Towards the physical and mathematical nature of the 4th "dimension" of space

[Menna]

Regarding the "lowering of the entropy".
We are also presumably STS beings living in a STS realm, determined by our FRV, and presumably there are other STS beings 'higher up' in the hierarchy of this realm feeding on us and other beings on 'lower' levels of that 'pyramidal' hierarchy, in a way increasing the entropy as they are presumably "entropic" beings.
Is the 'role' or the 'job' of conscious beings in or of this realm of ours really to lower the entropy, or more specifically is the 'job' of beings who have chosen the STS realm for whatever purpose to 'go' and 'act' against the very nature of the environment and the hierarchy they have chosen to live in, at least in this incarnation?

To learn your lessons, to organize data, grow in awareness of objective reality and make STO aligned decisions to align your three centers to be a more efficient/better operating human.

We are not acting against anything we are deciding, thinking and acting for ourselves and our higher good. If everyone does show the ship rises - rising tires lift all ships…

Choosing an STS real to develop in is hard just like going to Harvard business school, dieting a losing weight, channeling and creating a forum for us to interact in.

It all takes work effort turmoil but it’s for a result that result is open and up to you. Our individual reincarnations IMO are impacted by our “performance” in the
Is STS dominated land

 

[Menna]

If nothing else, it turned on the light bulb vis-a-vis why there was kind of annoyed knee-jerk reaction with your writings. It wasn't the content, regardless of having similar or diametrically opposite views of the things in question, but the delivery style. IRC, we already had sort of a bit 'heated' discussion about that no so long ago in another thread on the Forum.

I don’t recall … “heated” for you…Just trying to share rare esoteric information gathered in STS hardship for me

 

[EricLux]

I’ve realized, through our exchanges, that most of the questions on the previous list appeared too technical for most, which I fully understand

Scientists remain stuck in the Einsteinian imprint of linear time as the 4th dimension of space. Addressing the question of the nature, algebraic and geometric structure of the 'true' 4th dimension of space disrupts the established order, as it lies at the heart of everything in physics, mathematics and in our lives.

Given its central role, it is legitimate to ask questions to better grasp it and move forward in the structure of reality. Yet, we must be aware that there is a difference between intellectually understanding the 4th dimension and living its nature. Given its non-linear quality par excellence, I remain convinced that both allow us, in some way, to experience its reality.

So, I am proposing another list of questions that allows individuals less driven by high-level mathematics and physics to relate to and resonate with some of these inquiries, while leaving @ark the possibility to ask the more technical questions (the former list) to the Cs :

I. Physical Nature of 4D and Light

Q1. The Cs (November 14, 1998) said the 4th 'dimension' allows one to perceive the exterior and interior simultaneously and that no hypothesis had been made to attribute this ability to any concept in physics. Is there a concept in physics that corresponds to the true physical nature of the 4th 'dimension' of space? For example, could it be Light?

Q2. If Light is the physical concept that corresponds to the nature of 4D space, does this mean that in 3D, we are unaware of the 4D reality of light or even that light has a 4th component?

Q3. The Cs (August 27, 2022) told us that the 4th 'dimension' is a frequency with a degenerate metric (where two distinct points have a ZERO distance). In Einstein's relativity, light also has a degenerate metric. Does this mean light is in resonance with the 4th dimension of space? Is its 4th component what allows it to resonate with 4D? Or must we integrate this 4th component to become aware, in 3D, that light is a 4D reality?

Q4. If integrating this 4th component of light allows us to become aware of its 4D reality in 3D, what is the nature of this 4th component? Since 4D allows perceiving exterior and interior simultaneously, is the 4th component of light also both exterior and interior at the same time?

II. Consciousness, Perception and the Illusion of Separation

Q5. The Cs said (May 27, 1995) that stepping out of the illusion of separation between matter and consciousness opens the 4D experience. Since both are united by our human perception, does integrating a new 'dimension' of space mean considering our perception as an integral part of physics or even as the 4th dimension of space?

Q6. Is the perception of separation between matter and consciousness itself an illusion?

Q7. Is the 4th 'dimension' of space then perception or - since perception is bonded by awareness (February 23, 2002) - is the 4th 'dimension' actually consciousness?

Q8. In this case, does it translate to including the observer in the equations of maths and in the laws of physics?

Q9. Is entering 4D reality synonymous with our perception or consciousness becoming a full physical reality?

