LordReed:


So why are you asking me when you can ask Google?

cuz u also agree with google though google has no answer

LordReed:


You think I am saying nonsense so why do you need my confirmation? I have indulged you long enough. Bye.

am sorry to have used nonsense to express my disagreement

On a lighter note: for those who love mathematics

1. A Line Equation (1D)
x^2 =1 ( two isolated points at x=-1 and x=+1 with center at x =0).
Seen as a line if treated as an ellipse with y~0

2. A Circle Equation (2D)
x^2 + y^2 =1 ( a circle with center at x, y=0)

3. A Sphere Equation (3D)
x^2 + y^2 + z^2=1 ( a sphere with center at x, y, z =0)

4. How about the 4D sphere (4D) difficult to visualise)
x^2 + y^2 + z^2 + w^2=1 ( a sphere with center at x, y, z , w =0)

This as a Hypersphere or a four-dimensional sphere in Cartesian coordinates
Some things are easier presented mathematically than visually.


Sorry for the wailers:
This is just simple mathematics o: nothing spiritual about it

TenQ:

A proof that you aren't reading for comprehension!

I said:

Acts 17:28:
"For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring."
Relatively (to us) God is in the Highest Dimension because
In God ALL our dimensions exist!

What does the word RELATIVELY mean in the quote above?

same bla blu bla blu.... How do you know this?

Thank you sir for your input

AudioMonkey:

Nice thread son.
First, I do appreciate your effort in putting all these together for few of us who care, in a forum where many may not appreciate intellectual contents like this.
I read everything and so far that I know, your description about the dimensions is apt, except that 0D/1D/2D/4D space don't exist. Everything in real world is already existing as full 3D dimensional object in a full 3D dimensional space. Even atom, cell are all 3D objects in a 3D space.

I understand your point of view since we live in a 3D world, our perceptions are trained to see things strictly from the 3D perspective. Your observation of the fact that even atoms are 3D support this notion.

Except that as we move to viewing things below the sizes of atoms, we begin to see strange things like the wave-particle duality of matter showing that a particle may not actually behave as a particle but as a wave. E.g. An electron has a mass of 9.1093837 × 10-31 kilograms and behaves exactly as a particle should behave in behavious like scattering, conservation of momentum etc. In some other instances, this same electron behaves as an electromagnetic waves with its characteristic wavelength and behaves exactly like waves will behave like constructive and destructive interference, diffraction etc. In our normal world a particle and a wave are completely unrelated and different from each other.

There are other phenomenons like tunneling where a particle of low energy can seemingly pass non-destructively through a barrier wall (contrary to expectations).

Square roots of (-1) should never exist but it does √(-1)=i

So many strange things are observable in nature that scientists removed the barrier of limitations in stretching the limit of logic and mathematics.

This shows us that things are NOT what they seem at the surface. Hence, if it is possible Mathematically, scientists will enter the rabbit hole.

In other words, 0D, 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D will be pursued. We may even ask the question of "can we have a non-integer dimension?"

AudioMonkey:

Dimensions are more of the "perception" and the "observer". Some folks try to force their 4D space theory by modelling a tesseract but they end up unable to explain it. I doubt there's anything like 4D space object, no. All spaces end in the xyz 3D space - distance.
The universe' space and objects are in 3D but perceptions are not, rather they differ from one subject/observer to another. We perceive in 3D but not fully. You can't see what's inside or the rear/back of a 3D object.
It's more of perception rather than if the object is 3D or 4D object.

If 4D exists, then it's time. When you merge many 3D objects together, what you get is still a single 3D object but when 3D moves in space - time, that's a new dimension. Imagine a 3-blade fan spinning, it gets to a point you no longer see three blades, all you see is a single circular whirl because you're perceiving each 3D blade and it's movement in 4D time, all at once.
Imagine you can perceive the movement of a bullet from a gun and it's journey through space/time to a target at once, as a single event. Perhaps there are creatures which could do.

Space, objects and life already exist in full dimensions, the problem is just the observer and it's perception.

