Mathematics teachers apply the thought experiment to lower dimensions than three, e.g. imagine what a circle would look like if we lived in two dimensions and could only see it side-on or standing on the circumference or inside. Then the experiment is applied to higher dimensions, suggesting that if we lived in four dimensions we could make distinctions that we are unable to make in our actual three-dimensional world. We cannot imagine what a four-dimensional cube would look like to a four-dimensional observer. But we can imagine that the experience would be as different as our observation of a circle is from that of a person who lived in two dimensions. Just as a two-dimensional observer could calculate the nature of a circle, without being able to observe one as a consistent figure, so we can calculate the dimensions of a four-dimensional cube and translate partial views of it into our three-dimensional experience and our two dimensional drawings.

I think an early example, not using the expression 'higher dimensions', is Plato's cave. We do not live in a cave. But we stand in relation to knowledge just as people who live in a cave would stand in relation to those who experience sunlight and sky. In that sense, it is as if we live in a cave. We now have only unreliable opinion and shifting belief. We have the means of reaching the higher dimension of knowledge but we are unwilling to accept that reality is different from our daily experience.

I have heard many metaphysical people that believe in afterlife, psychics, and the like talk about other dimensions or even higher dimensions. But what exactly do they mean other than places that aren't here? To my knowledge dimensions are only things that have been applied to mathematics? — TiredThinker

Before the 20th century, the meaning of "Dimension" was obvious : a physical measurement, typically expressed with a vector of compass direction & measured magnitude. Then, Einstein muddied the waters by merging the three spatial (physical) dimensions with the singular temporal (mental) dimension. Next, Quantum Theory proposed the physically-vague-but-mathematically-useful notion of Meta-Physical (mathematical) Fields, imagined as extended in space, but consisting of 0-dimensional points that are defined only by reference to an imaginary grid. Eventually, the hypothetical notions of Many Worlds & Multiverses extended the range of discussable dimensions to infinity. Meanwhile, the Physical meaning of "Dimension" has been applied to various Meta-Physical (mental ; non-physical) postulations.

Last year, TPF had a thread based on the notion of a 5th Dimension of Mind/Consciousness. But when I asked the poster for a specific definition of that "dimension", she refused, on principle --- implying that I should just accept it on faith. She also declined to describe how that "dimension" could be measured. So, I concluded that she was simply applying the "5th Dimension" label to the ancient concepts of Platonic Ideals (potential Forms) and Aristotelian Metaphysics (ideas about ideas). But they weren't talking about "afterlife" or "psychic phenomena" and such.

Therefore, I concluded that postulating a "5th dimension" was merely a sneaky way to make metaphysical concepts sound more sciency. Personally, I find "Idealism" & "Metaphysics" to be more useful terms for talking about mental objects (ideas ; Philosophy), but not for discussing physical bodies & forces (corporeal ; Science). Since the topical subject "matter" of Mathematics is ideas about immaterial philosophical abstractions, it is a proper venue for discussions about higher dimensions. But, due to the non-physical intellectual nature of such abstract concepts, as with all philosophical postulates, we need to be willing to carefully define terms. And to expect some skepticism about things you can't put a finger on. :smile:

Thought experiments are one thing, but people who straight up claim that death or even astral projection can show us these higher dimensions is quite another?

What is metaphysical? Just like virtual particles that can become real in our scientific sense? Is spiritual stuff outside of both physical and metaphysical stuff?

What is metaphysical? Just like virtual particles that can become real in our scientific sense? Is spiritual stuff outside of both physical and metaphysical stuff? — TiredThinker

I like to use the taboo term "Metaphysics" in the Aristotelian sense of Mental vs Material objects. So yes, when scientists use the term "Virtual" regarding particles of matter, they are obliquely referring to statistical potential (probability) as if those mathematical (imaginary) objects were already real & actual. The existence of Virtual particles (dimensionless points in an imaginary matrix) is Meta-Physical*1, in the sense that they have no physically measurable properties. Their mathematical properties are known by logical inference, not by physical observation. The ancients imagined that Life & Mind existed in some invisible parallel "spiritual" realm. But those abstract features of the real world are no more spiritual than mundane Mathematics*2.

