension would be as confusing as "over where" and "over how" to a Flatlander. To us we might call it "through where" or "through how" with no explanation, concept or grasp for what "through" means as a Flatlander could never grasp "over." Once better understanding how a 3D world is not "flat" in a fourth dimension, one could learn to function with these new rules of Physics. It would seem to him like a whole new or multiple new 3 dimensional worlds stacked "within" each other, as a newbie Flatlander would interpret the 3rd dimension as multiple 2 dimensional worlds."

         "So you are saying that perception defines our world, right?" said the assistant.

         "No," said the researcher, "Perception defines what we believe to be possible. What we believe to be possible is what defines our world. Now get back to work!"

         "One last question," said the assistant. "If two dimensionality can be shown to or demonstrated to a one dimensional person by a repeating pattern of lines and dots of a square, and a cube can be deduced by a Flatlander as different patterns of a square over time, doesn’t that mean we might be able to deduce some aspects of a four or more dimensional Universe by using patterns of 3 dimensional shapes changing over a period of time?"

         "Why limit yourself to 3 dimensional shapes for clues," the researcher replied with a wink and a smile. "To the 1 dimensional person, the pattern of the square was simply in the only 2 shapes he knew, lines and dots. With memory and intellect, he could have envisioned a square from it but also could have seen it as anything else. Though the pattern of the square was there to be found, it was more apparent to a Flatlander than it would seem to a 1 dimensional person. "What is it with these repeating patterns of lines and dots?" he might think, and think nothing more of it. A different 1 dimensional person might pick up on it right away. The  Flatlander student who correctly deduced what our complex-by- their-standards 3 by 3 by 3 cube here with an empty cube in the middle would look like if he could imagine seeing it all at once, he was truly exceptional. He knew of squares in a relational sense right off the bat as a scientist or mathematician in training. He was able to take that understanding of the properties of a square and use it to understand square-like things existing in another realm he could imagine but not directly experience. We know from our experiences that a 3D world can exist, at least for us. If he never is able to build his 3D cube, many might think with good reason it was impossible and could not be done, and that their world only really had 2 dimensions. Other explanations having nothing to do with a 3rd dimension might better or more accurately explain the disappearing circles. It is even possible that he could have been able to build his 3 dimensional cube and been able to convince a few he had indeed achieved the feat without having something or someway of proving it to be more than just the square it would appear to them to be."

         "Turning," he continued, "1 meter squares into 1 centimeter wide lines might impress others or his peers but just as likely, they could think of it as a cheap parlor trick, without a full grasp of the science behind it. You or I might see this sphere blinking in and out as a clue to something possibly existing in and moving slightly through some "4th" dimension unknown to us because we are trained to think in those terms or see it in that light. If it were something purposely trying to get us thinking in terms unfamiliar to us to begin to be able to explain it and expand our perceptions, it would have that effect on us. Others might pay it no mind at all. Others still yet might see it as a sign from God to do this or that."

         "Through time," he went on, "anything can seem to mean anything to anyone. Higher dimensions need not be divined from geometric shapes for someone to see a pattern that makes them think other dimensions exist. They might see it in a rise and fall of species over time, or the beginning and ending of Universes, or in the stages of life they have lived through. When time itself can be thought to be the medium by which 1D people can envision 2Dness, or 2D people can imagine or deduce 3Dness, anything and everything we experience is as valid as any square or triangle, cube, tetrahedron or Tesseract, for opening our minds to dimensions beyond what we perceive."

         "As scientists we see the logic in understanding or communicating knowledge of our dimensions through shapes down to other lower dimensions when possibly only other scientists would make the connection. Life itself might be the means to convey such information. Life itself is not only to be lived, but begs to be understood. It may be an answer in the form of a question, a question with no definite answers, or nothing needed to be understood at all, just lived. If it does have a point of view to be conveyed, it is best apparent or easiest to understand if it is within all we experience, not hidden in complex numbers or geometric shapes. As a scientist, I might choose to start communicating with a Flatlander or one of lower dimensions by use of number or shapes over time but many other 3D beings might take a different approach entirely."

         "Yes, I think," he concluded, "that life itself is the best thing to use to open up 2D beings to the possibilities of the more confusing to them but simple to us, realities of life in our world. If it was in every aspect of their and our lives, everyone would have an equal chance of realizing, if not by one method, then another. Yet it is not for me to enlighten 2D beings on 3D realities. I as always am content to solve the puzzle immediately before me. As always that is to understand everything or my part in everything. Today however, more specifically that means these damn disappearing spheres which I am expected to explain and that unfortunately, as my assistant, yours is trying to help me explain that. Now get back to work!"