If you look at a hypothetical 2D space (an infinitesimally thin flat plane) on which an infinitesimally tall object exist eg a square or circle or dot, the object can never be aware that it is actually in a 3D space. It will only experience what is normal in the 2D space.

So also, we who exist in the 3D space will be oblivious of the fact that we are in a 4D space because we will only experience what is normal in the 3D space.

Just as it would be wrong for this object in the 2D space to reject the existence of a higher dimension, the same is applicable to us in the 3D space.

kkins25:
same bla blu bla blu.... How do you know this?

Just as a brute mule!

Do you know how we got there?
Are you aware of the immediate question asked?

But, you must just open your mouth!

AudioMonkey:


Nice thread son.
First, I do appreciate your effort in putting all these together for few of us who care, in a forum where many may not appreciate intellectual contents like this.
I read everything and so far that I know, your description about the dimensions is apt, except that 0D/1D/2D/4D space don't exist. Everything in real world is already existing as full 3D dimensional object in a full 3D dimensional space. Even atom, cell are all 3D objects in a 3D space.

Dimensions are more of the "perception" and the "observer". Some folks try to force their 4D space theory by modelling a tesseract but they end up unable to explain it. I doubt there's anything like 4D space object, no. All spaces end in the xyz 3D space - distance.
The universe' space and objects are in 3D but perceptions are not, rather they differ from one subject/observer to another. We perceive in 3D but not fully. You can't see what's inside or the rear/back of a 3D object.
It's more of perception rather than if the object is 3D or 4D object.

If 4D exists, then it's time. When you merge many 3D objects together, what you get is still a single 3D object but when 3D moves in space - time, that's a new dimension. Imagine a 3-blade fan spinning, it gets to a point you no longer see three blades, all you see is a single circular whirl because you're perceiving each 3D blade and it's movement in 4D time, all at once.
Imagine you can perceive the movement of a bullet from a gun and it's journey through space/time to a target at once, as a single event. Perhaps there are creatures which could do.

Space, objects and life already exist in full dimensions, the problem is just the observer and it's perception.

This!

Dimensions are not realms! They are additional information describing an object within our universe.

It's important to note that the wave-particle duality does not mean that particles are literally waves or that they possess both wave and particle properties simultaneously. Instead, it reflects the limitations of classical concepts when applied to the microscopic world. The behavior of particles is better understood by considering them as quantum entities that can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior depending on the specific experimental conditions.

AudioMonkey:

Nice but I must say, you're already mixing other dimensions with the space-distance dimension in the scope of discussion.
Wave or energy is not a 3D space dimension. Anything not possessing xyz - length, breadth, height is outside the 3D space dimension.
Space is one dimension I.e. xyz 3D distance in space.
Time is another dimension.
Behavior of matter/particles e.g duality or transmission of waves and energy is another dimension. While behavior is dependent on other quantities like size, mass, state, pressure, temperature etc. Water in different states exhibit different behaviours.
When a particle is almost zero, infinitesimally small mass, then it's stability decreases and so can exhibit strange behaviors but that's not our discussion. When such particular acts like wave, then it's an energy or quantity and no longer a 3D space object but as long as it remains a matter/object/particle, then it must be a 3D object with xyz - distance/length in the space. Also, it doesn't exist as 0D/1D/2D or 4D. All these dimensional variations are rather from the observer or perception and not the object.


In reality, a flat plane is also a 3D objects, except the height is too minute to see compared to the area. There's really no 0D/1D/2D objects in real world, every object is in 3D no matter how small. So everything is a 3D object observing another 3D object, except that each object has different perception.
When on earth, you think the earth is flat, but when in space, you can see the real 3D spherical form of the earth, not like the earth suddenly changed from 3D to 4D, rather your perception changed.

there is no universe.

