I have a project I’m working on with Joe and Chris Truss, called Book of Codes, in which we hypothesize the ‘We Live in a Tetraverse‘.

The challenge is that during my exploration into the Tetraverse I’m trying to dig into math, physics, and now even chemistry, at levels far beyond my comprehension. So, even when I use AI to assist in my thinking, the discussion goes above my head very quickly. My current exploration is with the Periodic Table of Elements.

I think the periodic table is a fantastic 2D model representation of a 3D model… and that a 3D model could provide greater insights, and demonstrate connections between the elements that the planar/2D model can not.

This line of thinking is inspired by Joe, and the insights he provided by demonstrating that the 2D Enneagram is just a planar view of a 3D Enneagram found inside of an icosahedron.

So I went to Perplexity and tried to see what 3D model of the periodic table it could come up with using a tetrahedral/Tetraverse based design… and very quickly I realized I need to know more about chemistry to really understand what’s going on here. This is the biggest challenge I have when exploring the idea that we live in a Tetraverse. The geometry makes intuitive sense, but I don’t have the science background to support the intuition.

The project, Book of Codes, is essentially based on the idea that we live in a 3D world and that the geometry behind it is intuitive, and that we can make better sense of the world if we understand the geometry. And I would not spend as much time as I do thinking about this if I didn’t believe this to be true. However, I always feel like whenever I connect these ideas to the real world I’m left lacking in knowledge to make the connections I want to make. Case in point, the results of my Perplexity query led me to a model that already existed.

And the advantage this provides? I’m not smart enough to understand it even with Perplexity’s explanation. That’s my challenge. It’s not that the ‘math doesn’t math’, it’s that I don’t know the math well enough to know if the math maths?

All that said, more videos to come from Joe and I. One key premise we are working on is that the current X,Y,Z models of 3D space work on a cubist/Cartesian view of the world, which is ‘necessary but not sufficient’ to understand our world. And so when venturing into the really small and really large parts of our universe, we end up with irrational calculations (like the square root of 2, the hypotenuse of a 1 X 1 right angle triangle), but if we move from a Cartesian model to a Tetrahedral model, the need to calculate using irrational numbers is removed… Essentially, the Cartesian model works but the Tetrahedral model provides a geometric model of the world that is higher in resolution and will eliminate the need to calculate using irrational numbers.

However, even removing the irrationals, the math, the physics, the chemistry, are all still beyond my comprehension, which makes proving our points very hard to do.