Q Metaphysics: You Are That Which You Perceive // new paradigm on page 58

Hey, Version Two. Glad to see you post. It's Unit 3 here. I think that might be the name you would remember me by. Thanks for the link. Looks like I have some reading to do :)

Nice to see you! How are things going with you?

Plato's allegory was talking about the dimensions beyond those we experience. Not the ones we do, like 2 and 3D.

Bostrom and the Matrix on the other hand... 0's and 1's... computer code.

Please don't suggest we should go back to dark ages. That's just ... well I don't want to call you a modern day agent of chaos, one with political reasons for doing what you do online.

A little help from a friend...

[link to www.sapub.org]

Thanks for the reminder. I'll have to check it out.

"the power densities of photon emissions during imagination as measured experimentally"

Imagination DOES emit light as measured experimentally by Persinger

Yes ;)

Hey, there. Nice to see you pop your head up! Hope life has been well :)


How can we resolve this, above?

1) "The Earth really is 3D"
2) "To us, however it is 3D"

Simulated reality? An interpretation of reality is simulated by default. No need for any computer :)



Good stuff! I'll check it out.

[link to www.researchgate.net (secure)]

bump for further reading

[link to upi.com (secure)]

yes, 2 dimensions not 3 is being researched.

it is also connected to the holographic universe theoretical models.

I'm sure we both have some interesting stories!

Hmm.. maybe there's something to this kind of sound.

It is said that the Allegory of the Cave is about human perception and the philosopher's role in society, not about dimensions beyond what we experience

Plato claimed that knowledge gained through the senses is no more than opinion and that, in order to have real knowledge, we must gain it through philosophical reasoning. In the Allegory of the Cave, Plato distinguishes between people who mistake sensory knowledge for the truth and people who really do see the truth

Regardless, as an allegory it could represent anything.


The 'dark ages' were a myth, but the Ancient Egyptians were before then, of course. There is ancient knowledge and structures that we cannot replicate, which suggests that their understanding was very different than ours.

If physical reality is actually two-dimensional, wouldn't thinking it's three-dimensional be considered "the dark ages"?

Just because the number is higher it doesn't mean it's more advanced, or true.

All complex come from more simple things. And we probably don't even understand what dimensions of reality really are, because we don't understand consciousness (and, thus, awareness).

Thanks :)

A Scribd link for the curious: [link to www.scribd.com (secure)]

A profound discovery, to be sure.

Nice summary.

Interesting. 'We suggest these results support Bókkon's hypothesis that specific visual imagery is strongly correlated with ultraweak photon emission coupled to brain activity.'

""Our universe, in contrast, is quite flat -- and on astronomic distances, it has positive curvature," explained Vienna researcher Daniel Grumiller."

Thanks for the link. It's nice to see this is being researched.

It is interesting that the assumption in the article is - that if the universe is two-dimensional - then it must be a hologram.

I think this could be answered with a geometry of relationships, with the geometry being expressed two-dimensionally and interpreted three-dimensionally.

Possibly, we perceive the relationships of the flat geometry in a 3 and 4-dimensional way (including time).

I was surprised at the holographic and simulation mashup as well. Holographic universes are more exciting to write about than ones that resemble a sheet of paper I suppose.

I think about having 2 eyes or 3 eyes when I think about 2 and 3 and 4 dimensions - as a means of imagining how perception would work in that environment.

Last Edited by Cosmologica on 11/30/2018 09:31 AM

That would be my guess and we may do this to keep us entertained. In a way, how could our perception be anything but 1 dimensional with a 3 dimension interpretation? It keeps us very busy, eh?

Good and getting better :) Thanks!

How are things going for you? The last time we had a PM, you had very exciting news. And, that was several years ago :)

Isn’t the past constantly changing as our interpretation changes?

How do you just leave it?

I’m not prepared to answer that question, I think. I’m not sure we have the language to describe it.

In the article it notes that this emission is only from the Right Hemisphere.

Interesting...

Yes, but I think that's inching very close to a view that the universe is a simulation in some kind of computer that exists outside of ourselves.

The 'computer' would be our own perspective. But even comparing ourselves to computers gives the wrong idea.


We tend to value something for its physical properties over its relationships.

But, interestingly enough, these are satisfied in quantum metaphysics with the geometry of relationships.


Interpretation of relationships :)

Any method could work, because any is an illusion. We just use whatever requires the least interactions which, for now, is our mind.

However it works, it surely is very different than how we think of it now. And the challenge would be letting go of many of the sciences we've manufactured and starting over.

Yes, so that we may know Truth. So that we may know that we are what we seek.

(Though it's all ways beyond perception, so it's illustrated forever)

Perhaps the dimensions are something like this:

0th - God/Absolute/Beyond Perspective/Void/Etc

1st - Awareness (Primary Interaction; 'Big Bang')
2nd - Perspective (Primary Relationship)

3rd - Spatial Information (space, chaos, etc)
4th - Systemic Information (time, order, etc)

...with each dimension from 3rd coming from awareness and perspective alone (and not existing independently from them)

Yes, but I think there's no 'noise' there, so it seems far more solid than does the future.


You mean, leave the past?

If it's all ways open to interpretation, we don't leave it at all.

That was in response to your question, just leave it. Did I misinterpret it?

I agree. We don’t leave it at all.

Verrrrry interesting!

Yes, that's what I've been chewing on for a while. Except, I hadn't given thought to 0th, 1st and 2nd. Thanks!

The explanation for what I've been experiencing the past few days (regarding Earth, and the universe, being 2-dimensional) has been in front of me the whole time.

Quantum metaphysics' law of 5/2 (energy perspective) states that perspective doesn't need to use any more energy (interactions) than it needs to.

Everything is folded into your current perspective. Including the universe. This is at every level.

...so everything is folded into the solar system. Everything is folded again into the atmosphere. And so on.

Information is 2-dimensional, as it is made up of both Spatial information (Chaos) and Systemic information (Order).

We can then interpret it however we want. And so we interpret 2 dimensions not as 3 but as 4.

You could say, we are give 2 dimensions of Chaos and Order which we then interpret and Space and Time.

A three dimensional world would be a complete waste of interactions. There's no need to generate the back side of something you're looking at, for example. Or, as Maria/Chaol would say, there's no need for the bedrooms upstairs to exist when you're sitting in the living room.

Everything in the universe is folded into your current perspective. Your perceptions are two-dimensional because the the most efficient way for three and four dimensions to have reality is in your mind.

Maria has all ways said that the stars and everything else we see is as close as your perspective. The Sun rises first in your perspective.

But now I understand she meant this literally. What we think of as stars are not distant suns. They are extremely close, as is our Sun and everything else that we think is 'out there'.

You could say, "NASA has never been to space because I have never been to space." It becomes a logical narrative where nearly everything else in your perspective is 'fake' because there is no need for it to be fully-expressed. Wars are 'fake' because there is no need for them to be real in your perspective. It's a waste of energy for you to construct an actual battlefield that you don't experience. So, you make the illusion a logical narrative.

This logical narrative becomes something like this...

1) In World War II all the sides were actually working together
2) Because you didn't experience it directly. You don't need to
3) So this illusion is expressed in your reality as a fake war.
4) And everything that supports a 'fake World War II' scenario is produced in your mind, as well
5) But those things are also an illusion
6) and so on

We can be aware of this illusion while still interacting with them. And then we realize it's more entertainment so that we exist, rather than something very serious.