the tenth dimension as an interesting mental framework for understanding hyperspace travel

[cheiron]

I've come across this video some years ago and it turns out to be a quite useful framework every now and than for grasping some weird stuff going on in hyperspace travel.

'Imaginging the tenth dimension' by Rob Bryanton :

Some fast notes:
- time from past to future being present without flowing: 4th dimension
- being able to pop out at a different time (past/present) : using the 5th dimension to travel to other 4th dimension points.
- Different possible timelines existing next to eachtother, aka changing your past: 5th dimension
- Shifting from one time line to another by changing your past: using the 6th dimension to connect 5th dimensional spots
- experiencing the totality of our universe: 7th dimension
- connecting to other multiversa: 8 th and 9th dimension

I was wondering if anyone else has found is worth some thoughts...

 

[Global]

I'm going to quote myself from someone else's thread on dimensions.

Also, I think somewhere some time back everyone got used to the idea of time as the fourth dimension. I don't see a need for this distinction, and it really doesn't make too much sense to me. From my journeys in hyperspace, it seems quite clear that we can add extra spatial dimensions without the need of talking about time as the fourth dimension.

It makes more sense to me that we probably have a certain set of spatial dimensions along with a (possibly smaller set) of temporal dimensions. So let's start at the bottom up, and see how far we get. In geometry we have a zero dimensional point. It is really more theoretical than anything. If we think about a zero dimensional point in time that would be a moment...you know that one that just went by....and here comes another...did you see it? Of course it's easy to see how that's just as theoretical and conceptual as the zero dimensional point in space.

So moving on, we have a one dimensional line in geometry so our corresponding temporal dimension would be a linear one dimensional line in time. This seems to be the way that we tend to experience time (or at least the way we tend to think about the way that we experience time regardless if it's true or not). In two dimensional time (which by my guess would be closer to the way we probably experience time on a day to day basis) time is still somewhat linear, but it's got more flexing room for distortion. I view this as somewhat akin to time flying when you're having fun seeming unusually slow at the dentist's office, but things don't get too wacky in this temporal dimension.

Three dimensional time is something I feel I've experienced on DMT. Can I be sure? Of course not. I can't be sure of anything I've just said, but during some of my godhead experiences, as I approach the godhead, the "particles of time" quite literally seem to dilate into spheroids. I want to stress it's not something that I see visually, but it is perceived in some fashion though I can't really describe it. Time expands and expands and expands until it comes to a grinding halt. This reminds me of the "highest" theoretical spatial dimension which might assume that it encapsulates all of the other spatial dimensions to come before it, and is therefore the 1 sum of the whole. This is how time comes across in the presence of the godhead to me which seems interestingly fitting anyway now that I think about it. Now I don't know if that particular dimension is the fourth temporal dimension or higher, but I see it as a better way to address time than to have a bunch of spatial dimensions and then the fourth one is time and then we're on to whatever. It just seems so inconsistent.

 

[cheiron]

but during some of my godhead experiences, as I approach the godhead, the "particles of time" quite literally seem to dilate into spheroids.

I like that one Also a recognizable experience, that somehow approaching godhead, time seems to distort more seriously.

I'm wondering you have had experiences with traveling back in your own timeline and actually changing events there? Over some time I have been receiving instructions from certain entities, teaching me how to do that. For me it was nice to have some sort of conceptual framework on that, also as time seems to be an ongoing theme during my hyperspace visits.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I like the Bryanton stuff, and the videos he has on YouTube are nifty watches. I have posted links to his stuff before, and find his conceptions of the dimensions to be appealing and easily grasped... as opposed to some of the more inscrutable ramblings of string theorists.

Naturally, people come down on Rob because he is not an esteemed physicist (I believe he taught high school?), but I don't find that any amount of years in academic study or ivory towers makes one especially wise or prescient about this stuff. If it did, every University physics department would be churning out amazing discoveries and making rapid progress... instead of endlessly fawning over the work of a handful of 20th century geniuses.

In the end I don't think it matters if you use 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 or thousands of dimensions... it doesn't matter if you follow M-Theory or some esoteric Bardo concept. What matters to me is going to these places, doing amazing things there, and then REMEMBERING it all when you come back. The rest is just cake.

Still, I do love me some mental masturbation, so let's hear it peeps... what do you guys think?

 

[cheiron]

I very much agree with you on that actually going to these places and remembering matters a lot more than concepts. In the end, these are places where concepts increasingly fail.

