Imagine if you could imagine being in it regularly. A lot of sources will tell you this is impossible, but it's not. All it takes is continuous visualization and searching with your mind's eye. You just have to use devices in your mind like opacity and color shift. Eventually you start dreaming in it.
Fortunately, there are virtual spaces now which make this loads easier. We actively look for and centralize them into a resource page. Over the years, games have been released that make 4D space a reality one way or another. A lot of them entail shifting through "3D slices" of a 4D space, but it doesn't take long for the picture to start to be clear.
The good news is that if you can visualize it, and there are 4D softwares, then it exists in one form or another, even if not physically. That makes it even more special. And that means someday when we can link our minds directly to a machine, we'll be able to explore it fully. Too ambitious for now. But expanding our minds and evolving our consciousness in any way is important, and being able to travel 4D space is S-tier.
Fortunately, there are virtual spaces now which make this loads easier. We actively look for and centralize them into a resource page. Over the years, games have been released that make 4D space a reality one way or another. A lot of them entail shifting through "3D slices" of a 4D space, but it doesn't take long for the picture to start to be clear.
The good news is that if you can visualize it, and there are 4D softwares, then it exists in one form or another, even if not physically. That makes it even more special. And that means someday when we can link our minds directly to a machine, we'll be able to explore it fully. Too ambitious for now. But expanding our minds and evolving our consciousness in any way is important, and being able to travel 4D space is S-tier.
Comments
Displaying 7 of 7 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
Will
That's a great collection of videos you've compiled there in the 4D Lyceum. Kudos. They really help to visualize what a 3D shadow of a 4D object moving in 5D on a 2D screen might look like, which is certainly no easy feat. Do you believe dimensions beyond 4D literally exist, or are you interested in this for purely digital phenomenological reasons?
I don't myself believe in dimensions greater than the four, but I do think the fourth dimension of time is a spatial dimension rather than a uniquely different sort of dimension. I treat the passage of time as a shifting of 3D perspective within a 4D hypercube. You may find interest in that (scroll down to see the paper): Witnessing Shell Theory
No one can say for sure yet because we don't have all the answers. As far as what's in the software presented, these are all flat Euclidean dimensions, one representation among multiple ways they could exist. Is there more dimensionality to existence? That's like asking if there's other lifeforms in the universe. The answers to both questions must be yes, only we haven't the slightest shred of evidence. So to answer it as such remains highly debatable.
Right now to believe that extra dimensions physically exist is no different than believing in conscious unity. It's not wrong, but we have to approach it with rationality, avoid circular arguments while thinking of ways to test what is true or false, and not muddy it into religion like the "wise" men of 8,000 years ago with no technology started doing when they thought something must have created all of this. We'll have a difficult time ever finding the answers to anything in assuming the conclusion.
I've thought about the nature of existence a lot, and as far as what I personally believe, the hypothetical eternal inflation model makes the most sense.
I was unable to view your document. A page required a google login, and then it threw me an error message.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
Well that's interesting. That suggests that my paper is possibly being censored. It's just a standard academia.edu link. Here's another location: Witnessing Shell Theory
You suggest it is not wrong to believe in extra dimensions. Do you think it wrong to apply Occam's Razor to dimensionality?
While certainly useful as a pre-rational conception, I tend to associate belief in higher dimensions with religious or supernatural thinking, even when in a scientistic garb. This is because I understand classical theism to be founded in concepts like Plato's forms, which are just exoteric expressions of extradimensional objects (as can be understood by the analogy of Plato's Cave). "God," that is, is just the idea of a higher-dimensional object ("The Form of the Good"), of which we are all the shadow (it's "creation"). Three Phonies in the Void
by Will; ; Report
It's not wrong to believe in anything unproven so long as it conforms with what is proven, and the line between belief and fact is clear.
It wouldn't be wrong to apply Occam's Razor to anything. Why would it be? In the case of unanswered questions in physics, we've reached a point where the simplest explanations still leave much to be desired. Just calling the mass discrepancy with gravitational observations dark matter, for example.
Equating more dimensionality with the supernatural is certainly within your rights and a valid perspective. I am a believer that there is no supernatural, and to call anything anything as such is either dismissive from non-believers or lacking entirely in rational thought from believers of whatever it is. If ghosts turned up proven to exist, then they are natural, and must follow some form of natural law.
However to compare it to religion just seems like an insult. To oversimplify it, the whole point of religion is for manipulators and liars to twist creative, intuitive concepts that might make sense sideways, and dumb them down into myths and rules.
As far as God, I tend to leave that conversation, because I don't care to hear about all things being possible while the same person starts spouting what they believe as fact and truth with God being the simplest explanation. I'm not saying that doesn't exist though.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
"It's not wrong to believe in anything unproven so long as it conforms with what is proven" and "wouldn't be wrong to apply Occam's Razor" constitute, when taken together, and where an alternative exists, an incoherent position, because Occam's Razor favors the simplest explanation with fewest assumptions, while belief in the unproven is an assumption. Occam's Razor, then, favors four dimensions, even against the claims of mathematical realists.
"If ghosts turned up proven to exist, then they are natural, and must follow some form of natural law" is correct, but it does not follow that Occam's Razor supports belief in ghosts.
"However to compare it to religion just seems like an insult. To oversimplify it, the whole point of religion is for manipulators and liars to twist creative, intuitive concepts that might make sense sideways, and dumb them down into myths and rules."
If you derive an insult from this statement, it is not from my intentions, as I mean no insult. The dynamic of our contrasting positions is such that if you accept mine you will be denying your former self, thus creating an internal conflict. This is why it seems as an attack, while it is not intended to be.
The point I was making, citing Plato and his Allegory of the Cave as an example, is that there appears to lack a division between ancient extradimensional thinking and classical theism. The Christian conceptions of God come largely by way of Plato, who is considered by some a Greek Moses. The Jewish merkabah, composed from six geometric points and line segments between, is itself a symbol of the fifth dimension, a deviation from the earlier naturalistic conceptions of Pythagoreans, Druids, and others, which were depicted as four dimensions in the pentagram, composed of five points, another example of a connection between supernaturalism and extradimensionality. This is intended as a historical and philosophical argument to suggest that there is a false dichotomy at play between religiosity and extradimensionality.
I like to talk about this stuff, but if you decide at any point you don't want to talk about these sorts of things, just let me know.
by Will; ; Report
Occam's Razor is a means of investigation, not a way to claim truth. Using the 'ghost exists' analogy, it would still be a viable means to understand them. Of course we have no evidence of that, so I imagine the Occam's Razor argument towards whether ghosts exist would simply be to assert any perception of a ghost is only a trick of the mind.
I took no personal insult, I'm saying you're insulting a notion of dimensionality by comparing it to religion. We don't know for fact whether higher dimensions exist, regardless of whether we believe in them. You don't believe it because there is no evidence, and I believe it to make personal sense of things. Neither one of us has claimed that our beliefs are facts because we know the difference. They're ideas. Religion on the other hand has proven time again and again to be total bullshit in contrast to facts by trying to replace them with lies called truth. It's not the same thing.
by Bill Liam East; ; Report
Gaberialpsd