## God and 4th Dimension

Discussions about the possibility of consciousness, free will, spirits, deities, religions and so on, and how these might interact with time travel, the Big Bang, many worlds and so on.

### God and 4th Dimension

Please excuse me if this sounds stupid, half-witted, or offensive in any way:

Does anyone think that God may "see" in 4 dimensions? If not 4, than any others? I believe that He "sees" EVERTHING at ALL times and at ONE time...what dimension would this be if it is a dimension at all?

Also, we know we exist, right? We can think too. What dimensions would thinking or existing fall under? Thinking especially. (Sorry if this last question is off topic). Thinking can also be interpreted as consciousness...

I LOVE conceptualizing and thinking deep thoughts and reading my Physics book one time got me started on the thought of dimensions...I'm glad I found this site, and hope I may inspire someone to help think with me.
Birdman
Mononian

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:42 am

Well, if something can see everything, it would have to exist in a space higher than what we are in. Since we exist in three spatial dimensions, something would at least have to exist in four. (We can see everything on a flat sheet of paper because we can see it from "above". For something to see all of 3-space, it would have to see us from "above" in 4-space.)

Now what do you mean "at all times"? Do you mean "all times past, present, and future all at once" or do you mean "at all times as time progresses"? There is a big difference!

Well, thinking occurs in the brain. We think because of (dumbed down because I'm not a neuroscientist) electric impulses travelling through our brain. Electric impulses are the result of electricity. Electricity is caused by electrons. Electrons exist in three dimensions (but are, as far as we can tell, one dimensional points). By that logic I propose that thinking is "three dimensional" if you had to quantize it. Same goes for consciousness...to be conscious one needs to have a functioning brain and the same rules apply.

Hope I didn't come off as offensive either...it's always tricky business when mashing religion and physics into words.
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

I think I meant "past-present-future" AND at ONE Instance...but that might be too imaginary I think...Omnipresence sometimes can't be explained..

I would love to talk join in other 4D discussions, but alas, I'm not as smart and knowing as you all...
Birdman
Mononian

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:42 am

Not at all - check the "sticky" at the top of the General forum, therein lie the education and what-have-yous of many of the members. Most are not experts in the field, myself included, but there's lots to learn and hence lots to question. Sometimes it's fun to just poke around and read until something catches your eye. But don't mind me, I talk too much. :wink:
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

If God was 4D, He would then be restricted by not being able to control 5D. Assuming God can do anything, He must have been able to create a universe in any dimension. My first guess would be that God has infinite dimensions. However, there may be ways for Him to be even more omniscient, and there are different orders of infinity...

houserichichi wrote:
Well, thinking occurs in the brain. We think because of (dumbed down because I'm not a neuroscientist) electric impulses travelling through our brain. Electric impulses are the result of electricity. Electricity is caused by electrons. Electrons exist in three dimensions (but are, as far as we can tell, one dimensional points). By that logic I propose that thinking is "three dimensional" if you had to quantize it. Same goes for consciousness...to be conscious one needs to have a functioning brain and the same rules apply.

Assuming we had a theory governing the behaviour of electrons in the brain perfectly, a computer could theoretically simulate a brain. A computer is basically a "Universal Turing Machine", which is only 1D. So yes, our thinking is 3D, but theoretically the same kind of thinking could be done in one dimension.

The only problem is input. When living in a 1D universe, there isn't much to think about, so there's not much point in having a human brain.

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

Well that would be assuming a fifth spatial dimension exists. If the fourth spatial dimension, for example, was limited to "god's realm" or whatever fancifull language you'd like to attribute to it then there would be no need for it to be looked over, would there?

Fair enough point on the 1-D brain-computer analogy, I hadn't thought of it so directly. I think I agree with you too, that it does exist in 1 dimension (as far as I know...I'm no neuroscientists, as I pointed out before :wink: ), since the paths electrons take are one-dimensional withing our three dimensional space. In theory one should be able to create a brain in 2-space where the one dimensional paths do not intersect (or do they need to). Anyways, I see no reason why consciousness would require higher dimensions.
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

We can think too. What dimensions would thinking or existing fall under?

(dont know how to use quotes so hope that worked)

I could be wrong in this, but wouldnt it not fall under a dimnesion because when graphing something wiht the x,y,z,t graph, you cant put thinking in their too. It doesnt show a direction, place or time.