AudioMonkey:

Nice but I must say, you're already mixing other dimensions with the space-distance dimension in the scope of discussion.
Wave or energy is not a 3D space dimension. Anything not possessing xyz - length, breadth, height is outside the 3D space dimension.
Space is one dimension I.e. xyz 3D distance in space.
Time is another dimension.
Behavior of matter/particles e.g duality or transmission of waves and energy is another dimension. While behavior is dependent on other quantities like size, mass, state, pressure, temperature etc. Water in different states exhibit different behaviours.
When a particle is almost zero, infinitesimally small mass, then it's stability decreases and so can exhibit strange behaviors but that's not our discussion. When such particular acts like wave, then it's an energy or quantity and no longer a 3D space object but as long as it remains a matter/object/particle, then it must be a 3D object with xyz - distance/length in the space. Also, it doesn't exist as 0D/1D/2D or 4D. All these dimensional variations are rather from the observer or perception and not the object.

My argument was that there is no way we can discern higher dimensions because we are limited to ONLY three-dimensional space.

AudioMonkey:

In reality, a flat plane is also a 3D objects, except the height is too minute to see compared to the area. There's really no 0D/1D/2D objects in real world, every object is in 3D no matter how small. So everything is a 3D object observing another 3D object, except that each object has different perception.
When on earth, you think the earth is flat, but when in space, you can see the real 3D spherical form of the earth, not like the earth suddenly changed from 3D to 4D, rather your perception changed.

Infinite layers of objects in 2D space make up the 3D objects. Meaning that 2D objects are just subsets of the 3D space. It takes infinite layers of 1D layers of objects to form 2D objects. it takes an infinite layers of 2D objects to form a 3D object . Meaning that objects in 1D, 2D are mere subsets of the 3D space.

It's just like saying that a block of iron is made up of millions of "spherical" atoms.

when discussing physical objects, it is difficult to envision how an infinite number of 1D layers could be physically stacked to form a 2D object. The physical world is constrained by certain properties, such as the thickness and stability of objects. In practice, a 2D object is typically created by manipulating materials in two dimensions, rather than by stacking an infinite number of layers.

In reality, atoms are not perfectly spherical, and their arrangement in a solid block of iron is more complex than a simple stack of spheres.

Atoms are the building blocks of matter and consist of a nucleus containing protons and neutrons, surrounded by electrons. The behavior of atoms and their interactions give rise to the properties of different materials.

In the case of iron, it is a metal composed of iron atoms arranged in a crystal lattice structure. This lattice structure forms due to the bonding between atoms and determines many of the material's properties, such as its strength, conductivity, and magnetism. The arrangement of atoms in the lattice extends in three dimensions, forming a solid object.

Wave-particle duality is a fundamental concept in quantum mechanics that describes the dual nature of particles. It suggests that particles, including matter particles like electrons and protons, can exhibit characteristics of both waves and particles, depending on how they are observed or measured.

This wave-particle duality suggests that particles can possess both particle-like and wave-like characteristics simultaneously. It implies that particles have a wavelength associated with them, and their behavior is described by wave functions that determine the probability distribution of their properties, such as position or momentum.

The wave-particle duality of matter is a fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics and challenges our classical intuition about the nature of particles. It underscores the need for a probabilistic understanding of quantum systems and is a key principle in describing the behavior of matter and energy at the atomic and subatomic levels.

The wave-particle duality is not a contradiction but rather a reflection of the intrinsic nature of particles at the quantum level. The behavior of particles is described by mathematical equations known as wave functions, which capture both the wave-like and particle-like aspects.

LordReed:


This!
Dimensions are not realms! They are additional information describing an object within our universe.

Exactly
But I don't call them "additional information" rather, the point of view of each organism of the universe.

My apologies for the late response.

TenQ:

At the risk of overstretching my apologies and illustration using the Body, Soul and Spirit.
I believe that humans were created to be able to function in both the physical space AND the spiritual space. The fact that we all inherited a defective Spirit (which would have helped us to function in the higher dimensions) has made us locked more or less into the 3D spatial dimension.

One of the hypothetical questions I asked was:
Is it possible to have a non-integer dimension like 3.1D or 3.6D or 3.9D?

My argument is that it would be technically impossible for a person in 2D space to comprehend anything from the 3D space because, ANYTHING he sees from the 3D space will have the form of 2D and this doesn't improve his knowledge of the higher dimensions one bit.