Yet, and thats where my love for the lexicon and evolving language comes from, the lack of maps and definitions is one reason why it is sometimes hard for me to grasp and remember whats happening. Evolving language gives me tools to, during the experience, somehow 'tag' the experience as a way to remember it. Looks a lot like how i practice remembering dreams. First thing I do is 'tagging' my experience with some key words. After that I can start writing the dream down. I noticed I am able to remember way more dreams this way (up to 5 a night after some practice).

The map shouldnt be confused with the road, but can be quite useful...

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I agree Cheiron. I use similar mnemonic devices with dreaming and tripping... which sometimes overlap as in the case of smoalking spice in a dream.

I think people's memories work differently. Some are visual thinkers, some need to hear something, some need to associate it with a smell... I like using language as you do, because it can be simultaneously visual and auditory as well as use muscle memory. (see the word, say the word, hear the word)

Of course, I am a writer... so. I am curious to hear what other Nexians think of the concept of mapping the various realms and Hyperspace being a discrete place within the infinity of worlds. Hopefully some more of our friends will chime in here or on your other Lexicon thread definitions of breakthrough, hyperspace and even deeper zones - Hyperspace Lexicon - Welcome to the DMT-Nexus soon.

 

[Global]

Take the E8 for example. It has 8 spatial dimensions (projected from a 2 dimensional plane) that is congruent with the kinds of geometry and the aesthetics of flow and motion as I observe them in hyperspace. The eighth dimension in Bryanton's model does not address this kind of geometry.

We currently have a thread going on here about "lessons from DMT" where the general consensus has been 'they don't teach you anything, you teach yourself' which in the following case, I only find to be half true at best. Early on in my journeys, I wound up in a multidimensional classroom where I was being given a thorough lesson with demonstration, narration and explanation of how exactly it is they do their multidimensional thang. They were showing me how they pull things through a "behind-the-scenes" plane as they move other parts of the hologram/object/entity/whatever into the visible foreground. They demonstrated how this is somehow achieved with 90 degree angles. I've also noticed since then that sometimes (and I notice this best with open eyed holograms) when they start becoming more and more multidimensional, they are stacking iterations of themselves at 90 degree angles to each other, so from your stable perspective, a bunch of adjacent 2D planes can appear multidimensional. I've noticed since then that this is how the holograms appear when etched into glass in some glass objects I have laying around my house.

The point of this is that the lesson was since verified for me when I found out that the way that the computer renderings or even hand-drawn representations of the higher dimensions are accomplished by replicating planes at 90 degree angles to each other. I think there is a very clear and well-defined Euclidean-esque geometric principles that can account for however many dimensions you need.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

Take the E8 for example. It has 8 spatial dimensions (projected from a 2 dimensional plane) that is congruent with the kinds of geometry and the aesthetics of flow and motion as I observe them in hyperspace. The eighth dimension in Bryanton's model does not address this kind of geometry.

We currently have a thread going on here about "lessons from DMT" where the general consensus has been 'they don't teach you anything, you teach yourself' which in the following case, I only find to be half true at best. Early on in my journeys, I wound up in a multidimensional classroom where I was being given a thorough lesson with demonstration, narration and explanation of how exactly it is they do their multidimensional thang. They were showing me how they pull things through a "behind-the-scenes" plane as they move other parts of the hologram/object/entity/whatever into the visible foreground. They demonstrated how this is somehow achieved with 90 degree angles. I've also noticed since then that sometimes (and I notice this best with open eyed holograms) when they start becoming more and more multidimensional, they are stacking iterations of themselves at 90 degree angles to each other, so from your stable perspective, a bunch of adjacent 2D planes can appear multidimensional. I've noticed since then that this is how the holograms appear when etched into glass in some glass objects I have laying around my house.

The point of this is that the lesson was since verified for me when I found out that the way that the computer renderings or even hand-drawn representations of the higher dimensions are accomplished by replicating planes at 90 degree angles to each other. I think there is a very clear and well-defined Euclidean-esque geometric principles that can account for however many dimensions you need.

Well, purely Euclidean spatial dimensions would not account for the kind of alternate universe, parallel reality, timeline transcending, multiverse accessing experiences I and others here have. Hyperspace is more than just nifty multi-spatial-dimension holographics for me. Bryanton and M-Theory come closer IMHO.