Or does everything have to fall under one dimension or another?
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." AE
rEaLiTy
Mononian

Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:13 am

As far as I understand (and I could be wrong), the thought process can be boiled down to chemical reactions which in turn can be broken further down to free electrons. The paths electrons take may be one dimensional (though we don't know the exact path an electron takes as per quantum mechanics), but in our brains those paths are twisted and turned within three-space. So, thinking occurs in three-space, but it's not a spatial dimension at all, as far as what you were talking about...at least as far as I understand it (and has ever been proven). It's the same idea as telephone conversations...it doesn't require another dimension, but it occurs in three dimensions plus time (through wiring and all the extra electronics involved).

Or does everything have to fall under one dimension or another?

It doesn't have to "be" a dimension, but everything has to be measurable in a dimension which is why I broke it down to electrons. Thinking is a process of the brain and not a mystical other-worldly occurence. There are a plethora of folks who would give arguments counter to this thought process but it's not science if they do, as it cannot (as far as I've ever read) be tested...and how do you call something a science if it can't eventually be tested.
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

PWrong wrote:If God was 4D, He would then be restricted by not being able to control 5D. Assuming God can do anything, He must have been able to create a universe in any dimension. My first guess would be that God has infinite dimensions. However, there may be ways for Him to be even more omniscient, and there are different orders of infinity...

Alright, I thought as much.

Thanks everyone.
Birdman
Mononian

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:42 am

I find it interesting that man was supposedly created in God's -image-, and a 4D shadow, or image, is a 3D object.
Being 4D in a 3D world would supposedly make you able to see all. However... with such a tiny cross-section of your 4D energy in their realm at any one time, how could it affect anything in that realm? The energy density of a zero-hypervolume realmic cross-section would be unmeasurable and unable to affect anything. There's just no way for us to punch a hole through a planespace citizen with our pencil, because the 2D slices of the protons in the pencil that pass through planespace don't individually have enough of the proton's charge stored.
Likewise, God can't hear your prayers because the entire plane is so thin that it touches precisely zero of anything. The light that hits the plane cannot affect anything in it, and thusly is also not affected itself, as are any other particles that God might be made of. There's no way to see it that way.

However, what God -can- do, is stand in front of a projector and cast the entire universe, protons, electrons, computers connecting to internets through wires, people having thoughts according to a prewritten script or sometimes as God makes them up on the fly... all as an elaborate shadow-puppet 4D drama. Your prayers don't need to reach Him, because He's only pretending that you're praying them in the first place as an act in His play.
Rkyeun
Dionian

Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:24 pm

Houserichichi wrote:Since we exist in three spatial dimensions, something would at least have to exist in four. (We can see everything on a flat sheet of paper because we can see it from "above". For something to see all of 3-space, it would have to see us from "above" in 4-space.)

The main page of the alkaline site explains why this is false.

For one:

The flat sheet of paper you are referring to is a representation of the 2nd dimension.

Also, a 2D dimensional object does not exist with respect to a 3D observer, thus the contradiction.
RQ
Tetronian

Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

I've never actually been to the front page of the alkaline forum - strange, eh? Anyways, we very well could see a 2-dimensional being if said entity existed...but it definitely depends on the angle at which we perceive it. The surface of a wall (my favourite example) is 2 dimensional, though you can argue at the quantum level it's not, but then nothing 2-dimensiona (or one dimensional) exists, as far as current theory goes. With that in mind, I can see a wall, therefore I can see a 2-dimensional surface. If I was to pick, for instance, a particular 3cm x 3cm square on that wall and name it Jill then she lives in my 2-d world and I can certainly point her out to you. As far as I can tell, since I can't see through the wall from my head-on view, Jill and her world is completely flat and thus I'm looking "down" on her from above. Similarly, if a god (or anything, for that matter) was to exist in higher space than us, it most certainly could see us...otherwise it wouldn't be a god. :wink:
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

### Perceivings processes

I'm new here and not yet read another topic than this. I think whether we 'live' in realm space, tetraspace or anything else all depend on how our brain perceive the world. As human with our perception within our body then we recognise the world as 3 dimension.

That all of our daily life make sense to us if we perceive it as 3 dimension, but it's not imposible if anytime we get a phenomenon that seem not make sense at all for us cause it just make sense if we can perceive the tetraspace.

