Could it not be said, that we are, and have been, discovering new dimensions in reality, beyond the theoretical ones we hear so much about?

I get what you mean. That’s a great point. I think they should be considered. I don’t think we consider them as much as the other because we expect there to be other versions of us like in sci-fi stories.

Paraphrasing Bill Clinton, it all depends upon what you believe the word ‘dimension’ means.

I feel like this is really a question of semantics… sure, these things extend our senses, but… a dimension, really, is a direction. Up, left, forward. The things you have listed are completely unrelated to the theoretical dimensions of the multiverse and probably shouldn’t be given the same name as it would only increase the already large amount of confusion on the subject.

Part of that confusion may be because of what @py_sue stated. We’ve got a mindset that alternate dimensions must somehow fit with the box of sci-fi. How will we know when we’ve discovered a new dimension? Are we waiting for some kind of vortex to open up in thin air and suck us in? That’s how Star Gate does it but it only takes them to other planets, not necessarily other dimensions.

And if a dimension is really a direction, then can’t we consider _looking closer, down deeper, up further, as new dimensions, as long as they are beyond what we would normally be capable of with our innate senses?

It could be semantics. But it could also be upon us without us rightfully acknowledging it. I mean really, how would we know if and when it happened unless we draw a line in the sand as to what our dimension really is first?

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies “And if a dimension is really a direction, then can’t we consider _looking closer, down deeper, up further, as new dimensions, as long as they are beyond what we would normally be capable of with our innate senses?”

No…A cube is three dimensional. Making it larger doesn’t make it four dimensional. Looking at it with an electron microscope doesn’t make it four dimensional. I’m all for acknowledging our technological gains but let’s not assign them a name that already has a definition.

Perhaps I should look up the definition then. I’m all about adhering to strict definitions and not redefining words to suit an argument. Thanks.

I really think more and more people are starting to acknowledge this growing awareness of an increasing depth to our reality and of an inner knowing that we exist in more then just this physical plain. It’s a lot to chew on for most of us though. The concept of existing simultaneously in several dimensions is a daunting one to ponder…

The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces occur in mathematics and the sciences for many reasons, frequently as configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.

Ok @Mariah, a quick investigation reveals there is more to dimension than making a leap to the 4th or 5th… I’ll have to reconsider your challenge against new dimensions not being justified simply by looking closer. It doesn’t have to be labeled as a 4th or 5th. But it may be justified as an alternative dimension nonetheless. Especially when considering that sub atomic particles don’t always obey the known laws of classic physics. This is not theoretical.

The only conceptual representation of the forth dimension that I know of is the klein bottle

@tranquilsea strictly speaking, all concrete representations of a Klein bottle are lower (spatial) dimensional shadows or implications of a conceptual four (spatial) dimensional object. (If you see it drawn on a page or represented on a screen, than even the third spatial dimension is merely implied!) See also: hypercubes and polytopes.