Yes, it is increasingly noted in the scientific field that, for several decades now, there has been a sense of a plateau within the 3D realm: scientific questions are piling up, major breakthroughs are no longer occurring and mathematics is becoming increasingly abstract and complicated. Is this a sign of a decorrelation between mathematics and physical reality? It is obvious that we can only seek to describe what is observed through the lens of what we know and grasping the reality of the 4th 'dimension' of space is a genuine challenge for the human mind, even for the world’s best scientists.
We are embodied in a 3D reality, at least as we collectively perceive it, and the very fact that we can perceive a 3D reality indicates that we possess, at the very least, a 4th dimension that enables this perception. Where does it reside within our human structure? Furthermore, it is important to note that when we observe an object in our environment, we perceive it from a given angle or perspective. It is never fully apprehended — as
@Laura mentioned in a session (14 January 1995) — in a 360° perspective with total fusion. This is one of the paths to approaching 4D reality: the transition from the individual to the collective. Separation from the observed in 3D, versus total fusion with the observed (which, incidentally, no longer needs to be called 'observed' since there is no longer an exterior or interior in this density).
Like you,
@palestine, I always find it important to put words to things because it allows us, in a way, to maintain a link with reality. Mathematics is a bridge, a path that the mind has chosen to take to describe its physical environment. To me, it seems obvious that at some point — and this may be the case as early as 4D — mathematics and physics become ONE. This will certainly require changing the mathematical base (the base 10 system we use relies on a separate perception of things that allows for counting) to grasp the dynamics of 4D: will we even 'count' there, for that matter?
Granted, our major bias is that we are formatted for 3D and it is therefore exhausting to imagine a way out. Let’s not forget that the Cs indicated that to transition to 4D density, all 3D lessons must be mastered. This brings to mind phase changes in matter: nothing happens for a period and, then instantly, everything changes state. The key may lie there: we circle everything we can conceptualize in 3D until the moment an illumination, an intuition, or something else enables us to grasp the nature of the 4th 'dimension' of space that is so hidden from us... Perhaps it is the very thing locking our 3D reality and identifying it without fully understanding it will allow for a shift in our perception of reality?
Time is a 3D descriptive artifact of a 4D reality: we understood this well when the Cs confirmed that Einstein's approach was biased regarding time — a reality I had intuited back when I was at university. That was what opened a breach in my studies and made me realize I had to pursue this path... about 30 years ago. Of course, I’ve rubbed shoulders with the 'shut up and calculate' movement, which is content with doing the math as long as it works!
But what I’ve realized by continuing to meditate on the nature of the 4th dimension, the speed of light and the emergence of modern physics, is that it cannot be done without the human mind... hence my questions regarding the integration of the conscious observer into 4D reality. It is still a taboo subject in quantum physics, even if more and more voices have been addressing it in recent years. This is normal, we must not forget the growing presence of the approaching Wave.
So, what is the 4th-dimensional process behind our 3D concept of linear time? The Cs told
@ark to replace time with consciousness and to work in 'consciousness spaces'. How do we describe consciousness in math? This is what I was led to do while meditating on these subjects: I am now convinced that with 4D reality, we enter the non-linear where everything is connected, including to the human being. How can we approach the non-linear when all our references are linear? What is the constant that links everything into an organic reality (because we can no longer speak of a mechanical reality at this level, right?) while linking it entirely to the observer? Does this constant have a 3D mathematical counterpart or is it only graspable in 4D? Are quaternions, octonions and Clifford algebras 3D concepts? Maybe and they are the only tools currently at our disposal. Perhaps by identifying the nature and structure of the 4th 'dimension', there will be a feedback loop allowing us to see how to improve our mathematical tools so they aren't just 3D attempts to describe a 4D reality...
As the Cs like to say: you will understand once you are there! So, exhausting? Yes but so much fun! Because through this experience, we learn to know ourselves better and isn't knowledge fun?
PS: When time (lol) permits, I try to post messages in this format because it is part of our way of grasping this reality that is already germinating within us and that we are seeking. I remain convinced that — even if I don't yet know if we are speaking of a unified field at this level — it must ultimately be grasped by any human. I hope,
@palestine, that this answers your message somewhat.