          "It is no truer testament to what you just said," the assistant said, "that the lesson or answer you seek might be found in everything you do, not where you look. We have done little since you got back from lunch in studying them, but I can scarcely see what we have talked about to be anything but the only path in trying to understand them, by trying to do what the Flatland student did and imagine new ways of looking at them or new ways of interpreting this strange spheres event we are being paid to try to explain."

         "I thought," the researcher replied wryly, "that the researcher was going to be the smarter one in this section. After all the "student said this" and the "student said that" of the last section, I thought it was going to be different this time."

         To which the assistant replied sagaciously, "You got to make the most and best points this time and should be grateful to be left that. However, the younger generation will always get the last word in."

         To that he could only shrug and nod in approval.



 2.1: Building the machine

 (Note: For those who might not understand without being told, most of section 2 regarding machines for turning matter into another higher dimension is simply allegorical for providing a jumping off point for discussing different multidimensional states. The ideas provided for how one might do that are not supposed to be taken seriously, nor are the ideas explaining the logic and theories of how such machines work, or why they work. If you must believe everything you read, section 2 is not for you.)

         Eventually the Flatlander student who envisioned the idea of a cube and folding squares into the bizarre concept of 3D space got funding to build such a machine. Because he was no longer a student at this point it is now necessary to give him, or refer to him by, his proper name, Inventor. Inventor defined the problem quite simply. To turn an object into another dimension, it needs to already be 3 dimensional or put another way, have 3 opposing angles or dimensions of Suchness. Objects have solidity or coherence in the 2D world because of a balance of forces within it pushing outward from it into two dimensions, and pushing inward into it. It wants to explode and implode at the same time. By these forces remaining equal, it just sits there. Though Inventor knows this as Suchness, it is his term for it. In both his 2D world and the 3D world stealing his ideas, they have other names for it. Plus, he has reasoned that because all the rules of 2D physics that most use will not apply for what he is trying to do, Suchness, though not a technical term, is convenient for treating all of the dimensions used to describe something the same. It means in his world, length and width, though opposing or angled on different axises, are essentially the same thing. If it were 3 dimensional, it would have 3 opposing but interchangeable units of measurement, 3 levels of Suchness, all essentially measuring the same property in different ways.

         Most math in his 2D world describes things as having only 2 dimensions, or 2 levels of Suchness. The forces of the atoms that hold objects together can be described as pushing outward in all directions and inward toward its center in all directions. Because he readily understands 2 dimensions of length and width, he can measure these movements or attempted movements to both explode outward and implode inward, in 2 different ways or along 2 axises, north/south and east/west. Though few of the atoms of the square he intends to flip are actually trying to move north, south, east, or west exclusively, by combining the north/south or X coordinate, with its east/west or Y coordinate, these 2 numbers can describe any attempted movements in both of the 2 dimensions his math describes his world as having. Because he needs to assume what he intends to flip has another dimension of height, he needs to assume it has atoms wanting to go in 2 other direction also, up and down. It not only must have a center point lengthwise and width-wise, but also height-wise as well. It needs a non-zero number of this new height value or the whole idea will not work.

         To make his experiments easier to achieve (mainly for us to visualize) he needs to use objects with a large number for that 3rd value, its height. His first attempts to expand objects height uniformly and evenly did not go so well. This attempt to pump up their volume so to speak, did not increase the square shape evenly into the 3rd dimension. Instead of gradually adding equal height uniformly over the entire square getting thicker, it bulged in the middle above and below, expanding upward and downward creating matching 4-sided pyramids above and below. Though he could not see these shapes, his math confirmed it was not a uniform increase of height. After much trouble, he found a way to pull the center bulges back towards his world, and have an even value of height all around it. Though this increased height he could not see, he could measure, for he was able to add a predictable amounts of matter to it. After initial testing to see what measurement of height it already had (which was not much, but without even that much, he could not have been able to increase it), he decided it should have a height 20% of its length and width. This is quite thick but still left a lot of room inside in the middle and would be solid enough to use cheaper materials. Each square would be 1 meter wide by 1 meter long by 20 centimeters high.