Okay. So if I'm getting this correctly, you believe the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

Or do you believe that the spiritual plane is a somewhat 3d plane as well, which runs parallel to our physical plane and together with ours makes up a larger 4d plane. And we are somewhat 4d beings only able to experience a part of reality (3D) due to our alleged defective nature?

I think experiences of NDE isn't supposed to show us Religion or the way of Salvation BUT the fact that life CONTINUES after death.

Moreover, I think NDEs is like travelling to a strange planet and experiencing a small subset of the environment.
Eg. If an Alien is transported temporarily to planet Earth for a few hours, his experience will depend on where he landed.
Is it somewhere in
- the Amazon Forest
- New York city
- Ojuelegba in Lagos
- Kalahari Desert
- Alaska etc
Of course, there could be variations in experiences even if there are some overlap of similarities.

NDE just tell us that life continues after death, QED!

NDEs can be a really complex subject. One reason i tend to doubt them is the point which I mentioned earlier. And that the fact that NDEs are heavily skewed in favor of the information the recipent already knows.

Using the alien analogy, if an alien somehow got "transported" to earth for a few hours, and landed in the amazon for example. But claimed to see its dead family members from its home planet, telling them things only they would know, it calls the so called transportation experience into account don't you think?

I'm not sure what NDEs are, or why they happen the way they do. Could they hint at life after death? Possibly. But the data right now is far too little to draw any reasonable conclusion.

Also it makes you wonder about the nature of "death" in regards to the "higher dimensions" narrative.

If we cannot fully comprehend our existence within our spatial dimension, what hope do we have to comprehend a higher spatial dimension?

I think it is like a computer asking humans how many gigabytes of storage is installed in them or how fast our CPU is.

At a point, we must be humble enough to know that some frontiers of knowledge is beyond us. Such is at the Level of the Uncaused First-Cause of Everything aka God!

The best of our questions in unraveling God would be very silly!

So I've been thinking about this, and I actually have quite a bit to say on this issue.

Firstly, you've talked about the idea that some things are just beyond us. Like the idea of the uncaused first cause.

My question is, if such a physics-defying idea can exist "outisde our dimension" assuming higher dimensions exist, why can't the idea of something coming from nothing exist in such higher dimensions as well?

These are 2 ideas which seem to defy our knowledge of the universe. And you seem to choose one over the other, for a reason that could be used to excuse the occurrence of both.

Also, I'm not necessarily in favor of either. I don't subscribe to the idea that something came from nothing. But i also don't subscribe to the idea of an unmoved mover. Because it all leads back to the same question. Which is why there is something at all, and why this something is the way it is.

For you, you've seem to push this question to higher dimensions, and label it a God. But it doesn't really answer the question.

At the end of the day, we're still stuck with an unexplainable something which is incredibly complex, and for which we don't understand the mechanism or reasons for it's existence.

AudioMonkey:

Alright then. Can you give reasons why you make such claim/speculation?
You can also give real life instances (not hypothetical or theoretical instances).


Lol. Give examples of any real object existing as 2D or 1D object.
0D, 1D, 2D are just book imagination, that is where many people get things wrong.
In reality everything is a 3D object/matter made up of another 3D objects/matters.

I think I have stated my reasons and arguments over and over here. You do not have to agree.

If there exist no way as of today to physically verify the existence of a higher dimension,
1. What kind of real life instance do you want?
2. The fact that it is impossible to measure a quantity or object is not a proof such does not exist.

Is it UNTRUE that Anything that can be logically or scientifically conceptualised is a possibility whether it has ever been measured/detected or not ?
Do we have examples of logically or scientifically conceptualised things that was later scientifically verified?
Eg. In 1905, Einstein proposed his theory that Energy and Matter are equivalent and gave the famous equation E = mc^2.
This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932.
Other examples
+Detection of gravitational waves (1916-2015)
+Confirmation of the top quark (1973-1995)
+Discovery of the Higgs boson (1964-2012):

What you have capacity to measure and reality are two different separate things.

Like I said, you DO NOT have to agree with my position.

HellVictorinho6:
there is no universe.

