Greetings to all! I am Handa, a researcher at the Noosology Research Institute of Musashino Gakuin University. It’s been a while since my last video, but from now on, I intend to post new videos more frequently.

In my previous research videos, I have extensively explored subjective space, emphasizing its ontological difference from objective space. To provide a foundation for understanding the spatial epistemology developed by Noosology, I have drawn upon the philosophies of Omori Shozo, Bergson, and Deleuze, considering each perspective and integrating them into a comprehensive framework.

I am excited to present the concepts of Noosology’s spatial theory, providing insights into a unique approach to understanding it.

As discussed in previous videos, our common understanding considers our subjective space to be an integral part of the objective space. In other words, it is regarded as a portion of the space seen from outside our bodies.

It is generally assumed that we, as small individuals, exist within a vast expanse of space-time. This assumption leads to the common understanding that our brains perceive the external world through sensory organs like the eyes and ears.

Many people seem to accept the idea that space is a continuously expanding entity, or “extension,” as the basis for spatial cognition without question. However, Noosology boldly challenges such a conventional view of spatial cognition.

Because I strongly believe that it is time for humanity as a whole to shift from such a paradigm of “extension.”

The conventional scientific perspective posits that space is a vastly expansive realm where various natural phenomena physically occur. However, this notion of space is limited to the conceptual framework of modern science. If we consider the immanent aspect of human consciousness, I propose that such a notion has displaced us from our original space.

I firmly adhere to the notion that space-time is a matrix, effectively confining humans outside our primordial space, which I refer to as Zion. Drawing from the latest insights in physics and philosophy, I appeal to you to consider this viewpoint.

That being said, the concept of space as an “expansion” based on space-time does not allow the “self” to define a site of their existence, their lived space. Surprisingly, neither the scientific nor the philosophical academic communities have yet succeeded in conceptualizing this subjective space inhabited by the “self.”

In my previous critique of Shigeki Noya’s “view theory,” I proposed that subjective space should be solely perceived from within our internal perspective. This distinction is crucial, as subjective space is never a component of objective space. In essence, I urge you NOT to think of the world you are seeing now as space-time.

Well, that sounds outrageous, right? Some will say, “What on earth is Handa talking about?” “If this space is not space-time, then what is it?” Naturally, some will be skeptical and even accusatory. Of course, I am well aware of that.

Today, I intend to provide a detailed explanation of how Noosology interprets the relationship between space-time and subjective space. Rooted in this vision, I will present a hypothesis that the structure of our subjective space directly corresponds to the realm of elementary particles governed by quantum dynamics.

Put simply, the hypothesis suggests that the world we perceive is, fundamentally, the immanent world where the elementary particles operate. Accepting such an idea from a contemporary scientific perspective will be challenging.

In the forthcoming videos, I will deliver a carefully constructed, sequential explanation for this hypothesis, ensuring that Noosology’s stance is not perceived as mythical.

This time, I will unveil spatial concepts exclusive to Noosology, “The Outside and the Inside of a Human.” These concepts serve as the gateway to the novel idea. Your undivided attention will be greatly appreciated.

Now, let’s get started.

This is it. First, here is an acrylic sheet, you see.

Two perpendicular arrows are depicted on this acrylic sheet. Can you see them? Due to their subtlety, they might be a little hard to discern.

Let’s suppose these arrows are the coordinate axes of a 2-dimensional space, namely the x-axis and y-axis. Well, from your perspective, I should place the sheet this way: x-axis and y-axis.

Now, let me place this sheet directly in front of me. Given that we customarily observe this two-dimensional plane from a three-dimensional perspective, we can promptly recognize that this sheet possesses two distinct surfaces: the front and the backside.

Based on my orientation, this side is the front, and the opposite is the back. The visible side, frequently referred to as the front, is commonly perceived as the outside. Conversely, the not-visible side, the back, is typically considered the inside.

Then, let us define these as the outside and the inside in a two-dimensional realm. As you notice, we are conceptualizing a mere surface’s existence in space by involving an observer with it.

Crucially, when considering these two opposing surfaces (the outside and the inside in a two-dimensional realm), the direction of the observer’s gaze aligns with the side in question. I trust you grasp my point.

This direction is the outside gaze observing the outside, and this direction is the inside gaze observing the inside.

Since the inside is not directly observable, this direction, the inside gaze, is solely a product of the imagination.

Please keep this in mind. The inside is the world composed of imagination, not reality.

In the next step of Noosology, we aim to expand the notion of the outside and the inside from a two-dimensional to a three-dimensional realm. More specifically, we intend to create a clear distinction between the inside and the outside in three-dimensional space.

Naturally, to make a distinction, we need to consider two directions of gazes originating from the fourth dimension.

When we can differentiate the outside from the inside of three-dimensional space by locating the origin of our gaze in the fourth dimension, we will acquire so-called four-dimensional cognition.

Currently, we do not have four-dimensional cognition. Consequently, we do not even think of the outside and the inside in our three-dimensional space.

However, as four-dimensional cognition takes shape through Noosology’s thought process, which I will introduce hereafter, the distinction between the outside and the inside in three-dimensional space will become clear.

Furthermore, the significance of the directions of gaze in the fourth dimension, which observes the outside and inside in three-dimensional space, will become clear.