         To turn this square upwards he set up 2 sets of lasers at each end of the square. He also needed to invent a new type of charge. He called it Mystericity. Like common electricity to power the lasers, Mystericity has both positive and negative charges. The lasers on the left or west end would fire a positive charge, the lasers on the right or east end would fire a negative charge, and simultaneously a pivot point in the middle was measured and secured for the panel to pivot or turn on. The point and value of Mystericity was to subdue attempted movements of atoms in-between each set of lasers. Since Inventor could not climb on top of it to tip it, he would need to try to get it to tip itself. The positive charge would on the left would try to slow down the naturally downward attempted movements of atoms or ideally have them wish to go upward instead. The negative charge at the opposite end would simultaneously try to subdue the upward movement tendencies or turn them downward instead.

         Getting it to turn out of his two dimensions into 3D space was difficult. Getting it to stop straight up and down at a 90 degree angle to his 2 dimensional world was even more difficult. Luckily the thickness of the height made it possible to fine-tune it while still partially turned and it had no significant tendency to want to snap-back into place as he feared. It tended to be fine at whatever angle it stopped at.

         He also discovered something that perplexed him greatly. At one point while stuck partway in-between straight up/down and straight left/right, they adjusted the charges to return it more fully into their world to try again only to find they had reversed it. Markings previously on the west side were now on the east side and though they had been on the north end of the west side, they still were on the north end, only on the east side of the north end. It seemed to be a physical mirror image of itself.

         Back in the 3D world, the researcher merely gained insight on what Inventor was doing and applied the same concepts to fit the situation of expanding them into one more dimension.  He increased the mass of the cubes’ 4th dimensionality to 20 centimeters. It now was 1 meter high, by 1 meter wide, by 1 meter long, by 20 centimeters in the fourth dimensional value of its Suchness. He attached 8 similar lasers, 4 on the left or west side corners positively charged, 4 on the east side corners negatively charged and secured a band from the north to the south directly at the halfway point between its east and west sides. He also found he could "turn" the block completely through the band and make what seemed to go into the band heading west come out backwards while same thing occurred with the east side going through the middle and coming out the west side backwards. Turning it 90 degrees into 4D space, he would get the 20 cm thick 1 meter by 1 meter panel he desired. Turning it again 90 degrees he would get a mirror cube. Another 90 degree turn yielded the same panel as the first panel but reversed. Yet another 90 degree turn and the original cube came back as it looked before the turning began.


2.2:  Where did the cubes go: Everyone freaks out

         Inventor, ever true to his name, later developed a method of attaching a square panel to a turned square panel and placing ones directly above and below his four turned sides. This technique was promptly adapted by Researcher for cubes. Of all the 2D people or 3D people who marveled at the 3D cube or the 4D Tesseract, it was a long time before anyone but Inventor really understood where the squares or the cubes went. Inventor was born with a 3D brain in a 2D world. Every Flatlander who ever read science fiction books, which were very popular in Flatland, knew or thought they knew the location of the top and bottom squares. When Inventor said they had the same location and shape of the outer square itself but in some invisible other dimension, younger people had no problem with that. Even those who could not understand it could accept it. The four walls were another matter. To everyone but Inventor, the turned walls were a mystery for the longest time, or so it seemed anyway to him. That they could still see them both added to their confusion and was the main source for it as well. "Where did the rest of it go?" everyone who watched the process would say. They would see both the east and west ends of the square get slightly bigger followed by a rapid shrinking into a 20 cm by 1 meter line in the middle. Inventor eventually gave up trying to explain it, simply saying he made it more dense which everyone readily accepted, except it was not true. When Inventor came across someone he thought might understand he would answer truthfully and hope for the best.

         "It still has a square shape though we can no longer see it from that perspective," he would say. He would then take a 20 cm by 1 meter sample stick and turn it in front of someone.

         "Watch as I spin it," he would say. "See how it appears to grow into 1 meter when both ends are at an equal distance away from you, but shrink again when pointing directly at you? Notice how the end furthest away from you if I keep turning it eventually becomes the end closest to you?"

         This worked somewhat, but seeing a line in front of them and imagining it to still be a square partly somewhere else was too difficult for them. If the center of the square could have both empty space and 2 solid panels sharing the same space relative to their world but in another dimension, most reasoned the rest of the square that was not visible protruding away from the line was still there, but like the center, they could pass through it unharmed.