You just dropped a big scientific/logical heresy, unless you explain yourself clearly, or else your post is an incoherent babble.

Also, @TenQ, this is a little off topic, so i decided to add it as just a side note.

You've mentioned that in our universe, we understand the law of cause and effect, and how something cannot come from nothing. And for that reason, the universe must have been caused.

While I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of something from nothing, i wanted to point something out

We've observed that by virtue of the nature of OUR universe, something can't come from nothing. Simply put, everything in our universe obeys the law of cause and effect. But what if that law only applies to universes? Let me explain

Our universe includes all of space and everything in it. But space itself isn't nothing. Space is a something. It can stretch and squeeze under gravity. It contains particles. Even empty space is not nothing.

What if outside "universes", what if in true nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no properties... What if in such a phenomenon, something could come into existence?

What if the only property of true nothingness, was to birth something?

Now i don't necessarily agree with this either, but i just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

AudioMonkey:

Exactly
But I don't call them "additional information" rather, the point of view of each organism of the universe.

Semantics. Just trying to describe it in layman terms.

Wilgrea7:
Also, @TenQ, this is a little off topic, so i decided to add it as just a side note.

You've mentioned that in our universe, we understand the law of cause and effect, and how something cannot come from nothing. And for that reason, the universe must have been caused.

While I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of something from nothing, i wanted to point something out

We've observed that by virtue of the nature of OUR universe, something can't come from nothing. Simply put, everything in our universe obeys the law of cause and effect. But what if that law only applies to universes? Let me explain

Our universe includes all of space and everything in it. But space itself isn't nothing. Space is a something. It can stretch and squeeze under gravity. It contains particles. Even empty space is not nothing.

What if outside "universes", what if in true nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no properties... What if in such a phenomenon, something could come into existence?

What if the only property of true nothingness, was to birth something?

Now i don't necessarily agree with this either, but i just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

Actually we have observed effects that preceed causes so it is not always true that causes preceed effects.

LordReed:


Actually we have observed effects that preceed causes so it is not always true that causes preceed effects.

That's an interesting concept. Could you please give an example?

TenQ:

I think I have stated my reasons and arguments over and over here. You do not have to agree.

If there exist no way as of today to physically verify the existence of a higher dimension,
1. What kind of real life instance do you want?
2. The fact that it is impossible to measure a quantity or object is not a proof such does not exist.

Is it UNTRUE that Anything that can be logically or scientifically conceptualised is a possibility whether it has ever been measured/detected or not ?
Do we have examples of logically or scientifically conceptualised things that was later scientifically verified?
Eg. In 1905, Einstein proposed his theory that Energy and Matter are equivalent and gave the famous equation E = mc^2.
This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932.
Other examples
+Detection of gravitational waves (1916-2015)
+Confirmation of the top quark (1973-1995)
+Discovery of the Higgs boson (1964-2012):

What you have capacity to measure and reality are two different separate things.

Like I said, you DO NOT have to agree with my position.

I don't have any reason to disagree with you, if your reasons are valid. We keep learning.
Since you already said, in our lower dimension we're limited to detect higher dimension if such exists, alright, that is why I'm not bothering you with that task of giving an instance of 4D object.
Rather the simple question I asked is that you give me a real life instance of lower dimensional 2D, 1D objects and how such objects are unable to detect that 3D exists.

LordReed:

Semantics. Just trying to describe it in layman terms.

Alright then.

Good morning!
I will like to make a clarification before proceeding.
1. As a person, I believe that spiritual things should be explainable to some extent
2. All these discuss by me are just THEORIES and by no means a claim of reality
3. As such, they are NOT Doctrine but attempts to comprehend spiritual truths.

Wilgrea7:
My apologies for the late response.

Okay. So if I'm getting this correctly, you believe the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

Or do you believe that the spiritual plane is a somewhat 3d plane as well, which runs parallel to our physical plane and together with ours makes up a larger 4d plane. And we are somewhat 4d beings only able to experience a part of reality (3D) due to our alleged defective nature?