Q10. If the access to 4th spatial dimension is the result of the collapse of the separation between consciousness and matter, and if our perception ceases to be an external witness to become a full physical dimension, how does this redefine our laws of physics? Is this what you mean by 'variable physicality'?

III. Constants and Variability

Q11. Does making something variable mean entering 'inside' it? Is saying 'the speed of light becomes variable' synonymous with 'the concept of the speed of light becomes obsolete'?

Q12. The Cs (August 27, 2022) said the speed of light and Planck's constant were variable in relation to the 4th dimension. Does this mean they are simultaneously constant and variable in 4D as degenerate frequencies themselves ?

IV. Geometry and Mathematical Tools

Q13. The Cs (Jan 4, 1997) told Ark 'There is no right or left in 4th density'. Does this mean, integrating the 4th dimension allows us to enter the circular and spherical aspect of reality?

Q14. Will discovering the nature of the 4th 'dimension' lead to a profound change in current mathematics?

Q15. Does the 4th dimension allow us to bypass Clifford algebras, quaternions or octonions to describe 4D reality? If so, is it because these concepts are the 3D way to grasp 4D reality? Do they become obsolete once the 4D experience is integrated?

Hope it helps ​

 

[SasaM]

I’ve realized, through our exchanges, that most of the questions on the previous list appeared too technical for most, which I fully understand

Scientists remain stuck in the Einsteinian imprint of linear time as the 4th dimension of space. Addressing the question of the nature, algebraic and geometric structure of the 'true' 4th dimension of space disrupts the established order, as it lies at the heart of everything in physics, mathematics and in our lives.

Given its central role, it is legitimate to ask questions to better grasp it and move forward in the structure of reality. Yet, we must be aware that there is a difference between intellectually understanding the 4th dimension and living its nature. Given its non-linear quality par excellence, I remain convinced that both allow us, in some way, to experience its reality.

So, I am proposing another list of questions that allows individuals less driven by high-level mathematics and physics to relate to and resonate with some of these inquiries, while leaving @ark the possibility to ask the more technical questions (the former list) to the Cs :

I. Physical Nature of 4D and Light

Q1. The Cs (November 14, 1998) said the 4th 'dimension' allows one to perceive the exterior and interior simultaneously and that no hypothesis had been made to attribute this ability to any concept in physics. Is there a concept in physics that corresponds to the true physical nature of the 4th 'dimension' of space? For example, could it be Light?

Q2. If Light is the physical concept that corresponds to the nature of 4D space, does this mean that in 3D, we are unaware of the 4D reality of light or even that light has a 4th component?

Q3. The Cs (August 27, 2022) told us that the 4th 'dimension' is a frequency with a degenerate metric (where two distinct points have a ZERO distance). In Einstein's relativity, light also has a degenerate metric. Does this mean light is in resonance with the 4th dimension of space? Is its 4th component what allows it to resonate with 4D? Or must we integrate this 4th component to become aware, in 3D, that light is a 4D reality?

Q4. If integrating this 4th component of light allows us to become aware of its 4D reality in 3D, what is the nature of this 4th component? Since 4D allows perceiving exterior and interior simultaneously, is the 4th component of light also both exterior and interior at the same time?

II. Consciousness, Perception and the Illusion of Separation

Q5. The Cs said (May 27, 1995) that stepping out of the illusion of separation between matter and consciousness opens the 4D experience. Since both are united by our human perception, does integrating a new 'dimension' of space mean considering our perception as an integral part of physics or even as the 4th dimension of space?

Q6. Is the perception of separation between matter and consciousness itself an illusion?

Q7. Is the 4th 'dimension' of space then perception or - since perception is bonded by awareness (February 23, 2002) - is the 4th 'dimension' actually consciousness?

Q8. In this case, does it translate to including the observer in the equations of maths and in the laws of physics?

Q9. Is entering 4D reality synonymous with our perception or consciousness becoming a full physical reality?

Q10. If the access to 4th spatial dimension is the result of the collapse of the separation between consciousness and matter, and if our perception ceases to be an external witness to become a full physical dimension, how does this redefine our laws of physics? Is this what you mean by 'variable physicality'?

III. Constants and Variability

Q11. Does making something variable mean entering 'inside' it? Is saying 'the speed of light becomes variable' synonymous with 'the concept of the speed of light becomes obsolete'?

