A friend’s writing prompted the following response, presented here somewhat out of context without that letter, which I shall seek permission to post.

I have this notion of the infinite set of all – infinite extents along n dimensions, where n is as yet an unknown number to me, but at least the 6 I’ve thusfar nutured a mental model to grok. Most observers can bring only a limited subset of this wholeism into “view”. That subset could be a point, line, plane, a 3D snapshot, an entire timeline, a universe, a brane, the multiverse or omniverse.

But “observer” may be a fluid concept, perhaps akin to a subset in that it may be an exceedingly narrow and focused set, while a practiced philosopher may have a broader, yet still exceedingly limited set that encompasses multitudes of others’ sets, on up to the ultimate observer, encompassing the wholeism.

So while I’d agree that the bread isn’t the observer, it could be an observer.

Recall the double-slit experiment.It showed that an observer “collapses” the wave (everywhere all at once : indeterminate) into the particle (specific position, direction, angular momentum, velocity, spin, etc… : definite).The observer need not be a consciousone, interaction with another body / particle is enough to force definiteness.

Learning of this experiment was the beginning of much of my thinking about higher dimensional constructs. The indeterminateness of things / the potential / probable nature sans observer hinted at the pre-exisitng/all-already-there nature, while the collapse evoked the notion of “selection”.

And the infinite potential that we see pre-collapse/selection can be thought of as potential states for the next instant of time (plank length movement along 4th axis) or also potential next timelines(plank length movement along 5th axis).While there appear to be infinite potentials, most are improbable and a few probable.Perhaps higher-D momentum is the defining force of this probability.Just as in 3D/4D, a body in motion continues that way until something interacts with it, altering its motion.So the next-instant’s selection is likely to be next-in-sequence motion along its established trajectory.

But the exciting stuff is in the change, not in the continuation. We tend not to notice motion absent changes of direction or acceleration – I certainly don’t notice that I’m spinning about the earth’s, sun’s, galaxy’s axes at great speeds relative to my body’s size. But start me off even in a gentle lean in the direction of any of these axes and I will, despite it being an incomprehensibly tiny movement compared with the existing motion, take note.

It’s this change of direction or acceleration that affects the continuing progression that I propose we think of / label as choice.

—

You mention “to travel into the next logical (or not) dimension”, and I’m curious about your use of “to”. In my mental model, we don’t go to a higher dimension, only exist at a position or move along its axis. I can’t imagine going to width any more than I can go to height or depth. Even going to time is difficult to imagine vs. being at a position in time or moving along its axis. Am I reading too much into language here, or is there a difference in our models?

Also comes to mind that I can’t really define any of width, height, depth in a particular dimensional order – which is the 1D or the 2D, etc… They’re just axes / extents that lay perpendicular to one another and all other D’s. Expanding on that, it’s difficult to say that any are higher-order than another, just that they intersect as equals. We all seem to grok extents of width, height, depth and how changes in what’s present at each of the positions along each of their axes (time). And we all also seem to have a notion of choice, that which influences the progression of all of these too, yet I think for most, choice is something very different than width. Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s just our conception of disjointedness that disjoints?

So to loop back, I agree that central to making sense of this all we need to include perspective. Things will appear very differently to a 4D being observing a flatlander than to a flatlander itself. Likewise the loaf slice from the context / perspective of the loaf, the slice, the baker or one of its electrons, quarks or ?strings? Will be radically different, but all equally valid. By extension, choice might appear to a classicist something entirely different than movement in the 5th dimension. But they may really be the same thing…

I’m glad you mentioned oscilations (vibration) and harmonics. Both interest me deeply. Yesterday, as I walked up a squared spiral staircase, I banged the metal railing that was welded together from basement to 5th floor. It vibrated and hummed beautifully. Then a feast to my curiosity presented. The vibration ceased. Then it began anew for a short while and ceased again. Repeating like this for more than a minute after my fist-contact with it. Puzzled at first, I soon realized I was witnessing a standing wave travel up and down the 6 floors. The railing would stand still when the harmonics cancelled each other out near me and and vibrate intensely as it passed by my position. Sooooooooooooooo lucious. The strike caused the initial vibration and at least the long harmonic emerged as the infinte interference of waves amplified and cancelled each other out. In that staircase I had my first “aha” moment with a “stringed” instrument, and perhaps a clue to why some of our universe is quiet and other parts currently energetic.

I shall leave intent for another cycle, as that’s a deep one and I trust there’s enough for you to fill your belly with for today.