Thus, the acquisition of such four-dimensional cognition will overturn our conventional image of space from its very foundation.

Here, in Noosology’s concept, “the outside and the inside of a human” comes into play. The concept differentiates the outside from the inside of three-dimensional space by employing a four-dimensional perspective. — well, the inside is in this direction, and the outside is in this direction. — What, then, is the meaning of “the inside and the outside of a human?” I shall provide an explanation.

Previously, I have mentioned that Shozo Omori considered our perceptual front to be our mind. Omori’s “perceptual front” refers to the space of our field of vision. It is the space that constitutes our “view toward the world,” appearing in our field of vision as it is.

Our perceptual “view” itself includes perspective or spatial distance in the depth direction. In other words, although the term “perceptual front” implies a two-dimensional plane surface, it is actually cognized as a three-dimensional space.

Today, I brought a model of the three-dimensional coordinate axes with me. To help your comprehension, I even made these axes absurdly thick! You see?

OK, let’s apply this three-axis model to the space we see in front of us. Here, we’ll assign the x-axis to the left-right direction, the y-axis to the up-down direction, and the z-axis to the forward-backward direction.

Usually, when we consider this space to be three-dimensional, we tend to set the three-dimensional coordinates in such a way that our gaze is aligned with the z-axis.

Nevertheless, such an arrangement of the axes induces us, as observers, to identify with our physical bodies in three-dimensional space. As a result, we come to see ourselves as physical entities immersed in the same dimension. However, such a notion has been a component of our common sense.

Claiming “Our space is three-dimensional!” we align our physical bodies or eyes with this third-dimensional direction. However, (as I mentioned in the 6th video: “Depth as the Fourth dimension: On the Location of Ontological Difference”) if we tilt this model in a way that the formation of these axes looks like “water” in the Chinese character, then we view what we see as it is as our perceptual front…

From your angle, it looks like this. See? Doesn’t it look like “water?”

When we place the model of three-dimensional coordinates this way and take the appearance as our perceptual front, we can infer that our gaze incident perpendicularly from the fourth dimension into the three-dimensional space.

Mathematically speaking, the three-dimensional coordinates can be seen as a three-dimensional isometric projection. This means these axes are projected at the same angle, 60 degrees. Furthermore, the space onto which the three-dimensional coordinates are projected is our subjective space, and our gaze, from the direction of the fourth-dimensional axis, operates this three-dimensional isometric projection.

In other words, I propose that our consciousness as the observer is not present in this three-dimensional space but cognizing it from the fourth dimension. That is what I am saying.

Now, if we suppose that the observer is in the fourth dimension, how can we imagine such a location in the fourth-dimensional direction? You cannot find it in this three-dimensional space.

It is crucial to consider that an observer gazing at three-dimensional space from the fourth dimension remains unaffected by any spatial movement within the three-dimensional realm.

In other words, regardless of where the observer moves within this three-dimensional space — in this case, I am the

observer, so no matter how I move — my gaze as the observer, located in the fourth dimension, must be considered immobile in this space.

Put this way: although the physical body of the observer moves anywhere, the gaze of the observer as their consciousness never moves in this space. In other words, in four-dimensional cognition, the observer is absent in three-dimensional space. Thus, any motions appearing on the field of their vision are, indeed, happening in the three-dimensional space projected on the observer’s viewing space. Do you follow me?

Now, let me show you firsthand. For example, when I move in this direction, a new set of three-dimensional coordinates appears before me. Such translational changes in three dimensions can be expressed as a shift of coordinates in the XYZ directions on my perceptual front.

Assuming the x-axis is extended and the coordinates move in the same direction, this indicates a translational movement of the coordinates, specifically along the x-coordinate. The same is true for rotation movements. We can consider that rotating the coordinates is equivalent to rotating space itself while keeping the observer stationary. This is achieved by moving the observer’s position to the fourth dimension, rendering them immobile in that dimension.

We usually imagine our movements by projecting the images onto three-dimensional space. These images, however, are merely the mind products formed by viewing the space externally, that is, objectively from the three-dimensional viewpoint.

Four-dimensional cognition is the cognition of space as viewed internally from the position of one’s consciousness. Therefore, regardless of physical movements, the position of their observation remains absolutely static. By adopting this notion, we recover the reality of our subjective space, which is the space we view internally.

Simply put, our viewing space can be comparable to a PC monitor screen. The 3D world is projected on the monitor from the three-dimensional world, just like the world of VR. In fact, this is the space from the first-person perspective, and it is the state of subjective space as reality.

Essentially, when you envision yourself as a material body moving in three-dimensional space, your spatial cognition becomes contaminated with your objective notion of space viewed from an external perspective. Such an objective notion is a noise. To establish a pure subjective space, you must eliminate this noise.

Anyway, I hope you will intuit the reality of subjective space by firmly grasping the absolute immobility of your consciousness in the fourth dimension. In addition, you, the dweller in the fourth dimension, have never moved since you were born.

If we consider this viewing space to be a PC monitor, what does the observer’s fixed position in the fourth dimension mean from a scientific viewpoint? From here on, I will draw on my knowledge of physics to provide a more structured explanation.