[AntonioLao]

There exist Rubik’s cubes that are 2x2x2, 3x3x3, 4x4x4, 5x5x5, and so on, theoretically, ad infinitum. All these cubes, regardless of their dimensional orders, shared something in common: six faces (F), 8 corners or vertices (V), and 12 edges (E). Furthermore, their numbers are related by Euler’s formula for all convex polyhedrons without holes, F + V – E = 2. These six faces could then be labeled as right (R), left (L), front (F), back (B), top (T), and bottom or down (D). Three of these could combine to form 8 directional properties: RTF, RTB, RDF, RDB, LTF, LTB, LDF, and LDB. These properties are more important than the actual counting of faces, vertices, and edges, and hence applicable to all polyhedrons or any 3D object that are not temporally dependent.

Although, mathematically speaking, a particular Möbius strip has only one face and one edge, requiring it to have only 2 vertices satisfying Euler’s formula, nevertheless, it has all the 8 directional properties as long as a given longitudinal temporal direction is attached to these two vertices. Therefore, each Rubik’s cube is topologically equivalent to two linked Möbius strips having unique time direction. This formed a unit for all space-time points. It could then be described by using Hadamard matrices as discussed elsewhere.

[theunify]

Why do you think people insist on thinking in a linear fashion, when clearly the mobius strip is an example of a near 2d object existing in 3 dimensions. Simply draw a 3d shape on a peice of paper and visually it's still 2d. Likewise near 3d objects can always be drawn in 3d. You can draw an expanding sphere in 3d.
The sphere visually becomes a 3 dimensional object.The same is true for a near 2d object.When considering a simple point line as 1d, then expanded to the dimension of time it is 2d. Visually however the series is 2d lengthXwidth not LengthXtime. Dimensions are interchangable. Dimensions also prove that our conscienceness is fairly detached from reality but close enough to question it's fundemental nature so that time=space.

Originally Posted by AntonioLao There exist Rubik’s cubes that are 2x2x2, 3x3x3, 4x4x4, 5x5x5, and so on, theoretically, ad infinitum. All these cubes, regardless of their dimensional orders, shared something in common: six faces (F), 8 corners or vertices (V), and 12 edges (E). Furthermore, their numbers are related by Euler’s formula for all convex polyhedrons without holes, F + V – E = 2. These six faces could then be labeled as right (R), left (L), front (F), back (B), top (T), and bottom or down (D). Three of these could combine to form 8 directional properties: RTF, RTB, RDF, RDB, LTF, LTB, LDF, and LDB. These properties are more important than the actual counting of faces, vertices, and edges, and hence applicable to all polyhedrons or any 3D object that are not temporally dependent. Although, mathematically speaking, a particular Möbius strip has only one face and one edge, requiring it to have only 2 vertices satisfying Euler’s formula, nevertheless, it has all the 8 directional properties as long as a given longitudinal temporal direction is attached to these two vertices. Therefore, each Rubik’s cube is topologically equivalent to two linked Möbius strips having unique time direction. This formed a unit for all space-time points. It could then be described by using Hadamard matrices as discussed elsewhere.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by theunify Dimensions are interchangable.

I would like to construct a theory only in 1 dimension. Is this possible?

[yogi]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao I would like to construct a theory only in 1 dimension. Is this possible?

My philosophical viewpoint is as follows-
we as a living entity are dimension less, but when we percieve other 3 dimensions we think that we are the 3 dimensional reality - we all believe that we are this humanbody ( I am) which is nothing but combination of hydocarbons. when we break down these atoms up to the level of strings we percieve nothing. coming to your question yes you can build your theory in 1 d but to communicate it to other beings ( who erroniously believe thay they are 3d) it has to be atleast in the 2d ( letters on this screen).

sincerely,
yogi

[theunify]

Write a theory without pictures or 3d models it would be 1d.

Pier de restiance'
theunify

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by yogi yes you can build your theory in 1 d but to communicate it to other beings ( who erroniously believe thay they are 3d) it has to be atleast in the 2d ( letters on this screen).

Thanks. Maybe the 2D is an open Riemann surface?