Kaneda. I cannot disagree with your perception regarding your initial statement (regarding a U string)...It is correct. However, by bending that string you do not instantly get a 2 dimensional interface. It becomes something like 1.1 or 1.3 and increases to 2 as the angle gets sharper. We see this at work in the study of Chaos, where somethings such as a Lorence Attractor is defined as 1.43 dimensional (it looks like a spiral). The bending of the string in my example is the bending of the 1st dimension itself, if it is straight...it is 100% 1 dimensional, bend it a little and it is 90% 1 dimensional and 10% 2 dimensional (proportions may vary). The bridge between dimensions is quite obviously angular- we bend and curve them at angles to derive higher or lower dimensions. So we cannot say a U string is 1 dimensional and we cannot say it is 2 dimensional, it is somewhere in between. This is not my theory- it is the common knowledge of any expert in Chaos Science. If this doesn't make sense to you try studying Chaos instead of physic, it is the most advance of all the scientific fields- in fact it is the only field that glues and bonds the others together. It deserves the publicity of the spot light in searching for a unified theory.
Also, think about this...good old Albert Einstein stated that in accordance to the laws of relativity if we have a object travel through space in a perfect straight line (a 1 dimension trajectory) then after a tremendous amount of time it will return to its original coordinate in space-time...though it never bend one way or another. Its like a hyperbolic curved ring- but we never see the curves with our eyes...its hidden. Finding hidden attractors is art of learning to perceive higher dimensions, they are everywhere all around us...just look.
Also, consider this odd fact of numbers...they have a limit as to how big they can get!!! This mathmatic fact. Normally we might think that you can keep adding 1 to a number to get a bigger number forever into infinity...without ever reaching an end...but this is not so. This has been proven in accordance with the Hiesenburg Principle. We can never know what that number is or when it breaks down, but we know it will eventually breakdown...reaching a point where the numbers are so astronomicly huge they lose all signifigance and meaning, they cease to mean anything so they cease to be numbers. So then even a 1 dimension (which cannot have a beginning or an end without imposing a space around it) has inherent the characterisitics of a hyberbolic
ring, we just can't possibly know when it becomes like this...but that is does.
One last thing...how can the 1st dimension move? Adding the factor of motion
relies upon something beyond this. The dimension itself cannot move, something can move parellal with it, but even if it where a point we now need
to expand our picture to include describing its operation of motion. The 1st dimension is not something we can pick up and carrying around, it has no location to begin with.
Unfortunately, we do not have access to our memories via machines because we cannot even find them, science hasn't done that. We still barely understand them or how they truely work. But if you have proof otherwise, I am more then eager to investigate!!! Yes, we know that they must run on patterns that look like little squiggly lines that contain pockets of unfolding information, but we can't locate or predict or extract that information in full- not even in parts enough to get pictures. We seem to be talking in spirals...another attractor...I see cycles repeating already.
"thought are just electro-chemical", so 3d. This statement is based off the idea that electrons themselves are 3d, or that all particles are 3d. It overlooks the fact that electrons and chemicals operate as waves (like the kind we can surf on)and not particles (like balls bouncing in a box) when interacting with each other. The particles are like the left-overs of wave attractions of possibility.
We are still in the process of defining even what an electron is, we don't have it figured out. We know that it is made of pairs, it has a anti-electron and if these two touch-they cancel each other out and annihlilate. We know that an electron is made from quarons and quarons from quarks. These quarks are made of coiled energy strings and they are made of little tiny rings-0-that vibrate and pulsated in many dimensions all at once. These rings themselves are multi-dimensional- not 3d. There is also a fractal interface at work, again not 3d. With all the characteristics, we cannot possibly describe an electron or a chemical process with the mere variables of up/down, left/right, and forward/backward. Its already gotten more complicated then that.
But, let's go further...these 'particles' only can be seen as such in a single instantaneous moment without time. That is Heisenburg principle knowledge. Throw in time and we have a wave. Stranger still is the knowledge of particle intaglement, where to particles come into contact with each other,
become entangled as 1, exchange all vibratory patterns of knowledge, and then seperate. From that point on they are always one, when knew patterns of information enter one then the other is instantaneous effects no matter how far apart they are- this is faster then the speed of light- its instant.
How can we possibly use mere 3-dimensional thinking to explain that? We can't.
These are the facts. It is rather naive to think that electrons are 3rd dimensional. The 3rd dimension is the space around (and in) these multi-dimension bits of life-energy that accommodates them.
To say it is "nothing special", I can understand how with this attitude one might not have enough interest to fully grasp the entirety of the variables. All knowledge is very very special, it is intimate.
A computer can out think us in many ways, but we possess far superior sensory equipment. A computer cannot see the waves of images rotating on a spin- optical cameras work on intervals not nearly as in sink with the flow of time as our own human eye. Try taking a bicycle, spinning the wheel so fast that you see the counter-spin images waving past, and then film it. You won't catch that with camera. We have something computers don't- but most certaintly would if they could. Orgasms!!! We feel, see, hear, smell, and taste
better then any computer. This is only discussing our senses for perceive the external world. We have 5 other senses that we use to perceive the inner world as well.
Kaneda, your thinking and this is good...perhaps you possess the stuff to tap
the brilliance that is all around you- thus becoming brilliant. I hope so. But you cannot take any bit of knowledge for granted in order to do this- it is a sacred gift- treasure it and cherish it and it will illuminate you. It is no mistake
that as a human you posses a mind that can be filled with living knowledge to an extent beyond that of a fish.
I think you can do it- I'm very optimistic.