         The 3D researcher did not have much better luck trying to explain where the rest of the cube they could not see went. That he did not fully understand it himself did not help. He was born with a 3D brain in a 3D world. Working with 4D objects was annoying to him, but since he loved to try to figure things out, this gave him plenty to do and enjoy whenever he could overcome his frustration at it not coming as easily and as naturally for him as it did for Inventor. He could understand what Inventor could understand. With his 3D brain raised in a 3D world, he could understand mostly 2D objects flipped upside down through 3D space. 3D objects seemingly turned inside out through 4D space took work for him to understand. Eventually he got there though.

         For 3D people, they too found it easier to understand the top cap cube and the bottom cap cube were exactly where the visible cube "sides" sat, only in another dimension. That the cube "sides" were visible but seemed thinner was always the hard part. Saying that they were simply made more dense placated most people. They could understand melting or compressing the full cubes mass into a harder, more dense 20 cm by 1 meter by 1 meter square panel. When he tried to explain the square panel visible to them was still a cube, but from another angle, most asked, "From what angle can you view a cube where it does not look like a cube?"

         "From one we can’t see from," was all he could say and knew to be true, but it sounded inadequate even to himself. He too like others was tempted to think when he walked through where a full cube sat whole moments before, that he was standing "inside" or simultaneously existing where the rest of the cube was "above" or ‘below" him but in another dimension, like the old 2 4D objects side by side but seemingly 2 3D objects sharing the same 4D space example. It is not that that is not possible. To be inside the Tesseract at the same time the as the solid top cap and solid bottom cap are in place appears to a 3D mind that 3 3D objects are sharing the same space, but that can only happen if space is really 4 dimensional and only seems 3 dimensional. If people had only a slight 4th dimensional thickness, and a slightly larger 4D cube or Tesseract was 3 meters in all directions but hollow in the middle, they could have a party with over 100 people in what would seem from one point of view a cube only 3 meters by 3 meters by 3 meters. But like Inventor, Researcher eventually realized the full volume of the cube never leaves the edge of the cube you can look at, touch, and carry. The cube turned to a 20 cm by 1 meter by 1meter square, that is the complete border of the cube where it intersects his space, the rest of it is turned on itself up and down into a fourth dimension, but seemingly inward from where a 3D person would be standing.

         The turning process is what helped Researcher visualize it. He knew what Inventor would see before he turned his square before Inventor did, not because he was smarter, but because he had been turning blocks over since he was a child. From where he was standing, Inventor saw both the east end and west end move slightly outward as the top and bottom edges tilted up and down, and what looked like the square getting smaller was really 2 new edges Inventor never saw before. Top and bottom edges were now the east and west edges, and the east and west edges were now high and low into another dimension. Researcher too saw the edges of his cubes seem to get larger slightly at the beginning of the turn, then seem to get quickly smaller. This new smaller east and west cube halves were the edges he never saw before, and could never see from his current perspective, and that the rest of the cube had switched places with these new parts never seen before in his Universe, just as the smaller line segment to Inventor was really the top and bottom sides never seen before in his Universe.

         Similarly, only Inventor was not freaked out by mirror images. His 3D brain in a 2D world understood that everything coexisted in and as its own opposite. When people found they could reverse any shape by "flipping it" 180 degrees through its center point, it came out a mirror image of that thing. Inventor understood if his world was really 3D, and Flatlanders can only see or perceive 2 dimensions at a time, the whole of Flatland could be flipped or interchangeable as neither the "top down" or "bottom up" perspective would be the right way to view it from outside it. Both views or perspectives would be equally true though opposite. Seen from above it would look like everyone in Flatland drove on the right side of the road. Seen from below, it would look like everyone drove on the left. East/west,  north/south would be interchangeable. Neither view being the absolute or correct one, except possibly of course, the view from within it.

         Researcher saw that of Inventor’s world but not his own. He did not want to believe his world could be flipped and no one would ever know, that one day he could be right handed and drive on the right, and the next day he could be left handed and drive on the left side of the road and never know if the whole world were flipped at once. His 4D cube meant he could be flipped as well as the cube and flipped back again. He and a mirror image of himself were the same thing! That bothered him that he could see that he parted his hair on the right but from another view, he parted it on the left. Where he parted his hair was not as worrisome as the implication of looking into a mirror and not knowing which side he was on! Either way it would look the same and not matter from a 4th dimensional point of view. Reality on the left side of the mirror, and image on the right, or reality on the right and the image on the left, both would be true interchangeably from how you looked at it and it would soon cease to matter which way to view it was right because they both are true though opposite interchangeable perspectives. One day while viewing himself in a mirror while shaving he said to his reflection, "Just so long as only one of us is real, I will be grateful!"


