THE HORSE: You are wrong, based on what I experienced in 5D

THE LION: So describe it for me what this thing is that you experienced in 5D.

THE HORSE:No, that is impossible! Can you describe colour 'red' using words? That is what describing 5D in 3D terms looks like!

So if I show you how to describe 'red' using words, then there will be no more exuse!

Lets begin by the following description of the concept 'sphere':

SPHERE: a round solid figure, or its surface, with every point on its surface equidistant from its centre.

It looks neat! So a 'sphere' seems to belong to the 'describable' camp! But when you close examin you find that if Archimedes, beginning in antiquity, was trying to check if something is a 'sphere' using this description, he will still be checking it up to now! The description dares you to first divide the surface until it is composed of inecistent specs of powder! In this way a 'sphere' is a collection of infinite number of inexistent non-entities he terms it as 'points'. To check if something is a sphere, you will have to take your ruler and check every point and how far it is from the center! you need to perform infinite number of measurements!

Mathematician often tries to pretend that he does not 'nudge' and 'wink' when describing something. In different words, he insinuates that he can describe something to an ET and the ET will understand it straight away, provided that he is 'smart enough' to be a mathematician! In other words, he wants you to believe that his descriptions does not rely on the language we created by first directly communicating our experiences. A mathematician is completely lost! He is out of touch with reality.

Nevertheless, despite this erroneous philosophy, mathematicians have influenced people to divide the world into 'the describable' and 'the indescribable'. Of course the mathematician could not describe 'red' like in the 'sphere' above. So this prompted people to categorize 'red' under 'the indescribable' folder and eventually some invented the unfortunate notions as'5D' and used the color etc as a justification!

lets look at another example. Describe the location of the Giza pyramid. This is yet another case where we are indoctrinated that it is 'describable' just because 'geometry' is, incongruously, a toying ground for mathematicians. A mathematician might spit out a grid of some sort. So he tells us that Giza is at such and such degrees meridians, such and such,...But this is not a description of the location of Giza. He is telling us how to get there and he calls this 'a description of the location of Giza' and everyone in the room nodes! If you don't know the location he placed 0,0,0, then his description is completely useless! In reality, he 'winks winks and nudge nuges' about your starting point while trying to pretend that there is no 'winks' and 'nudges' in mathematics!

To put it bluntly, there is nothing that a mathematician (and their cousin in mathematical physics) can describe in this world! They toyed about geometry and fool people that they can describe spatial configurations without reference to direct experiences but forgot to do the same 'toying' with colours etc and so they paved way to the idea that 'colours are indescribable', and eventually '5D' nonsense! But obviously a mathematician describes locations using other locations. Knowing about the locations of the points on the surface of a sphere is as good as knowing about the center of the sphere. So why would a new ager dare you to describe colours without reference to other colours? It is ignorance on what we actually do when describing things!

To describe colours, we need to know how colours are gotten by combining other colors. Of course we cannot, by just staring at a location, tell its 'accurate' grid. To do that, we need measuring tapes and the like. In case of colours, this trabslates to the fact that will not always know the exact composition of colours, by just staring at them, without mixing them and checking the resulting colours. knowing that the color purple is a misture of red and blue is as good as knowing how these constituent colors look like. But knowing that going to the Giza pyramid is a mixture of 'going to south and going to east' is similarly as good as knowing these 'primary' directions.

So there is actually no reason to think that colors are any less describable that spatial configurations. The habit of thinking otherwise comes from erroneous ideas we got in schools from il conceived 'science'. Scientists, for instance, found a corelation between colors and light wavelengths.This led them and some philosophers to the erroneous idea that colors are actually spatial configurations. But they hit a wall in trying to describe colors in terms of spatial configurations. This is a big error in thinking! We describe locations using reference to other locations. So we should also stop at describing colors using reference to other colors. When we do that, we find that describing color blue is as good as describing the location of Giza, or describing a sphere.

You can see directly that color blue is a color in between green an indigo, just like when locating things. In this way describing 'blue' as 'the color between green and indigo is as excellent as describing a UFO as to be lieing between two given trees when trying to tell someone where it is. So you can see that it is challenging to describe the location of the UFO without reference to other locations. This challenge is the same as the challenge of trying to describe 'blue' without reference to any other color like it is 'describing it to a blind person'.

With all this, it cannot be the case that our inner experience is simply 'indescribable with words'. Rather, we simply have no way of ascertaining when we are experiencing the same things. If we could, we would point to the experiences and invent names for the various of them. Soon, there would be a complete language that is fit in describing those inner experiences by referencing other inner experiences and by performing appropriate 'inner experiments' to see how various combination of experiences yield other experiences. So the hindrance in description is not inherent in those experiences but rather in the fact that they are private.

THE HORSE: So I can say that many people learnt elementary geometry but not the 'geometry' of Hilbert Spaces?

THE LION: Yep, but I add that even the mathematicians themselves are yet to understand what they are doing.

## Comments