In the context of a universe with dimensions, I like to think of it like this........

Imagine a 0D universe, a single point, or the lack there of. Orthogonal to this singularity ' or perhaps to itself, or to nothing, exists a dimension, a line, extending in two opposite vectors. Now imagine, a similar line, orthogonal to the first. Now imagine another, parallel to this line, also orthogonal to the first line. Now add more of these parallel lines...

Along the first line exists an infinite, or perhaps arbitrarily large - if space is granular - number of lines, each with properties analogous to the first orthogonal line, creating a membrane. Each of these lines within the membrane represents a single instance, a Planck frame, of the 1D universe. Note that by manipulation through this membrane,  any point within any 1D Planck frame may be brought adjacent to any other.

(We use the term Planck frame somewhat loosely here – it would normally refer to a snapshot of the 3 dimentional unverse taken at a 1 Planck interval (the interval of time beneath which no change can occur), but here we use it to describe an n dimensional snapshot at an n+1 dimensional 1 Planck interval)

Now imagine another line, or vector pair, orthogonal to the first two. Along this axis is stacked an arbitrarily large, if not infinite, number of membranes, or Planck frames, of the 2d universe. Similarly, any point on any 2d membrane can be brought adjacent to any other, by folding through a 2 dimensional membrane within this 3 dimensional construct.

These are the 3 dimensions with which we are familiar....but, the universe does not appear to be 3 dimensional, but rather 10 dimensional, at least by our best estimations.

At this point, it is wise, I think, to remember that the 3 dimensional universe as described above is not only a vector, or a line, but is the sum of all the prior constructs, a 3-space, the sum total of all the Planck frames of the 2-space, which itself is the sum of all the 1d Planck frames. A single instance of this 3-space can be described as a 3-space Planck frame.

Now, try to imagine a line, somehow orthogonal to the first 3, along which is found all the 3-space Planck frames. This collection of all the 3-spaces, is 4-space, or Spacetime. It would be easy at this point to infer then, that the 4th dimension, orthogonal to the 3-space, is time, but this is not strictly correct. The 4th dimension, the axis along which exists the dependent subset of all 3-space Planck frames, is not time, as popularly described, but rather duration. This is an important, if seemingly fine, distinction.

Time, as we experience it, is a direction along a vector. It has a nonspecific “velocity”, as the very notion of “velocity” includes a reference to time. Our motion along this axis is expressed in the recurrence of predictable events, such as orbits of the sun, rotations of the earth and moon, the ticking of a clock, or the decay of radioactive elements. These are things that occur within time, entropic events, and are evident to us as observers due to our motion along this vector. There is no definitive quality of 'time', and indeed, we have determined that the passage of time is entirely relative to the observer – observed relationship.

I would propose that we experience “time” because we are driven in one direction along the axis of duration by entropy.

We, as observers, are entropic entities, which exist as cognizant observers by virtue of entropic chemical and electrical processes. Without the progression of entropy, which is the underpinning of all of our existential processes, we cannot observe. Thusly, we are inexorably driven along this vector of time (vs say, anti-time, along which anti-entropy flows for antimatter), and we are powerless then to directly experience anything outside of this entropic flow, by virtue of our inability to observe outside of our own context.

So, if time is the movement along the axis of duration in the direction of entropy, and anti-time is the movement along this axis in the opposite direction then In any case, time is an expression of motion, not of the axis itself. This , I think, is crucial to a deep understanding of our universe, but is frequently overlooked.

Another simple epiphany, useful when studying relativistic physics, is that light, as a quantum entity, exists in a time state unavailable for observation....it experiences no “time” as we understand it, self referentially leaving and arriving simultanously. Therefore, the “speed of light” is not a speed at all, but rather a measurement of the amount of time per space in space-time.....1 second of entropic process for every 299,792,458 metres.


