There's a lot of good thoughts in your post, divinechemicals. I'd like to point that out, because I'm probably going to sound overly negative and I don't mean to really. Just a few things that come to mind.I believe they say you're a totally different person every 7 years specifically because every cell in your body has divided and is a different one than it was 7 years prior. This doesn't happen all at once of course, but that's the idea I believe. Has nothing to do with opinions or anything like that.I believe your conception of dimension is... not, the same as the word is generally defined. A sperm or an egg is a four dimensional object. It cannot exist in fewer dimensions (though oddly all the information that would be needed to recreate the object does exist in one less dimension, but that's another matter entirely). So it's kind of... contradictory to say that it exists in two dimensions, or that a consciousness does or something. It's a four dimensional object, so... I don't -- well, you see my point hopefully.In one dimension whether or not an object could "meet itself," is kind of unanswerable in my mind. It depends entirely on your definition of "meet itself." I mean, a mathematical point is a dimensionless, idealized object. There could be two in the same exact spot (even though by the definition it's dimensionless and has no existence at all, but just ignoring that). Wouldn't that mean they were touching? And making up an object? And therefore... meeting itself, even in one dimension? Well, whatever. Whether this happens or not in our physical world I don't really know. I'm not sure if Planck's distance refers to a limitation of measurement or an actual minimum discrete distance, but it's relevant depending on what the basis of it is (which again I'm not sure of).Honestly I think words are given too much weight in people's minds. Much more than they really should be. It's the definition of words, not even the words composing the definitions, but rather the concepts underlying the words that matter. When you say "dimension," you don't seem to be talking about the same concept of a "dimension," that I am. You seem to be talking about... well, something different. So there's really no argument to be made against you, since I'm not really sure even how you're conceptualizing "dimension"; it seems like there must be a better way of conveying your meaning than that word though? Because the usual definition of it leads you to contradict yourself, I think.I'm also not sure if existing in more dimensions than four would have any influence whatsoever on "qualia." Fuck, I can't even decide what "qualia" really is, let alone what would change it... though it's a fascinating point. I'll have to think on that some... interesting how thinking of things under different circumstances can help one refine understanding. Personally I think that suggests some pretty strong evidence for understanding being little more than concepts related to other concepts, but we see what we want to see in the end.Again, lots of good thoughts in your post. I don't mean to pick on you or anything.