 2.3:  Bouncing off of Assistwo

         Back in the 2D world, Inventor’s assistant came in. "Just in time, Assistwo, I needed to bounce some ideas off someone. By the way, how did you get such a strange name?"

         "My parents said it was to differentiate me from a 3 dimensional researcher’s assistant so other people would not get us confused. They said the "two" could mean either that I am the second assistant in a story or the two could represent our two dimensional world. They are very strange in some ways. I think they did too many drugs in college," Assistwo answered.

         "Well since you became my assistant, maybe someone someday might understand their logic. Whatever. Anyway, I have been trying to visualize what our 3D panels might look like from 3 different directions at once in 3D space."

         "Haven’t we all since you built it, but I thought you were so smart you could "visualize" the cube? We keep hearing about how smart you are and all."

         "A little more respect please or you will be Assistnot! Just kidding. Yes, I am pretty sure I can visualize the whole cube at once. It is just "seeing" the 3D properties of the height of the square panels, or trying to visualize it. For instance we know since we can reverse it, these 3 dimensional "tops" and "bottoms" as I call the "up" and "down" sides, also terms I came up with, it has both at once, the top can be the bottom and the bottom can be the top. There is no right way to see it."

         "I take it you are coming or going from or to the problem of flipping things twice and getting it back backwards," Assistwo surmised.

         "Yes, by doing a double 90 degree flip, we must be reversing their upness and downness completely. Top we have made the bottom and bottom we have made the top. The pivot points we have attached in the middle of the north and south sides lock those sides to pivot around and keep the whole square from flying off into 3D space, thus keeping the north side on the north and the south side on the south. But even then they are reversed, the marks on the north pointing west now point east, and the ones pointing east now point west. The same happens on the south side."

         Assistwo said, "Yes and the east and west sides not anchored in our reality change places completely. Haven’t we been over that already?"

         "Not in this much detail. Why is it so hard to get good assistants in this story?"

         "You are kidding again right?" asked Assistwo. "Right??"

         "Anyway, we know from the machine that we are altering or messing with their natural tendencies to want to move up and down at once. We know that 3D objects have 3 units of measurement. Normal length and width as we understand it, and the new one I call height. 1 square cm of matter, real matter as we know it, not this stranger 3D kind, well strange to us anyway, that square cm of matter must have equal and opposing sections trying to move left and right, and at the same time, front to back or north and south at the same time."

         "Yes. Not to sound sarcastic though, I don’t want to be known as Assistnot, but you already covered this with your theory of Suchness. That is that all objects are attempting to push out or expand in all the regions of space they have a positive value in, and likewise trying to contract inward into the same inverse direction. Have you something new to add on this? No, I really mean it. I am not being sarcastic, I really want to know. Please don’t fire me."

         "Trust me, your job is safe, for the moment at least," Inventor said with a grin. "No, I have nothing as such "new" to add to Suchness. It is just by always conceiving of this occurring at the molecular or atomic level, I never tried to visualize it before. Yes, these movements, or these canceling each other out attempted movements by each part first in one direction then the other, are parts of matter far too small to see but we can imagine them to be any size we wish. Instead of very tiny, we can make them big enough to easily see, like 10% if we want to, though that would be a gross overstatement and not really the case."


2.4:  Flying off the edge: Problems with Suchness

         "But making them that big does bring me to a big problem I have with Suchness, or that every dimension you mention, height, width, and length, really can be seen as attempted movement of solid matter simultaneously in both directions of that measurement at once. Height like you said exists as height because some parts are trying to go up and some are trying to go down, but they keep bumping into each other so they stay together and appear to be standing still. By breaking or subdividing these sections to be as big as you show now, it becomes obvious that the ones on the ends would fly off and nothing would stay together," Assistwo asked.

         "Yes, I see what you mean now. We can allow for some very small parts to fly off the edges but looking at it blown up, one would wonder how anything could stay together long," Inventor replied.

         "We would have asked about this sooner if not for your reputation. At being smart that is, not that it could be taken otherwise. I am shutting up now."