Remember how any two points in the 2-space can be brought adjacent by manipulation through 3-space, by “folding”, if you will? Notice, however, that we cannot arbitrarily fold 3 space through 4-space, due to our anchoring in the progression of “time”… but we do manipulate the 3 – space, by leveraging our motion through the axis of duration, “time”, our constraining entropic flow within the 4th dimension : We simply pick up an object and move it to another location, over time...using time as the vehicle, on which we conveniently ride for free, to move the object from 3space point a to 3space point b. The unavoidable motion on the axis of “time” is an unfortunate side effect of our constraint in this dimension, and is why instant teleportation is a difficult proposition at best, and one which we are unlikely to directly observe any time soon.

OK, so now we have space-time, the 4 dimensional construct of Einsteinian imagination. What about the other 6?

This is where I go off into left field, but you are welcome to follow if you wish. I have reached these ideas through thought experimentation, a la the Einsteinian train.... this is very much a work in progress, and may be entirely rubbish. Feel free to disagree, but please do so with your own well thought out reasoning, with a thought experiment with which to test your ideas, or better yet, with an actual experiment that could be used to support or disprove these ideas. One day, If and when I become more confident in the experimental durability of my ideas, I will publish a more complete philosophical exposition on the subject.

In short, I propose that dimension 5 is to probability as dimension 4 is to time.

This is the realm of the quantum activity that seems so baffling at first, but makes sense once we accept the notion of negative probability – similar, I think, to anti-time. The quantum world is where we learned that nothing is exactly anywhere, and in fact everything is a little bit everywhere, just really really, really, mostly right where it appears to be....We learned that our eyes do not perceive "reality", but rather a really close approximation, statistically speaking, on the macro scale.

Further, I propose that dimension 6 is similarly a superset of the properties of causality.

 Dimension 7, it seems, is a fixed point of a flag manifold containing the superset of all possible causality constraining factors, the underpinnings of which become evident in non referential constants...the specific numbers that have to be used to make the universe "work", which if changed much, would result in an environment not conducive to observation by creatures similar to ourselves.

8, 9, and 10....? I have, at this time, no idea whatsoever.

So why cant we manipulate probability and causality (5 and 6) with ease like 1, 2, and 3? …. well, we do, in fact. More probability than causality, for reasons I will soon explain.

For example, If we want to limit the probability of our keys being motivated by gravity to fall to the floor, we simply put them on the table instead of releasing them in mid air. Thusly we utilize 3 dimensional constructs, navigated within our constraints of entropy, to invoke the supportive effects of the “solidity” of the table, which are present due to certain universal constants dictated by our position on the 7space, which constrains the available Planck frames within the 6-space to ones which the probability ("position" in the 5th dimension) of the keys falling through the table, through a failure of the notion of solidity, are effectively zero.

Note that we cannot apparently fold through the 7-space, as we are constrained to either a single point or a small collection of points (loophole, anyone?) within dimension 7.

It appears to me that, lacking any particular reason for constraint, such as exists within entropy on the 4th dimension, we should be able to traverse and manipulate within the 5th and 6th dimensions in much the same way as we manipulate within and traverse with relative ease the first three. Note that we have limited abilities within these 3 as well, constrained by entropy as we are, but nonetheless our mobility seems significant from our referential context.

Interestingly, we are rapidly gaining the knowledge necessary to build machines that are not constrained by entropic processes, at least at their core. These are “quantum” machines, that operate within the a realm free of observation, necessarily isolated from entropic flow (this is one of the hard parts, by the way) so that they may remain in superposition, with no particular vector in time prior to observation.

This allows them to theoretically accomplish previously impossible computational performance. It is worth noting that In thought experiments at least, it might be possible to harness this freedom from constraint in the 4-space to facilitate an otherwise improbable binding of conventional causality in order to directly manipulate the probability within a targeted entropic system to achieve very specific, and otherwise ridiculously improbable outcomes....or maybe more practically, easily attained ones, like not having your car crash on the way to work. Ever. No matter what. No more seat belts, no more airbags, just no significant probability of an injurious change in velocity or structure, thanks to a little black box on the firewall that warps "reality" by binding the possibility of a dangerous event to a impossibly low probability of occurance.