Maybe some creatures that can perceive tetraspace have benefits that they can watch us but they can choose whether they posses the space that can be seen by us or not. So does God that have very high ability of perceiving th world.
cbwatcher
Nullonian

Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:22 am

cbwatcher wrote:I'm new here and not yet read another topic than this. I think whether we 'live' in realm space, tetraspace or anything else all depend on how our brain perceive the world. As human with our perception within our body then we recognise the world as 3 dimension.

Natural selection has eliminated this, but your point still stands. A brain can be retrained to see in 4 extended spatial dimensions with the right calculations.
RQ
Tetronian

Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

The reason that you make god four-dimensional is much the same reason that you put god in the clouds etc. We can get to the clouds, and there ain't no angels sitting on them.

i can visualise 6d, i don't see god nailed up against the corner (which is 4d), so i really don't see the point.

It's not that i don't beleive in god, but it makes no point being a different dimension. Think about it, in 4d, we are just a page in a book. One thin chorix (to use the PG term).

And if you make him five dimensional, it's like us looking at a lump of wire. In five dimensions, they make the tips of swords 3d.

All it is is that they don't want to have to confront him in their own space!

W

ps yes i believe in god. I just have him in 3d, like the rest of his children.

W

wendy
Pentonian

Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

There's another leap to be made.
All this linear progression from 3D to 4D to 5D, with their new mechanics and restrictions raises interesting possibilities and hints of...

Let us now jump past linearity and explore a realm with an infinite number of dimensions.
That is a jump worthy of God, no?

All forces in this realm are themselves infinities of differing scale, to make up for the dissipation into an inverse infinite law which drains their power.

Would all forces in this realm then be differing flavors of infinite intensity to counter it? And if so, THEY could interact with lower dimensions because even their lower dimensional cross-sections might contain sufficient power to manipulate objects.
Omnipotence.

Everything and its contents are fully visible from any angle.
Any neurons would be directly connected to each other to form infinite thoughts, infinite knowledge. Indeed, only one neuron is needed to form an entire brain, depending on from which angle it triggers itself.
Omnicience.

Any object can reach into or through any other object and edit it, or avoid any object with the slightest of sidesteps. An object may share space harmlessly with any object and all objects simultaneously by using the shortest of an infinite choice of dimensions to ensure it is zero distance away.
Omnipresence.

No, I don't believe God is hiding in 3D, for the same reason He's not hiding on the clouds or in 4D.
He's hiding in a realm that He is the definition of.
Rkyeun
Dionian

Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:24 pm

God isn't hiding anywhere. All of us are with God, and we are part of Her fabric.

We just don't want to have god with us, so we hid Her in the clouds, in the far emptyness of never-never land. Yet the Iseralites carted their God around with them in the desert (arc of the covernment), and built a vast and empty room for Her to live in. That is, their god had a postal address!

The whole thing with God/Superman is that believing in something that is infallible makes ours futile. Those who believe in more mortal things are more likely to raise to the challange to do things.

In part, this is why the remoteness of god exists. But distance is largely irrelevant, and god is everywhere.

W
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger

wendy
Pentonian

Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Personaly: I think that our brains could never explain or attempt to understand God and what He/She sees, or is, or anything that is not written in the Bible.

It's like this. Let's say we are looking at a picture that we drew of ourselves on a peace of paper. We give it life so it can do basic 2D movements. Can the drawing understand why it exists, or if it believes in a Creator, who or what created it? Can it explain what its Creator can see or lives in? I know this analogy is flawed and will probably be picked apart, but try to understand the point and idea.
Birdman
Mononian

Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 3:42 am

It can if its creator fabricated a good enough world for it.
The infinite dimension God hypothesis I presented in no way seperates us from God. Existing in all dimensions means that He is also in our three, He is in our five or six (however many there were) 'crushed string' dimensions, and in any other dimensions that might exist.
Rkyeun
Dionian

Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:24 pm

### God

He birdman,

Acoording to me, god is conscience. Seeing is just a way to find out you have a conscience. You see?
We are all god, and we are here to find out we are god. Once we found that out in 3 dimensions, we'll try to find it out in four dimensions, and after that in 5.
You might go on till eternity with that...
Ask yourself for example what love is. It is just a vision of a connection between you and another being.
What would you do if you were totaly alone in the universe?
I'd create some laws and split myself up to experience myself, acording to me, that's what god did. By the way, I think that every part of the whole, contains the whole, it's just the angle at wich you look at it wich makes it look different.
We're all god, and we create our own existence. Use that fact to your advantage, and you see you'll be able to attract luck...
Gilles
Dionian

Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

### By the way

O yes, to replie to your first question,

I think thought itself is no more then the 5th dimension, wich means our next stage is being thought
Gilles
Dionian

Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

No more than the fifth? That seems pretty unneccessary, since thought can potentially happen in one dimension. What can a brain do with two extra axis, that it can't do in 3D?