As for learning from entities... that is clear as day for me. I always scratch my head in wonderment when people act like it is all in our heads and we are teaching ourselves things we not only never knew... but could never imagine knowing. I think perhaps some people are hard heads and maybe just haven't broken through as heavily as some of us. Either that or they don't remember their experiences.

People tend to block out stuff and blank it from memory. Just like with dreaming, we only recall a fraction of what goes down in those timeless zones. I think that if some experience is threatening to someone's worldview and might drive them mad, the subconscious acts to protect them by erasing it from memory.

Who knows?

All I can say is that I have learned more from entities than I have learned in all my many years in school... hands down. Not even close really.

 

[Global]

Well, purely Euclidean spatial dimensions would not account for the kind of alternate universe, parallel reality, timeline transcending, multiverse accessing experiences I and others here have. Hyperspace is more than just nifty multi-spatial-dimension holographics for me. Bryanton and M-Theory come closer IMHO.

I have experiences like that too. I'm not sure that it's explicitly necessary to refer to extra temporal dimensions to explain them. What may seem like an alternate timeline or being timeline transcending or multiversal could be the misinterpretation of a different phenomena. I'm not saying it is or it isn't. If Bryanton's theory does come closer, it doesn't take into account the extra spatial dimensions, and that would at the very least skew the notion of 10 dimensions, as you'd have to add at least a couple extra spatial dimensions before you got up to what he refers to as the "fourth dimension". I wouldn't wanna throw away the baby with the bathwater, but his theory does seem flawed to me. I'm not sure how many spatial dimensions you can stack, but if it were to turn out that it was infinite, where would that leave the extra temporal dimensions? I think it best to keep the two separate and not part of some continuum.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I feel you Globe...

I don't feel like any of the dimension theories I have seen are accurate in describing Hyperspace for me... let alone all of the profoundly mysterious transpersonal and transtemporal experiences that spice has shown me.

I feel this is probably because they are all linear for the most part. Starting at 1 and ending with X. I suppose we could take a Bryanton style model and meld it with the kind of purely spatial model you are talking about as a kind of Y & Z axis thing.

My experience is that each of the various planes I have visited also have sub-planes and gradients. For instance, there might be a dimension 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 etc. or even finer divisions that overlap. Perhaps we can see only the one we are in, plus a bit into the adjacent ones. Maybe psychics and mystics can perceive a number of them overlayed.

Perhaps ghosts and normally invisible energies occupy adjacent overlapping dimensions?

It is all quite mysterious, and difficult to language. I imagine that the truth is far more infinite and fractal than any of the currently proposed systems can account for.

 

[cheiron]

The eighth dimension in Bryanton's model does not address this kind of geometry.

If Bryanton's theory does come closer, it doesn't take into account the extra spatial dimensions, and that would at the very least skew the notion of 10 dimensions, as you'd have to add at least a couple extra spatial dimensions before you got up to what he refers to as the "fourth dimension".

I don't want to defend Bryanton's theory as some kind of ultimate model, because it is, as Hyperspace Fool also points out, far removed from being near accurate in describing the hyperspace experience.

But still, it is my opinion that it is very usefull to at least try to build some sort of maps and to start somewhere. Regarding your critique on Bryanton's model not adressing extra spatial dimensions, I would want to add that there is no need to see a contradiction between temporal and spatial dimensions, which seems to be the core of your critique.

To explain that in short, with a 'classic' example: imagine a 3d circle being intersected by a 2d plane. In the 2d plane you would see a spot appearing out of nowhere, growing into a circle, reducing again into a spot and disappearing. Now imagine a 4d circle intersecting 3d space. You would see a sphere appearing out of nowhere, growing and shrinking and disappear again. You could argue that it is a temporal process, in which the circle grows and shrinks. The same event could be described as a static object (the static 4d circle) where the dynamic process in time is nothing more as an illusion because of the 3d intersection. Time and space are interchangeable perspectives...

This makes statements as 'time is an illusion' understandable, because from another perspective there is no process, just the intersection of dimensional objects on different levels. The introduction of 5th and 6th dimensions makes the whole process flexible, allows for choices and free will etc. It also explains why it is totally accepted to let time run backwards etc; just as you could move back and forward in a spatial dimension.

As for the entities teaching, I again totally agree with Hyperspace Fool's statement

All I can say is that I have learned more from entities than I have learned in all my many years in school... hands down. Not even close really.

