Is There Anything Truly 2-Dimensional in a 3-Dimensional Reality?

[hokuspokus]

Never happened. TG says . Close the forum .

[cosmic tramp]

The common currency of communication, the printed word itself, is and can only be 2D, be it on a screen, in a book, on a label, in a magazine, letter, newspaper etc. Maybe says something that by and large, as a race, we set so much store by it, in all its (2D) forms.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Really? You didn't get it?

Five variable time lines for fourth.
Six switchability from one time line to the next.
Seven broadens out to all possible timelines that could ever have existed - infinity.
Eight is all the different infinities from different conditions.
Nine is the connection between different infinities.
Ten all branches, all universes, all infinities.

If I wave my hand in the air, that action is also being expressed in every other dimension simultaneously, in the same way that a square is a cube is a tesseract etc.



Above: Me manifesting in different dimensions

Even my handsome 2-D self is going about his business right now, sliced in any which way you please on the 2-D plane as he stares at the laptop screen:



There's no actual division between 2-D Sol and 3-D Sol etc; they are all the same assclown seen from different perspectives.

So why would consciousness be an exclusive property of our third dimension?

The obvious answer is that it isn't, which means that all my dimensional expressions up to the tenth level of infinity are conscious.

This is such a simple and straightforward point to see and understand that I don't know how any theoretical physicist would even attempt to refute it.

Yet here we are with the Brian Coxes and the Richard Dawkins of the world, feigning sincerity as they brainwash impressionable young people into believing they're nothing but 'lumbering robots', that consciousness is only an epiphenomenon of the brain and that there is no future for them after death.

It winds me up.

[wingwang]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

Fairyprincess got me thinking about this in another thread by observing that a 2-D diagram on a sheet of paper isn't really 2-D, because of the 3-D nature of the paper.

Sheet of paper under electron microscope:



A right angle drawn on such a surface is ink saturating a 3-Dimensional landscape, and is only a mental representation of 2-Dimensional reality in a 3-Dimensional one.

The same could be said of a 2-D shape rendered on a computer screen.

Originally Posted by size_of_light

Even my handsome 2-D self is going about his business right now, sliced in any which way you please on the 2-D plane as he stares at the laptop screen:

Can both of those statements coexist? A slice, with any modicum of depth, is still 3D. I put forward the only true 2D example is a shadow. Do light particles have depth? Ergo, do shadows have consciousness such as your hypothesis?



.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by cosmic tramp

The common currency of communication, the printed word itself, is and can only be 2D, be it on a screen, in a book, on a label, in a magazine, letter, newspaper etc. Maybe says something that by and large, as a race, we set so much store by it, in all its (2D) forms.

There's a feedback loop between dimensions going on there, with 3-D minds arranging 2-D symbols which effect 3-D minds which respond by manipulating 2-D symbols etc.

Technically, the physically printed words aren't 2-D, because they are ink stains saturating the contours of the 3-D terrain of the paper (see the electron microscope image in post #5) but they appear in our mind's eye in 2-Dimensional form when we read them, so again, you could say that the 2nd dimension only exists in consciousness.

The same deal with words and images on a computer - if you zoomed in on the screen you would find a 3-D terrain of glass over swirling liquid crystal like ice on a lake.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

Can both of those statements coexist? A slice, with any modicum of depth, is still 3D. I put forward the only true 2D example is a shadow. Do light particles have depth? Ergo, do shadows have consciousness such as your hypothesis?

Very interesting.

I'd say it must have consciousness in the same way my man-slice example would have.

That sounds absurd until you remember that it isn't a different consciousness, it's the same consciousness viewed from a different perspective.

You might have really hit on something there about the question of whether light particles have depth, since light can be both a particle and a wave. Worth looking into and thinking about because there might be some bridge there between the two dimensions in the duality effect.

[size_of_light]

^ Thinking about that some more.

A shadow has to be projected onto a 3-D terrain (e.g. a wall).

So what is being projected?

It's an absence of light, I guess.

Hmm. Brain currently hurting as I try to figure out where to go with it from there...

[wingwang]

I guess we're getting into the size of light here?

I'll grab my coat...

[size_of_light]

^ If we consider the 'absence of light' projection of a shadow as truly 2-D, and it can't be found on the 3-D terrain it is projected on (such as a wall), then it must only exist in 2-D in the mind of the perceiver who perceives the absence of light (I think! )

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by wingwang

I guess we're getting into the size of light here?

I'll grab my coat...

Haha!

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

There's no actual division between 2-D Sol and 3-D Sol etc; they are all the same assclown seen from different perspectives.

So why would consciousness be an exclusive property of our third dimension?

The obvious answer is that it isn't, which means that all my dimensional expressions up to the tenth level of infinity are conscious.

Note to self: Undeniably a wise idea to put out positive vibes here and now if you want a good experience in those higher dimensions.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Never happened. TG says . Close the forum .

Shut up you creepy stalker. Get a life.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by size_of_light

^ If we consider the 'absence of light' projection of a shadow as truly 2-D, and it can't be found on the 3-D terrain it is projected on (such as a wall), then it must only exist in 2-D in the mind of the perceiver who perceives the absence of light (I think! )

2D is very much hypothetical. All particles have (at least) 3 dimensions.

[size_of_light]

Originally Posted by truegroup

2D is very much hypothetical. All particles have (at least) 3 dimensions.

Never heard that explicitly stated before.

In the science shows it is always implied that 1 and 2D are a given, are a fact, and it is only the higher dimensions that are hypothetical.

Perhaps Stephen Hawking and friends should have spent all this time focusing on trying to find 2D first, because it seems to me that as soon as you can establish that, then higher dimensions automatically fall into place.

But there doesn't seem to be any way to objectively verify it; the building blocks of 3D space only exist as abstractions of the mind.

[cosmicpurpose1.618]

Originally Posted by cosmic tramp

The common currency of communication, the printed word itself, is and can only be 2D, be it on a screen, in a book, on a label, in a magazine, letter, newspaper etc. Maybe says something that by and large, as a race, we set so much store by it, in all its (2D) forms.

But you're not seeing the letters (which don't actually exist except in your mind), you're seeing either the light reflected off of a page in to your eye, or the light emitted by a screen in to your eye. And Light is a particle, which makes it 3-D.