“4D Chess” - possible meaning for what the “stable genius DJT was referencing. Also add “highest timeline reality” from the_donald days
(m.youtube.com)
🧠 STABLE GENIUS 🧠
Comments (5)
sorted by:
Starts out accurate for up to 4D but fails by lapsing into Back to the Future scifi. Was looking for accurate info about the differences between the fifth through tenth dimensions, but there is no mathematical reason for making the distinctions found herein.
We need to start with a solid definition of "universe". If "universe" means all you can reach, it includes all the additional dimensions you can reach and there is only one of them; but if it means a lower-dimensional subset then there are many of them. Either way, the idea that you can just go to a different "subset universe" and take over the place occupied by the rich version of you who already lives there is rather silly because that rich version of you has his own timeline and is not you even if he recognizes the resemblance and deigns to invite you into his riches.
The theoretical method of explaining each of the six additional dimensions as its own different theoretical enhancement, and then claiming that they logically end at the tenth, is not IMHO the same way string theorists (loosely tied in at the end) see the 10 dimensions. Rather, they view the six additional dimensions as identical so that a Yang-Mills manifold of our four spatiotemporal dimensions can be warped in any or all of them the same countable ways. Further, the real game is that these six dimensions have no traveling space in them right now (probably due to zero-point energy), and the only way to use them is to create additional space in those dimensions using new energy sources to uncurl them so that circuits in those dimensions are longer than the Planck distance. That's where the real tech should be looking. Occasionally you see one of these articles about quantum computing or Bose-Einstein condensate that seems to have grasped this, but most of the tech is, like this video, speculative bunk.
Personally I think one of the six dimensions will have temporal character to it, possibly the ninth dimension, but I don't have the math fully worked out yet. I propose this because the Lamb of God has seven eyes, which means he wants to be able to see in eight spatial dimensions and thus two temporal. The fact that the universe has 10 dimensions in all (11 in isomorphic versions of M-theory which still count as 10) has been shown from Genesis 1 and early texts like the Sefer Yetzirah.
Don’t agree fully with the video, but think it is a good intellectual jumping off point for modeling multiple parallel realities. And I think less of them as being inhabited by another version of you, but more that they are specific possibilities in an endless sea of possibility. Like in a matrix, multiple dimensions things can be layers upon one another and mapped mathematically. While we see reality as linear, that’s only from our perspective as we ourselves weave through a matrix of possibility. That goes very well with the recent findings in quantum physics and with the holographic reality theory
The problem is that there's only one you line. Every other possibility is not what you experience as the real you. From Bohr through Feynman to today this has never been addressed by quantum physicists, and the EPR challenge to their work still stands. So you cannot take the place of a different version of you, instead as Asimov hinted in Winds of Change you can only work to modify what you and your surroundings become through cautious implementation of strategy: same world challenge as we already face without the physics knowledge. Entering another layer will only make it more of our experience of the universe but will remain on the same you line.
I think you’re right. But I mean from a 4D perspective (astral realm, light world, where we dream or afterlife) outside of linear time, you could exist as the you who has lived more than one, even all, possible 3D timelines and having the cumulative experience of all the linear timelines. Also possible that dimension is made up not of time itself, but of the infinite set of possible timelines, through which one could jump instantaneous between one point in a timeline to a point in a separate timeline instantaneously. This could even be the mechanism by which our consciousness controls reality in our dreams, not creating the dream as currently accepted but using thought to navigate a pre-existing sea of possibilities (timeline matrix)
This is good theory, but it's not been aligned with the 10D string universe, which is the one the video tries to talk about. I personally think there are ways to reconcile the "astral realm" with the curled dimensions, but it's best to talk about the two topics separately until we can draw isomorphisms between them.
If the universe were conceived as a single particle that travels every path forward and backward in time that we conceive of as being many particles, that particle could be conceived of as experiencing all realities. Astrally, if there were many "universes" that had power of connection, such that there might be many Americas each with a slightly different history and many alternatives, then their connection would still permit traversal by this single-experience particle; but of course each individual version of you would be a different person, and there may in fact be such blur among people that you could keep making modifications of "you" until you arrived at a different person extant in this universe. There would be no species of "you" and species of "other", it would all be a spectrum of humanity on which you are a data point. (Of course I don't think those possibilities would be strictly infinite in any direction, I think they would have certain limits like the spatiotemporal dimensions, such that there would be a more manageable number of them like a googolplex.) If then we could jump universes we would still face the problem that each alternate universe still has its own problems (grass not greener). Ideally instead of a universe with "rich you", you'd prefer a universe with a void in it that could be suddenly occupied profitably by the current you that has certain experience that you could exploit in the new universe.
The participation in the all might increase in the future but is still limited by individuality now, and so we should seek in the now the best means of hoping to participate in the all in the ways the laws of physics permit.
But, oddly enough, we already have enough space in these four dimensions to make more local jumps (similar to inter-universe jumps) to improve our lot, and we are still subject to time and chance despite our best attempts, and subject to the equal attempts by others to take advantage of these opportunities. Others might jump into our universe to their advantage too, against our ignorance. So adding universes doesn't help much!
Dreams are very important, but we always wake up in this same "reality", not some other. This suggests that what we are contacting is not "alternate" but "supplemental" to this universe. The dream or astral realm informs, but does not share the physical uniqueness of, these dimensions. This is why I refer to that realm as uncurling the additional dimensions, which in astral language is called "opening" (e.g. the heavens). Usually our timeline experiences one or the other, but sometimes both the dream and the reality at once. Whether the process is possibility navigation or creative choice doesn't matter, we're still stuck with the one timeline. The only transcendence for this reality that I see is to become so broadly simultaneously cognizant of such a range of the universe that one transcends the lightcone (perhaps, one's life "flashing before one's eyes"); and yet this is still a linear experience, just as a dream is. I have a philosophical proof that if it were possible to transcend linear experience the possibility could never be known in advance of its being achieved by the one experiencing it.
So it's important to use the scifi to imagine and test boundaries; and when we return to reality we are free to seek how to implement these imaginations. It seems to me that some imaginations just don't work but most can be refined until they get closer to science. So I encourage the continuing exploration, while I lay out my principles for good and worse directions to explore.