Really, they stuff they have shown me, amazing. The general consensus might be 'they don't teach you anything, you teach yourself' in some tread, but to me, the experience is simply that they teach me. Of course one can explain that away with autonomic archetypal subconscious parts of the self, but for me, that doesnt account for my own experiences...

Anyway, it still leaves us with the question of where to start mapping hyperspace, or even, attempting to map it somehow.... I don't think Bryanton's theory is a good map, but it could be a building block, i guess. On it other hand, it might be an icarus-like attempt bound to fail... Curious to hear what you all think of that...

 

[Global]

Regarding your critique on Bryanton's model not adressing extra spatial dimensions, I would want to add that there is no need to see a contradiction between temporal and spatial dimensions, which seems to be the core of your critique.

I don't see them as a contradiction, I'm just not fond of them being part of a continuum as if one must logically follow from the other. You can refer to my first post here to recall my views on temporal dimensions. I view them as correlating.

To explain that in short, with a 'classic' example: imagine a 3d circle being intersected by a 2d plane. In the 2d plane you would see a spot appearing out of nowhere, growing into a circle, reducing again into a spot and disappearing. Now imagine a 4d circle intersecting 3d space. You would see a sphere appearing out of nowhere, growing and shrinking and disappear again. You could argue that it is a temporal process, in which the circle grows and shrinks. The same event could be described as a static object (the static 4d circle) where the dynamic process in time is nothing more as an illusion because of the 3d intersection. Time and space are interchangeable perspectives...

I could move the lower dimensional 1D line segment around a higher dimensional 2D plane, and that would be a temporal process too. Any kind of motion at all implies the moving of some distance through time. The spatial model accounts for perceptions of multidimensional movement of static objects. In the E8 video example, it appears as if the E8 is doing a lot of moving. There appears to be quite a lot of commotion. However this eight dimensional regular polytope is actually remaining perfectly still as your perspective gets rotated through the numerous spatial dimensions.

 

[cheiron]

If Bryanton's theory does come closer, it doesn't take into account the extra spatial dimensions, and that would at the very least skew the notion of 10 dimensions, as you'd have to add at least a couple extra spatial dimensions before you got up to what he refers to as the "fourth dimension"

So, what are you proposing then? Saying 'nah, that can't be right' is one thing, and I agree it aint perfect. But 'nah' is the easy part; interesting is what would be more usefull.

I'm just not fond of them being part of a continuum as if one must logically follow from the other.

Time and Space being mutual exchangeable is kind of the consensus in physics.

Stacking iterations at 90 degree angles is nice for building complex geometry, but i must admit that i find lets say a 4d hypercube quite challenging to wrap my mind around all different ways to project it in 3d... And space and time being mutual exchangeable might be even more a mind-boggler, but your explanation of stacking in 90 degrees is kind of the standard on which the mutual exchangeable time&space dimensions are usually build, so I think I don't quite get you...

 

[Global]

Time and Space being mutual exchangeable is kind of the consensus in physics.

Stacking iterations at 90 degree angles is nice for building complex geometry, but i must admit that i find lets say a 4d hypercube quite challenging to wrap my mind around all different ways to project it in 3d... And space and time being mutual exchangeable might be even more a mind-boggler, but your explanation of stacking in 90 degrees is kind of the standard on which the mutual exchangeable time&space dimensions are usually build, so I think I don't quite get you...

It may be challenging for you to wrap your mind around, but it's something that is perceptible (thanks to computers) in consensual reality. It's right there for the experiencing. The notion of time travel and multiple realities is a more immutable concept I would think. It's incredibly theoretical and speculative. I'm speculating too of course, but I can also validate that higher dimensional geometry on this plane, which is not something I can say in regards to notions of alternate timelines, and "traveling through the fifth dimension" to affect alternate timelines (or however it's supposed to work). Again, I'm not saying it's 100% wrong. I'm not simply saying "nah". I'm offering my solution which is to maintain these concepts as being distinct and separate though inherently interacting on a regular basis. I see the sudden shift from the 3rd to 4th dimension as moving from spatial to temporal as arbitrary. Even before this mega theory, I think somewhere along the way in the 20th century, we as a society grew fond and close to this notion of time being the 4th dimension. If whoever it was back in the day could have seen a penteract, I'm not sure he would have seen time as the fourth dimension. From my view, Bryanton is kind of trying to cram certain ideas into this quite theoretical and possibly misshapen "box".