I do like the idea that we built the universe ourselves, at least in principle, although it doesn't really mean we can control our luck. We can't break the rules just because we put them into place.

It does bring up a lot of questions, like why would I create such a big universe and let it exist for so long, only to live in it for a few years?

PWrong
Pentonian

Posts: 1599
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:21 am
Location: Perth, Australia

houserichichi wrote:Well, if something can see everything, it would have to exist in a space higher than what we are in. Since we exist in three spatial dimensions, something would at least have to exist in four. (We can see everything on a flat sheet of paper because we can see it from "above". For something to see all of 3-space, it would have to see us from "above" in 4-space.)

A lower dimensional space does not exist with respect to a higher one. We can only exist with respect to ourselves. Your analogy is false however it is true that there must be a 4th dimension since our universe's shape is curved into it.
RQ
Tetronian

Posts: 432
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:07 pm
Location: Studio City, California

### Hi Pwrong

Hello,

To start with were you ended, who said that you live here only for a few years? I don't beleive so, cos life itself has been here for a long time already, and it's been observed, by creatures like you and me.
What if you were a different form of the past (and future) observers?

For the rest, according talking about dimensions, I think it's best to lose the mathematical concept of them, and forget thins like axises, cos those exist in 3 dimensions, and not necesarily in 5...

You wonder what a brain can do with 2 extra axis, and state thought can happen in 1 dimension. Ever seen a 1-dimensional brain? I didn't.
I think the whole dimensional concept is bound to the 3rd dimension, just because we stated it so. Further dimensions then the one of our consience, are far more abstract then this one. As I go on typing, i notice that I won't be able to explain to you what I wanted to say, so i might aswell stop.
Only last thing, is that I think there is no actual boundary between dimensions, it's just a way for us to structurise this ocean of chaos we live in.
Gilles
Dionian

Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

RQ wrote:A lower dimensional space does not exist with respect to a higher one. We can only exist with respect to ourselves. Your analogy is false however it is true that there must be a 4th dimension since our universe's shape is curved into it.

Our universe is NOT curved into the fourth dimension, it IS four dimensional. The curvature is intrinsic - it doesn't require a higher space to curve into. And yes, a lower dimensional space does exist with respect to a higher one. It's called a subspace.
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am

### Re: Hi Pwrong

Gilles wrote:Hello,

To start with were you ended, who said that you live here only for a few years? I don't beleive so, cos life itself has been here for a long time already, and it's been observed, by creatures like you and me.
What if you were a different form of the past (and future) observers?

For the rest, according talking about dimensions, I think it's best to lose the mathematical concept of them, and forget thins like axises, cos those exist in 3 dimensions, and not necesarily in 5...

You wonder what a brain can do with 2 extra axis, and state thought can happen in 1 dimension. Ever seen a 1-dimensional brain? I didn't.
I think the whole dimensional concept is bound to the 3rd dimension, just because we stated it so. Further dimensions then the one of our consience, are far more abstract then this one. As I go on typing, i notice that I won't be able to explain to you what I wanted to say, so i might aswell stop.
Only last thing, is that I think there is no actual boundary between dimensions, it's just a way for us to structurise this ocean of chaos we live in.

As I've said before, in mathematics, there is a precise definition of a spatial dimension. If you look at the corner of a rectangular room, you will see three mutually perpendicular lines intersecting at a point, which is why we say that there are at least 3 dimensions. Can you draw another line, perpendicular to all three, that passes through that corner? No? Then that's why we can say that there are not more than 3 dimensions.

If you want an even more precise definition of a dimension, try http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LebesgueCo ... nsion.html

Tell me then, how is that definition bound up in the 3rd dimenion?

The advantage of such a precise, unambiguous definition of a dimension is that mathematically, it is possible to prove results using that definitioin. And by adding in some postulates, it is possible to develop mathematical theories involving dimensions, theories that are not only interesting in their own right, but have useful applications in other fields as well.

