wendy wrote:
I normally wrangle six dimensions as a physical point. So four dimensions is itself like 2d or something.
wendy, i was searching for another quote by you in which i remember you stated that some correspondences like: 4d~planar, 5d~linear(rays?), and 6d~(physical)points.
these utterances are both not specific enough. (=i can't see nor imagine the connections between your cloud-words)
in "the Fourth Dimension", R.Steiner says this:
"we can reamin on the abstract purely intellectual level as long as we do not need to visualize what we're doing. when we attempt to do so, however, we are confronted with a problem of elasticity, whereas our purely abstract train of thoughts led to a
regressus in infinitum. we can also imagine initially that a pendulum simply will continue to swing indefinitely, but in dynamics we have oscillations. that is the reality of the situation.
when we rise to the level of imaginative perception, we cannot simply repeat the process [of dimensional generation] indefinitely, assuming the existence of a fourth and subsequent dimensions. if we use the notation +a for the first dimension, +b for the second, and +c for the third, we cannot, if we are describing real space, write the fouth dimension as +d. Instead, the reality of the situation forces us to write -c. the fourth dimension simply nullifies the third, and only 2 remain. at the end of the process, therefore, we are left with 2 dimensions instead of four. similarily, if we assume 5th dimension, we must use notation -b for it and -a for the sixth. that is we come back to a point"
then he restates this 4 times in 3 pages.
can you please tella bit more of in what way does for you your 4d interface make 4d planar, 5d ray-like and 6d physical point-like ?
or do i misinterpret you ?