         "Good. Yes, there does need to be some counter force to hold everything together. That things hold together at the atomic levels or smaller we in this 2D world can describe and measure but really can’t explain. We know they want to go every which way at once but can’t, and that simply always getting in each others’ way is not a good enough explanation. There must be a counter-force not simply moving them East, West, Up, Down, and North or South. It, like the idea of Suchness itself, needs to be center oriented. We can measure these movements of attempting to push out in all directions along however many axises we wish to add, but that is just because that is how we go about measuring things, putting a ruler beside it, outside of it, and measure it along imaginary lines or planes. Suchness requires all objects having a center. To understand these forces of positiveness and negativeness of trying to go in both ways at once in every dimension of its existence which creates its positive values in these dimensions, we need to describe it not in terms from measuring it from outside it, but from inside it outwards."

         "Aren’t they the same thing?" asked Assistwo.

         "They may have the same values depending on how you want to measure, but they are two different ways of looking at it. Think of gravity or a black hole at the center of every object. Everything not trying to move simply left, right, or up/down, but to and from it."

         "With a circle I can imagine it," Assistwo said. "With your conceptual models of spheres or 3D circles you say might exist and be as stable a form in a 3D Universe as our circles are to us. I can see why these objects might hold together as you propose but I don’t see how that applies to irregularly shaped objects without a seemingly central point. Would that not mean everything would even out and only circles would exist in our world and only spheres would exist in a 3D world? How do you explain your cube then?"

           Assistwo was proud of his reasoning on this and knew Inventor was happy he was getting the feedback he needed to shift into high gear. Yes, his job was really safe for now, Assistnot not! But was Inventor stumped at last?

         "Yes," Inventor replied, "everything 2D would eventually become as circle and everything 3D would eventually become a sphere or ball, as I like to call them. My own cube, if it had intelligence, would say "I’d rather be a ball." Irregularly shaped objects such as my cube exist because each atom is trying not just to fold into a black hole or implode into the center of its mass, both trying to get away from there and go to there at once. They are similarly both attracted and repelled by each other. They can’t stand each other and want to call the whole object off and go their separate ways, and they like each other so much they want to get so close together it would literally create a black hole big enough to swallow all of them."

         "So existence itself is the ultimate love/hate relationship," Assistwo said smiling.

         "We don’t have to get that philosophical about it," Inventor continued, "it is enough to say everything, or every part of an object is trying to move away from its center and implode into it, in a larger sense around its whole center if it could, but wherever it is thickest also nearby."

         "So a cylinder, another of your mathematically possible 3D shapes, would have 2 kinds of centers, the one center of all 3 dimensions and a second center running the entire length of the central circle!" Assistwo said.

         "I take back what I said about not being able to find good assistants," Inventor exclaimed. "That is both the perfect example to what I was trying to say and a remarkably good understanding of a cylinder, which we have not even tried to build yet. It is hard finding someone who truly seems to grasp 3 dimensionality. Now I remember why I hired you."

         "You mean the question on the job application, "Describe my concept of a cylinder in complete detail including specifications and possible uses as a metaphor?" I wondered about that question. I thought it was because I am funnier than you, "as such, Suchness." I let that go without remark, you know."

         "That was when you were worried about getting fired. You sure mentioned it quickly enough when that passed," Inventor quipped. "Yes," he continued, "objects can have more than one center of mass in addition to the one in its main center. If the object is irregularly shaped like rope, that main center of mass can shift and even exist outside the object itself, depending on its shape. If I put the line rope into a shape of a circle, though it has a center point running evenly all through it, its absolute center is outside of itself in the middle."

         "I will now make," he continued, "fully 2 dimensional diagrams using our new extremely expensive laser lines projectors because it is hard to draw it one dimensionally."

         "I am glad I got this job," Assistwo remarked. "Being able to walk through fully 2D holograms sure is cool. It makes understanding 3D objects easier than our 1D drawings could show."

         "Yes," Researcher agreed, "holograms are cool and make visualizing it easier. This same concept would apply for a our 3D counterparts. They would have much easier luck understanding 4 dimensionality with 3D holograms made of lasers they could walk through. In the first drawing I have erased all the diagonal movements or desired movements and left only the natural north/south and east/west properties and sub-divided these to squares within squares. Using this we can understand how it would appear to someone 3D looking directly up or down at it. It would look the same from either direction because we know it is even and as I said, its upness and downness are completely reversible to a 3D person from a 3D perspective. That is if it has uniform height throughout its length and width, it would appear the same from the top view and the bottom view. As we see from this drawing, our square can be thought of also as squares within squares all wanting to go in opposite directions. These sections don’t actually exist this big but at a sub-microscopic level of 2D space, and even then mixed in with may more desired movements in all directions not linear. It is just a metaphor for what it means to be 2D. The second drawing I am now showing, I use to imagine what height must look like. It shows opposing squares of upness and downness. We know that when we tip the square panels 90 degrees, the upness and downness become the eastness and westness. Its northness/southness remain north and south, but its eastness/westness displaced now by the old values for upness/downness, now become its new upness/downness."

