Hmm. okay I understand that you still disagree but I don't get your point. > So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the a

Hmm. okay I understand that you still disagree but I don't get your point. > So I think you can tactically play football and chess equivalents in 1D, but the actual movements required to execute the game still require three dimensions I don't know what you mean by tactically. I never played football in 1D in my life and I think no one ever has, except if you are referring to a computer game or computer simulation. But I have played blindfold games without a chessboard and without a computer. > but you can't move your pawn forward on the board in 1D you don't need a board to play chess. A chess board be it in 2D representation on a computer screen or in 3D in real life is just a optional representation of the chess game, but you don't need it. > a computer or any existing encoding of data that we have today requires representation in 3 (or however many you think we have) I think we most likely have (according to theories that are mathematically sound) four non-compact dimension and seven that are curled up, so 11, but obviously there's no proof for that.