Furthermore, in a mathematical sense, the purpose of defining dimension is not to make sense of what we observe. It is done, as I've said above, so that unambiguous results can be proved based on the definition. If you think the mathematical notion of dimension is incapable of dealing with 5D, try reading:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Polytope.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Simplex.html

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CrossPolytope.html

So what reason do you have for wanting to abandon the mathematical dimension. It has done a fine job. Do you have a better alternative?
jinydu
Tetronian

Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:31 am

### We're talking about god here...

Hi, my dear friend Jinydu

You've said before, but so did I. Our approach is different. You can of course define a dimension mathematicaly, but do you actualy understand it then? You can prove things with maths, but getting to know what this proof means, is what I wonder about.
Maths try to explain dimensions in space, but as you said, space is where the 3rd dimension ends. So that's impossible. You might try to understand the formula's maths give to you, but that won't help you in understanding the dimension itself, just like for example v=1/2gt^2 doesn't help you to understand the power of gravity itself.
To actualy understand something like a dimension, you'll have to form an image of it, wich can integrate both the place and time where you live in, the religions kept here (it's not just bullshit, because it hasen't been proven, some things aren't provable yet), the people you meet, and your very self according to the dimension. Maths may help you to get on your way, but won't make you find it.
That's just my point of view, maybe because I'm not as good in maths as you. As for the proving part, why would I try to prove something that is extremely clear to me, and wich helps me understand the world I live in in my way? I don't realy bother if it's right or wrong, science itself has been proven wrong so many times, that you couldn't realy take a hold on that either. I realise very well that there is no such thing as truth, there are only images in our heads, that try to explain something unexplainable, but as a lot in this world hasn't sufficiently been explained by science, I search my own path. I'm not here to prove myself right, I'm here to prove myself wrong, but you can't convince me with maths, sorry.
Gilles
Dionian

Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

You must understand that metaphysics is ultimately based on common notions. Common notions don't work in four dimensions, because it's something we can't visualise directly.

HYPERSPACE

Hyperspace means "over-space". It is over the current space, and not a general term for "four dimensions". It is a process of visualising by analogy, from two to three, and then three to four, etc.

One should exercise a lot of the information from hyperspace analogies with some due care. We do not look at solids by their sections, but rather as solids.

MATHEMATICS

Metaphysics is founded on common notions. All the rheteric makes no sense if the underlying common notions are wrong. Because four dimensions is different to three dimensions, common notions don't carry across all that well: Analogy does not always work.

In four dimensions, we have entirely new modes of rotation. We have, for example, bi-rotations and clifford-rotations. These can be derived by metaphysics, *as long as the underlying mathematics is established*. That's how i figured them out.

Look at my website http://www.geocities.com/os2fan2/gloss/index.html
particularly the hyperspace topics.

An equation like F=(1/2)gt^2 does not help you appreciate the nature of gravity, or accelerations in general. It is a free-fall equation. But what of gravity is one seeking to understand.

On the other hand, one can understand things like gravity by considering it as a radiant force. One can form the correct mathematics from this model, (in not a difficult way).

However, if you appreciate gravity, and understand the equations (without having to do the hard maths), one finds that it is much easier to convert an understanding of the equations into an appreciation of what happens in other geometries.

For example, if one couples the equity of energy-modes (ie two modes of rotation acquire the same energy), with clifford parallels (that is, one can cover the 4-sphere by non-intersecting great circles, like space filled with parallels), one understands that planets tend to rotate along clifford parallels. A bit more checking helps fill the sky with stars, suns etc.

In four dimensions, there is no equator, no poles: every point is moving. What you do get is great torii of tropics, and great torii of artics.

This is not obvious from analogy: one needs to know that clifford parallels exist (not particularly by that name). I made the discovery independently by mathematically based metaphysics.
The dream you dream alone is only a dream
the dream we dream together is reality.

\ ( \(\LaTeX\ \) \ ) [no spaces] at https://greasyfork.org/en/users/188714-wendy-krieger

wendy
Pentonian

Posts: 1990
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

### Common notions

Common notions don't work in 4 dimensions, until mankind starts seeing in 4.
Accroding to me, that won't be very long anymore.
Anyway, a new form of rotation doesn't exclude evolution (wich is my notion of the 4th), does it? How else do you think our solar system came to exist?
Got to go now
Gilles
Dionian

Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:47 pm

Mankind can never see in four dimensions; the best he can do is visualize it. There's a very big difference.
houserichichi
Tetronian

Posts: 590
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 1:03 am