         "And because these up/down values, the new east/west values, are smaller than the old or original east/west values, it looks smaller from our looking north looking south, or south looking north perspectives, but the old height value now looks larger from a perspective we can’t see," Assistwo added.

         "Exactly," said Inventor. "These next 2 show it in the 180 degree setting, or completely turned inside out from our points of view. Only the north/south values never changed but because the east/west values are completely reversed in position, the north seems partially reversed with the north left side appearing on the right but still on the north side. The same with the south. The 3rd set shows the thinner to us turned state as before but an exact mirror of the first turned state. Only the 4th turn reverts all values back to normal."

         "I hate to say it, but this hardly seems to be covering anything new. All you have done is shown proof of what our experiments already have proven out. You may get other Flatlanders to understand now but we already know this stuff," Assistwo said.

         "You miss the point," Inventor corrected. "We were looking at it from outside of it like a 3D person would see it. That comes naturally for me for some reason. Through working on the cube project, and your cylinder metaphor, you have shown yourself to have picked up the ability to "think" 3 dimensionally as well. This example works so well to explain it to Flatlanders by explaining how it changes as it is turned not from outside looking in, but from inside looking out."

         "But it does not change from inside out," said Assistwo.

         "No it does not," Inventor agreed. "Only the way we view it and measure it really changes but by breaking it up into smaller segments, and smaller segments within segments, we can "see" 2 dimensionally as it would seem from inside looking out rather than from outside looking in."

         "I thought I did that every time I open my eyes. Sorry, I did not mean to leave serious mode. I know this is relative stuff, but I don’t see yet where you are going with this," said Assistwo.

         "It means "seeing" an object from multiple perspectives at once. From viewing it from its inside multiple dimensional positive and negative values at once, we can more easily understand how everything and its mirror are the same, or stay the same though from any outside perspective they can seem to change when turned or viewed from another angle." After saying this, Inventor got out his 2D replica of a 3D panel in the turned position he loved to use to demonstrate his ideas with, again.

         "Not the stick example again," Assistwo moaned.

         "Be quiet. You stand there and watch the stick as I spin it. See how it only appears to get wider and narrower as it moves horizontal to you."

         "Pleeease. I am not new to perspective. You are not demonstrating anything I do not fully understand already. You admit I am a peer of yours, though I have not heard you use the term "equal," but I can wait for that patiently until or when it ever comes, but surely a peer of yours in the ability to think 3 dimensionally. Why, after all this, demonstrate 2D perspective to me?" Assistwo asked impatiently.

         "Because you said it yourself. Every time you open your eyes you see the world from inside out. This new example seeks to show the stick and the spinning from inside out irrelevant to position or outside measurement. It seeks to measure the stick only in relation to itself which is how the stick sees itself, to the Universe outside the boundaries of the stick, we don’t matter. We can only understand the matter of anything only from within it out, not from outside trying to measure in, or its shape relative to a world that exists only exists outside its borders, and may not be needed to it at all. I and you saw the stick spinning around because neither you nor I are the stick. The stick saw the room, if it could see, spinning around. It held its shape together perfectly. In this case, it did not matter who was right. Nothing in this minor example was enough to upset the order inherent within the stick."

         "Ok, I stand corrected, you did have one more metaphor for that thing I did not hear yet. So you are proposing that we turn everything inside out to look at it? I don’t think many things will like that, or our trying to get inside of things so we can measure them. I think that they would prefer that we stay right outside of them where we are now."

         "True," said Inventor. "If it is true anything of any dimension is simultaneously existing as its own opposite reversible, and constantly reversing itself from one point of view, and irreversible from another, they would not like something outside messing with the order of which is which. But seeing deeper and seeing the reverse image of it in every dimensionality inherent within it regardless of perspective or how many dimensions it is seen from outside of it at once, that is important for 2D people to understand 3 dimensions, and you and I who already know and understand 3, to begin to visualize and really understand 4."

         "My head hurts, can I have a raise?" Assistwo added.




                                           Contents page