Assume you view a cactus that only has two arms at the same horizontal position like so:
____
__ | |
| |_| |
|___ | ___
| | | |
| |__| |
| ____|
| |
| |
|__|
Now we rotate the cactus 90 degrees (counter)clockwise horizontally and the arms disappear from our projection of it, collapsing behind the main stem from our position of observation:
____
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|__|
If we now rotate it forward or backwards vertically, either result will look the same as below:
_____________
|___________|
These are only a handful of rotations in three-dimensional space. Now imagine multiple arms at varying lengths and positions on the entire circumference of the stem but rotations aren’t only 90 degrees but any degree in a sphere of all possible angles. Think of these rotations as your observations of pathways in reality and how you see the connections between a series of possibilities when presented with a question and trying to find the most likely answers. Probability enters through how we assign weight to those possible structures or trajectories given the projection available to us.
Now if we add a fourth dimension into this observation of the cactus reality, that dimension could represent another parameter in its state space such as time in which we see its growth from seed to a further stage, the color variation during lack or excess water or sun, etc. These additional dimensions would not necessarily be literal spatial rotations like the first three dimensions, but changes in the parameters through which the state of the cactus can be observed. If we account for all possible observed parameters (additional dimensionality), we would have more dimensions and more possible orientations or configurations to account for. How do we predict the more probable trajectories in this situation?
The situation is only predictable within probabilities given our embodied bias within our predefined assumptions. Our predefined assumptions are dependent on a common attractor of how we agree on what we want to consider more truthful versus less truthful. Those predefinitions are constructed through our historical experience, therefore our dimensions are rooted in what others previously have entrained us into assuming. This common attractor can constrain us towards locally stable representations of reality, but it can also provide useful constraints through accumulated observation, prediction and shared verification.
The question isn’t necessarily how we account for every possible dimension, since additional dimensions or possible observations do not inherently contain more truth, but which dimensions allow us to explain, compress and predict observations across the greatest number of perspectives without mistaking one projection for the dimensional structure of reality itself.
Is the entrainment that us as individuals within a collective, fluid system a real observation that supersedes other observations or only a reflection of our position on the graph of the dimensions we hold bias towards? And how do we know when the common attractor represents accumulated truth versus a locally stable projection that has become mistaken for the structure itself? This is the game to understand.