I wrote this article in July of 2024 but never posted it. I viewed it to be too niche, but I found that I kept remembering it from time to time, especially because of the depth that it goes into and the research I did for it.
So unwind, grab yourself some beers or a glass of wine, sit back, relax, and enjoy this deep dive into the fourth dimension.
—-
I’m not easily influenced by majority opinions. And the majority opinion on the fourth dimension, some scientific consensus and popular depictions in movies, games, social media, et cetera, seems to me to be missing the point.
I am currently of the belief that the fourth dimension is not a phenomenon of time, but simply another physical plane, and that understanding the basics of the fourth dimension is somewhat simple, however being able to experience it fully is basically impossible. This may be the reason why many people associate it with time, as it’s much more of a pleasant way of viewing it. However, I find the pleasure is more so situated within the truth of the matter instead. As understanding the truth leads to so many other possibilities and understandings.
We can’t exactly move on a fourth dimensional axis. We are third dimensional creatures existing in a three-dimensional world. Your phone screen or computer screen that you’re reading this on is a depiction of a two-dimensional world, but it is still actually three dimensional in that it only looks flat but it’s not. An example would be a piece of paper with a square drawn on it with a pen. It’s not 2D, it’s actually three-dimensional ink which is placed on top of the paper. The paper itself is also not two dimensional as it has all x, y, and z axes. It’s just that it’s very thin relative to our perception. This means that if you were to try and perceive any object to as flat and finite a level as possible, you still will never be able to perceive a true 2D object, you could get very close in relation to your own perception of It, but that is where it would end. It would be an infinite pursuit.
Like the second dimension, the fourth dimension is the same. Being that it’s not actually truly perceivable. However, I believe we can perceive what I call “cross sections” of it. Meaning, the image of a Tesseract, also known as a hyper cube, is not actually what a fourth dimensional object looks like, but depending on the depiction, is only a cross section of it. It is only a perception of a portion of it. When looking at fourth dimensional objects in computer simulations, usually they’ll implement a scrolling feature to be able to view a rendition of a fourth dimensional object through the perception of a third dimensional object in a two-dimensional space (that’s actually a three dimensional space.) Which sounds overly complicated but it’s not, the point is to stress that your perception is capable of easily simplifying what’s going on even though it’s quite complex.
Which leads me back to my usual theme when thinking about subjects like these, which is that simplicity is key. One of the worst problems we face as a people is that we overthink things and make them more complicated than they need to be. For instance, one of the major mainstream schools of thought when it comes to the fourth dimension is that it is somehow, in some way, related to time. And that it can bend time, or is influenced by time, or even is time itself.
The perspective of time being related to the fourth dimension could be blamed on Einstein’s theory of relativity, which suggests that space and time are interconnected and can be distorted by gravity. Another example of thought like this is that time appears to slow down for objects moving at high speeds relative to an observer, which is called time dilation. However, I would also push back against this as well, as time is still progressing at the exact same rate, only the perception of time has changed because of the abnormality of observing an object moving at the same speed as you. It is a matter of perception of reality, not perception becoming the entire reality. As I implied in one of my writings a while ago, time is the only constant which is unchanging. It cannot bend. And as much as Hollywood loves to portray, it cannot be traversed. It is an absolute constant.
I don’t believe for a second that the fourth dimension is in some way related to time. I believe it is a physical axis that we cannot perceive. The best way to sum up this idea is to show a progressive summary of the physical aspects of a cube like object in each dimension, being that in the first dimension it has two vertices, in the second dimension it has four sides, in the third dimension it has six squares, and in the forth dimension it has eight cubes. This explanation shows the simplicity of the matter, that it is just matter, on another plane of existence. Meaning it’s a simple physical plane. This is one of the main reasons why I find it irritating when I see people trying to pontificate about time related fourth dimensional space travel. They’re only saying this prolactin induced garbage because they emotionally want the fourth dimension to be related to time. Which it isn’t. 1D is physical, not time related. 2D is physical, not time related. 3D is physical, not time related. But 4D is suddenly entirely metaphysical and alters time? No, 4D is physical, and not related to time. It’s either an emotional longing, or stupidity, that they can’t perceive a dimension that’s outside our own, and that’s also within our own, and functioning normally. I see no issue with understanding that matter can exist normally in another dimension that we cannot see, just as much as it makes sense that there can exist matter for a square in a 2D plane that also exists in the same timeframe as its full cube on a 3D plane of existence. By this alone we can assume that a 4D plane of existence exists right here and right now in this timeframe but outside of our perception.