Q12. The Cs (August 27, 2022) said the speed of light and Planck's constant were variable in relation to the 4th dimension. Does this mean they are simultaneously constant and variable in 4D as degenerate frequencies themselves ?

IV. Geometry and Mathematical Tools

Q13. The Cs (Jan 4, 1997) told Ark 'There is no right or left in 4th density'. Does this mean, integrating the 4th dimension allows us to enter the circular and spherical aspect of reality?

Q14. Will discovering the nature of the 4th 'dimension' lead to a profound change in current mathematics?

Q15. Does the 4th dimension allow us to bypass Clifford algebras, quaternions or octonions to describe 4D reality? If so, is it because these concepts are the 3D way to grasp 4D reality? Do they become obsolete once the 4D experience is integrated?

Hope it helps ​

It seems in these questions that 4th dimension and 4th density are somewhat used interchangeably, while they do not necessarily need to be. Perhaps first steps in grokking the true nature of "space" and our reality might be sorting that one out.
My impression has been that 4th dimension 'exists' regardless which density level (observing) wave reading consciousness unit is.
FWIW.

 

[SasaM]

From math PoV, Ark's recent paper referenced in a previous post in the thread, does a great job tackling sort of 4th spatial dimension in a kind of 4+2 dim spacetime framework.

From paper Abstract:

Moving beyond the often-misrepresented “double cone” description, we demonstrate that the infinity of the double cover, M~_∞, is a squeezed torus (specifically, a horn cyclide), while the simple infinity,
M¯_∞, is a needle cyclide. We provide explicit parametrizations and graphical representations of these structures. Finally, we explore the embedding of five-dimensional constant-curvature spaces, whose boundary is the compactified Minkowski space.

From Introduction:

The conformal compactification of Minkowski space has long played a central role in both mathematical relativity and conformal field theory. In its standard realization, the compactified space is obtained as the projective null cone of a six-dimensional real vector space of signature
(4,2), and is often described, following Penrose, as the “Einstein universe” [1]. Although this construction is classical and widely used, several geometric and conceptual aspects of the compactification and of its conformal infinity are still presented in a manner that can obscure their true structure. In particular, the topology of the compactified space, the role of the natural double cover, and the precise geometry of conformal infinity are sometimes treated in the literature in a way that leads to confusion or to oversimplified pictures, such as the ubiquitous but misleading "double cone at infinity".

Last Remark in the paper reads:

Remark 13. The manifolds Σ±, whose topological types are S2×R3 and S1×R4, are non-compact. They are naturally connected with the Möbius geometry of hyperboloids in Minkowski space. There is, however, a broader framework, namely Lie sphere geometry, initiated by Sophus Lie and further developed by Wilhelm Blaschke and Thomas E. Cecil [4]. Adopting the Lie sphere viewpoint, one arrives at a projectivized null cone in a seven–dimensional space, which produces compactified versions of Σ±. These compact models carry conformal structures invariant under O(4,3) (respectively, O(5,2)). Upon restricting the symmetry group to O(4,2), we then recover the compactified counterparts of our pseudo-Riemannian five-dimensional manifolds Σ±.

Perhaps a dive in what paper presented with math trained eyes might bring some adequate answers to more technical questions in the opening post of the thread.

 

[EricLux]

It seems in these questions that 4th dimension and 4th density are somewhat used interchangeably, while they do not necessarily need to be. Perhaps first steps in grokking the true nature of "space" and our reality might be sorting that one out.
My impression has been that 4th dimension 'exists' regardless which density level (observing) wave reading consciousness unit is.
FWIW.

The distinction you're drawing is actually more subtle and more interesting than a simple dimension/density separation. As you point out, the Cs themselves said (August 23, 2001) that the 4th density we know and Einstein-Bergmann's 5th dimension are identical — which already tells us the answer is far from obvious and that our usual categories may not apply clearly.

Your framing resonates deeply with my own working understanding : the 4th 'dimension' is not a dimension alongside the three spatial ones — it is more like their mother, the origin or reference from which the three emerge.

This also makes the Cs' statement about space and time being interchangeable (August 15, 1998), much more coherent : if the 4th dimension is the generative ground of the other three, then the apparent oppositions — matter/antimatter, space/time — are really just two faces of the same underlying non-linear reality, seen from within 3D.

The non-linearity you mention is key. A dimension that is simultaneously the source and the container of the others cannot be linear by nature. It is, structurally, what curves linearity into reality.​