Yes, I think that the "spiritual plane" is a somewhat higher dimension, like 4D for example, and we humans only experience a slice of this 4D, which is our 3d space?

I also think that humans may even have hypothetically Dimensions like 3.2D or 3.01D or 3.6D because we are also spiritual beings (according to the bible) and our dispositions to spiritual matters is a function of how higher up than 3.0D we are.

Wilgrea7:

NDEs can be a really complex subject. One reason i tend to doubt them is the point which I mentioned earlier. And that the fact that NDEs are heavily skewed in favor of the information the recipent already knows.

Using the alien analogy, if an alien somehow got "transported" to earth for a few hours, and landed in the amazon for example. But claimed to see its dead family members from its home planet, telling them things only they would know, it calls the so called transportation experience into account don't you think?

I'm not sure what NDEs are, or why they happen the way they do. Could they hint at life after death? Possibly. But the data right now is far too little to draw any reasonable conclusion.

Also it makes you wonder about the nature of "death" in regards to the "higher dimensions" narrative.

I think evidence of NDE is compelling enough as a proof of Life existing after death just from this aspect of NDE alone.

Out of Body Experience:
It takes just one example of an OBE where the subject is able to see or describe physical events AFTER his death that is technically impossible. Eg. A revived patient describing exactly what transpired in his physical environment while he was dead.
Just one true example is enough: any objections to this is just an excercise in denial.

This kind of OBE proves either that
1. An Immaterial component of man exist or
2. Life continues after death.

Wilgrea7:

So I've been thinking about this, and I actually have quite a bit to say on this issue.

Firstly, you've talked about the idea that some things are just beyond us. Like the idea of the uncaused first cause.

My question is, if such a physics-defying idea can exist "outisde our dimension" assuming higher dimensions exist, why can't the idea of something coming from nothing exist in such higher dimensions as well?

These are 2 ideas which seem to defy our knowledge of the universe. And you seem to choose one over the other, for a reason that could be used to excuse the occurrence of both.

Also, I'm not necessarily in favor of either. I don't subscribe to the idea that something came from nothing. But i also don't subscribe to the idea of an unmoved mover. Because it all leads back to the same question. Which is why there is something at all, and why this something is the way it is.

For you, you've seem to push this question to higher dimensions, and label it a God. But it doesn't really answer the question.

At the end of the day, we're still stuck with an unexplainable something which is incredibly complex, and for which we don't understand the mechanism or reasons for it's existence.

Actually, the most plausible explanation is the Existence of an Uncaused First-Cause of Everything.
Why?
1. In our physical universe (eliminating randomness) every event must have a cause.
2. Our physical universe plus all the scientific laws has a beginning
3. In our physical universe, infinite regress of Cause and Effect is impossible
Implication:
Therefore, whatever Caused our Universe must not be subject to the Laws and Principles that apply in our space.

Your argument seems to be (correct me if I am Wrong): that whatever Caused our Universe must also have its own cause.

Unfortunately, this assumption has violated the implication that, whatever Caused our Universe cannot be subject to our Physical laws.

Therefore, the logical conclusion is that this Cause of our Universe cannot be necessarily caused else, we are subjecting it to laws that exist after our universe was created .

The Question of this Uncaused First-Cause of Everything being a SOMETHING or SOMEONE is for another Debate!

Wilgrea7:
Also, @TenQ, this is a little off topic, so i decided to add it as just a side note.

You've mentioned that in our universe, we understand the law of cause and effect, and how something cannot come from nothing. And for that reason, the universe must have been caused.

While I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of something from nothing, i wanted to point something out

We've observed that by virtue of the nature of OUR universe, something can't come from nothing. Simply put, everything in our universe obeys the law of cause and effect. But what if that law only applies to universes? Let me explain

Our universe includes all of space and everything in it. But space itself isn't nothing. Space is a something. It can stretch and squeeze under gravity. It contains particles. Even empty space is not nothing.

What if outside "universes", what if in true nothing, no space, no time, no matter, no properties... What if in such a phenomenon, something could come into existence?

What if the only property of true nothingness, was to birth something?

Now i don't necessarily agree with this either, but i just thought it was an interesting thing to think about.