Now let’s explore, as a thought experiment, how a two-dimensional character can in theory perceive the third dimension. However, this is limited by its own perception. In this example, we can imagine that a 2D character is actually sentient. This 2D world is flat and finite, let’s just imagine it looks like the old Mario games, and there’s a character that exists in this world. However, you, in the 3D world can interact with this 2D world, and the sentient 2D NPC can interact with what you do in that world, like passing an object through it. When observing the simulation of pushing and pulling an object like a sphere, through the 2D world. It would create a wild and possibly unnerving phenomenon in the 2D world as the sphere will never look like a sphere, it would look like a small line morphing into a large line and then vanishing from reality again after shrinking back. Considering at least our understanding of viewing is applied. Only cross sections were visible.
And this we can apply to the third dimensions’ relation to the fourth dimension, we can only see a cross section of the fourth dimension. Yet not exactly. If for instance, one was to see a brief flash of an object, an angel, a demon, or something else, this could possibly be a perception of a cross section of a fourth dimensional creature or object. It could even be possible for the hallucinations that schizophrenics get to sometimes have actually been real creatures or even actual glimpses into the fourth dimension. Although I’m speculating. But the thought of exploring that idea is interesting.
A tesseract when viewed using a 3D modelling program is viewed by scrolling through three dimensional cross sections, giving the appearance of a cube within a cube, or eight cubes seemingly moving, or even triangular prisms morphing into other objects, and sharp objects seemingly becoming round. This is very similar to descriptions of heavenly creatures in the bible. An example of this is when looking at verses that describe these otherworldly creatures and objects, such as in Ezekial 1:15-21.
15 Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces.
16 The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the colour of a beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.
17 When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.
18 As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.
19 And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.
20 Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
21 When those went, these went; and when those stood, these stood; and when those were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.
The viewer here was quite possibly perceiving an actual forth dimensional creature or object, either that or he had such an understanding of some type of forth dimensional thought, mathematical thought, as he could describe the perception of it. The significance of this is amplified when remembering that there were no programs at the time that could be used to view 4D objects like this.
This makes me think also of the 4D world in relation to the mind, again just another thought experiment, but for instance, when thinking of what to write in an article, many paragraphs that I come up with, that I contemplate, only ever existed in the mind, and had many different instances, such as my first explanation of the 4D worlds relation to time, the second rendition of that several minutes later, and the third rendition several minutes after that and so on. All of which I forgot. But now only one instance is shown. Could they all be cross sections of the whole thought on a fourth dimensional level? Or is this overthinking it and making it more complicated or mystical than it needs to be?
But as for time being related to the fourth dimension, there is no concrete evidence of this. Wormholes bending time is ridiculous. Time is not physical. But it is one of the most, if not the most, important constant in our material world in relation to the physical. The concept of the fourth dimension is not difficult for me to grasp, infact, it’s the opposite. I believe I can actually imagine fourth dimensional objects. I can see them if I focus enough, only in glimpses. Not the cross section but the whole. However, I am still aware that this is still most likely a third dimensional rendition of some sort of phantasm of a multitude of cross sections amalgamated.
This topic fascinates me because when you spend a lot of time thinking on it and contemplating it, trying to grasp it, even if it is entirely futile, it seems to open up the mind, like a mental exercise. By trying your hardest to see or imagine a fourth dimensional object or world, I find it’s then easier to think outside the box in general. To zoom out. Much like an astrophile would feel when thinking about the enormousness of space for long periods of time.
Eventually big problems seem small.
However, in this case, enclosed problems seem open. It helps to try and expand the mind, to explore topics that are near inconceivable, to try and perceive things outside of our perception, even if it all it does is just add another dimension to an already complicated reality.
Alex James.