Bullshit

It is easy and seemingly “natural” and “logical” to just add one more number to a vector, and, wallah, we got another dimension.

And, you see, all the points at an equal distance from the center in all 4 dimensions implies (to them) that they have a sphere.

There is a subtlety, however. In two dimensions all the points at the same distance from the center has its own name - it is a circle. It seems that abstract thing in 4 dimensions should have a distinct name and therefore be distinct from a point, circle or sphere.

These who insist that this abstraction is also a sphere just abuse the proper use of a language.

Same argument goes for n-dimension cubes. Yes, we can imagine another perpendicular axis (which is where we cross into the realm of a pure bullshit) and, again, to have a vector with 4 elements in it.

However, there is no way to have 4th perpendicular axis unless it is purely imaginary one.

Lots of people convinced themselves that “Time” is such perpendicular axis (and a dimension) and created a lot of hymeras out of this assumption.

The subtlety is that this new axis have a fundamentally different ruler superimposed by a mind of an external observer onto it.

The mind works the same - it creates an arbitrary and abstract unit and then count in (sequences of) these units. “Natural” and “logical”, you know.

The problem is that they admit dimensions of fundamentally different units into a single abstract system and I do not.

I refuse to consider any 4th dimension as valid on the sole basis that I can imagine a vector of size 4 or more.

There is no dimensions in the first place - this is a mental concept of a mind conditioned by sequential sensory input. The first three dimensions are handy astract framework to deal with what we call space (by imagining a grid of dots, which is, of course, a generalized ruler).

I think this is the exact place to stop, meaning not going further in this direction, and to prune the whole tree of symbolic bullshit which grows further into deeper and deeper abstract bullshit.

You see, pruning is a rational operation. It is exactly the same notion as not to explore dead ends (or logically flawed arguments beyond a false statement) once you got a valid heuristic or found a logical error.

Collapsing bullshit back onto What Is - is what good philosophers arguably should do, instead of piling up abstract concepts into shaky caherdrals made out of turned and twisted abstract bullshit to impress poorly educated masses.