I agree with you:
This is why I've been saying that whatever birthed our Universe
1. Must be OUTSIDE our Universe
2. Must not be subject to the Physical Laws of Our Universe

Implication:
+The Question of this Course of the Universe having its own cause is a lame attempt to impose our physical laws of cause and effect on what we can't comprehend

+The Question of this Uncaused First-Cause of Everything being a SOMETHING or SOMEONE is for another Debate!

This is why I try to comprehend this logically using the progression of spatial dimensions.
In a 2D space, observers will conclude that it is impossible to bring a square shape into a closed shape without breaking the boundaries of the closed shape. And this is very true from their point of view.
BUT
This limitation is nonsensical to us in the 3D space as all we need to do is to bring Anything from our space and place it into their closed loop without ever needing to touch their loop boundary.

When we actually do this, it becomes a miracle to them. We have brought something into their existence instantaneously from NOTHING! The reverse is also possible: we can remove their imprisoned shape from inside their closed loop without touching it's boundary.
To them, it is teleportation (a miracle)

AudioMonkey:


I don't have any reason to disagree with you, if your reasons are valid. We keep learning.
Since you already said, in our lower dimension we're limited to detect higher dimension if such exists, alright, that is why I'm not bothering you with that task of giving an instance of 4D object.
Rather the simple question I asked is that you give me a real life instance of lower dimensional 2D, 1D objects and how such objects are unable to detect that 3D exists.

The basic building block in our universe is an atom which is presumably spherical (a 3D), therefore seeking for a real physical example is an impossibility.

If you were in the 2D world, a similar question for disputing that the 3D world exist is: "can you show by example that you can put a pixel on top of another pixel?"

For us in the three-dimensioned space, this question cannot prove nor disprove anything

We get the full truth only by approximating and projecting available data and information beyond our limitations

LordReed:


Actually we have observed effects that preceed causes so it is not always true that causes preceed effects.

Who are the "WE" you talk about here?
AND
Can you please give the name of the scientist, the year and the laboratory where
retrocausality have been verified?

Retrocausality is still a theory and these idea remain highly controversial and are not yet widely accepted within the scientific community.

AudioMonkey:

Exactly. Now you're very close to the truth but you're still mixed up between theory and reality.
You said you can't give instance of 4D because as lower dimensional object, it's hard to justify higher dimensional object, alright. But now you also agree a real physical example of lower dimension - 2D/1D is an impossibility.
If so, isn't all I've been saying justified?

Again I say, there's nothing like 1D/2D objects just as you were not able to give an example of one, nor is there any 4D object, everything in real life exist as 3D, xyz object, nothing else below or above this.
0D/1D/2D are just classifications of perception and not classification of real-life objects. While dots, lines, shapes, pixels are theoretical objects on paper for theoretical purposes, analysis and computation. In reality they don't exist outside display on paper or other medium.
A tiny line in reality is a full 3D object, ball point is full 3D object, a rectangular plane is a full 3D object with tangible area but infinitesimal height.
For any object to exist as an object in space, it must posses all three xyz space values.
In space it's just 3D, three x, y, z. Or can you mention anything else outside this? No.
All objects exists and ends as 3D space objects. Nothing short or more of this.
That is why 4D is not a space quantity, rather it's another entirely different dimension and that is likely time.
A 3D space object is just a slice of space-time and maybe space-time is also a slice of something higher and so is our perception which can only view 3D objects per a particular time.
Space-time 4D is not a problem of detection because we know it is time, rather it's a problem of perception - our inability to view an objects in different times at once, we can only view a slice of space-time per time.
Motion blur images are theoretical depiction of space-time, 3d objects and it's motion in different times captured as a single perception. More like capturing space-time.
In real life, there might be creatures or organisms that may be able to perceive in 4D.

1D/2D object doesn't exist, same as 4D object.
Space starts and ends in 3D.
4D is space-time and 3D is a slice of it.
space - time may be a slice of something else.
It may go on and on like that.

Okay sir!
I hear you!

Everything that cannot be physically seen does not exist!