On why we exist in the third dimension and all
other dimensions are moot in terms of viability
By Dr. Nazmi Gendzh
Research Scientist
Received 22-04-2026
Abstract
On the concept of dimensionality of reality there is a multiplicity of dimensions. However, the
third dimension appears to stand out the most in terms of viability to host reality and be
logically sound in its construction. This article demonstrates how less than two dimensions or
how four or more dimensions does not result in a viable reality that obeys logic and where
conservation laws persist without which reality has no standing or bearings.
Introduction
The universe appears to arrive at our eyes as separations of matter and space orchestrated by
the causal flow of time where each of these things appears totally separate and with their own
secrets of initiation into reality. Where did any of it come from? Why does it exist? and why is
there so many colourful manners of distinctions? Why certain amounts of space, time and
matter or anything?
In lesser Dimensions
In zero dimensions: there is only potential placement of a single particle or space with time
being more of a frequency rather than having a viable direction. Whereas spatial coordination
and speeds of objects are pretty much moot. However, the universe can be a single flashing
point as such but this would perhaps require more predicaments to also take place for it to
actually be reality’s totality. Hence, not the most viable dimension of reality.
In one dimension: there is only a two way option of motion, say a left and right spread for
particles or matter or space to exist and to move about in. There is no way however of
discerning motion as there is no thickness of an object nor hue nor any way of detecting any
object’s lengths away from each other without leaping into higher dimensions. Hence any
, relevancy of space or time is moot with only one degree of spatial freedom such that a single
dimension cannot host all the actual available information that there is in matter’s interactions
in space and time in one dimension. Some interactions are deduceable but there are more
properties of matter than the space provides to deduce them. Hence it is not a viable solution
to reality’s dimensionality.
In the second dimension: If an object is in motion it would appear to be shrinking or
expanding as it moves either further away or closer to a second object, respectively. Not very
viable if you need to know which is in motion. This would require a third object to be seen in
comparison to know which of the other two objects is the one in motion. But since they can all
be stacked behind each other the third object would have to be larger than the second object to
demonstrate whether or not the second object is in motion as compared to the first i.e. by
seeing the second object shrink or expand to and past the size of the third to allow for a
distinction enough to be made so that it is distinguishable in motions. However, if both the
second and third object are appearing to shrink or expand simultaneously then it is definitely
the first object that is actually in motion. However if the third is not in motion or appearing not
to shrink nor expand in correspondence with the second then it is safe to say the first object is
in motion. Furthermore, if the third object is in simultaneity with the first then comparison to
the first is moot as it would give a false declaration that the first is in motion. As far as
demonstrating correct motion is concerned, the second dimension is not practical in deducing
said information. There are too many variables to make it not a viable dimension to rely on
deducing motion.
Furthermore, in two dimensions of reality any signals or interaction can be mooted by this
ability to be behind the object and not be able to interact directly except if entangled. However,
not all objects are necessarily in entanglement and if they are unable to essentially
communicate then the information is lost and is unable to serve any purpose making this type
of reality quite absurd as to have for all the available properties of matter. In just their
connectables via space and time alone, namely of distance, speed and interactions and
interfaces are made not viable with subsequent matter. Hence the second dimension, although
showing more promise than the lower dimensions is still not a viable panacea for reality and
may only serve for specific interactions and physics of a two dimensional nature where the
above information is not necessary.
On the classic three dimensions of reality
In the third dimension: You can now move freely in the three dimensions and there is no
longer room for error as all objects can now be witnessed without the loss of which object is in
other dimensions are moot in terms of viability
By Dr. Nazmi Gendzh
Research Scientist
Received 22-04-2026
Abstract
On the concept of dimensionality of reality there is a multiplicity of dimensions. However, the
third dimension appears to stand out the most in terms of viability to host reality and be
logically sound in its construction. This article demonstrates how less than two dimensions or
how four or more dimensions does not result in a viable reality that obeys logic and where
conservation laws persist without which reality has no standing or bearings.
Introduction
The universe appears to arrive at our eyes as separations of matter and space orchestrated by
the causal flow of time where each of these things appears totally separate and with their own
secrets of initiation into reality. Where did any of it come from? Why does it exist? and why is
there so many colourful manners of distinctions? Why certain amounts of space, time and
matter or anything?
In lesser Dimensions
In zero dimensions: there is only potential placement of a single particle or space with time
being more of a frequency rather than having a viable direction. Whereas spatial coordination
and speeds of objects are pretty much moot. However, the universe can be a single flashing
point as such but this would perhaps require more predicaments to also take place for it to
actually be reality’s totality. Hence, not the most viable dimension of reality.
In one dimension: there is only a two way option of motion, say a left and right spread for
particles or matter or space to exist and to move about in. There is no way however of
discerning motion as there is no thickness of an object nor hue nor any way of detecting any
object’s lengths away from each other without leaping into higher dimensions. Hence any
, relevancy of space or time is moot with only one degree of spatial freedom such that a single
dimension cannot host all the actual available information that there is in matter’s interactions
in space and time in one dimension. Some interactions are deduceable but there are more
properties of matter than the space provides to deduce them. Hence it is not a viable solution
to reality’s dimensionality.
In the second dimension: If an object is in motion it would appear to be shrinking or
expanding as it moves either further away or closer to a second object, respectively. Not very
viable if you need to know which is in motion. This would require a third object to be seen in
comparison to know which of the other two objects is the one in motion. But since they can all
be stacked behind each other the third object would have to be larger than the second object to
demonstrate whether or not the second object is in motion as compared to the first i.e. by
seeing the second object shrink or expand to and past the size of the third to allow for a
distinction enough to be made so that it is distinguishable in motions. However, if both the
second and third object are appearing to shrink or expand simultaneously then it is definitely
the first object that is actually in motion. However if the third is not in motion or appearing not
to shrink nor expand in correspondence with the second then it is safe to say the first object is
in motion. Furthermore, if the third object is in simultaneity with the first then comparison to
the first is moot as it would give a false declaration that the first is in motion. As far as
demonstrating correct motion is concerned, the second dimension is not practical in deducing
said information. There are too many variables to make it not a viable dimension to rely on
deducing motion.
Furthermore, in two dimensions of reality any signals or interaction can be mooted by this
ability to be behind the object and not be able to interact directly except if entangled. However,
not all objects are necessarily in entanglement and if they are unable to essentially
communicate then the information is lost and is unable to serve any purpose making this type
of reality quite absurd as to have for all the available properties of matter. In just their
connectables via space and time alone, namely of distance, speed and interactions and
interfaces are made not viable with subsequent matter. Hence the second dimension, although
showing more promise than the lower dimensions is still not a viable panacea for reality and
may only serve for specific interactions and physics of a two dimensional nature where the
above information is not necessary.
On the classic three dimensions of reality
In the third dimension: You can now move freely in the three dimensions and there is no
longer room for error as all objects can now be witnessed without the loss of which object is in