Unfortunately, the Latin descriptive term (after the Physics) was applied to Aristotle's second volume of his Physics, by theologians. In volume two, he discussed, not sensory observations of physical objects, but imaginary philosophical ideas about both mental & material aspects of the world. To this day, those ideal mental models are the "stuff" of philosophy. On this forum, as amateur dabblers in philosophy, we use Reason as a microscope to examine the metaphysical objects of other minds (their ideas). Fortunately, those non-physical mind-objects exist in the real world of human minds, not in some inaccessible alternative world. :smile:

*1. Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled (by theologians) as “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

*2. What is mathematics? :
Mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do.
https://www.livescience.com/38936-mathematics.html

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about.

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof

... says the guy whose astral projection is off the charts! :grin:

:sparkle:

Whenever I hear someone equate "astral projection" or "afterlife" with "higher dimensions" what I hear them really saying is "otherworldly" (i.e. woo woo-of-the-gaps). Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof
... says the guy whose astral projection is off the charts! :grin: — Agent Smith

As you well know, thinks my use of the philosophical term "Meta-Physics" is a reference to "otherworldly" dimensions. Hence, his "woo-woo" sneers. This despite any "astral projection", "afterlife", or "higher dimension" assertions. My worldview is indeed BothAnd, which includes both empirical science and theoretical philosophy as overlapping magisteria. Apparently, his view is Either/Or (Black or White -- no overlap), so his snide responses are shooting at the wrong target, in the gray area ("the gap") beyond the scope of physical science. I hope you don't make the same mistake.

From his Physical vs Anti-physical perspective, even the mental aspects of the Real world must fall under the category of Physical. So, the Mind must be identical with the brain. But the emergence of animal Minds in the world is a recent innovation of physical evolution, and left no physical fossils for evidence. Moreover, human Minds appeared on the scene only a few thousand years ago. Then, in the blink of an eye -- on the time frame of evolution -- those minds took over the creative role of Evolution. But it wasn't just tangled webs of physical neurons that accelerated the rate of evolution via Culture. Instead, it was the advent of metaphysical Reason that made the difference that makes an enormous difference in the character of the universe.

So, you could ask him what kind of physical stuff Reason is made of, and what physical forces force Reason to follow a particular path. Of course his answer will be to presumptuously equate Reason with Brain. Which would make the professions of Psychology & Philosophy subject to the same physical laws that make apples fall to the ground. But even gravity is Metaphysical, in the sense that Newton implied*1 *2. In that case, one of the founders of Classical Physics would be guilty of committing "woo-woo".

In my own transgressions across the forbidden line, I refer to the Agent behind all energies & forces of the world by various terms, such as : First Cause. And that's as "otherworldly" or "higher dimensional" as I get. In my defense though, even respected scientists also conjecture extra-dimensional worlds : as in Many Worlds and Multiverse theories. So, it seems that I am in good company, when I make philosophical "woo" postulations ; while admitting, like Newton, that I don't know anything specific about the ultimate Causal Agent of this world. And I don't "just make sh*t up" to fill that pre-big-bang gap. :smile:


*1. Gravity may put the planets into motion, but without the divine Power, it could never put them into such a circulating motion as they have about the Sun; and therefore, for this as well as other reasons, I am compelled to ascribe the frame of this System to an intelligent Agent. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/isaac-newton-quotes

*2. Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain laws, but whether this Agent be material or immaterial is a question I have left to the consideration of my readers. ___ Isaac Newton
https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00258

My worldview is indeed BothAnd, which includes both empirical science and theoretical philosophy as overlapping magisteria. — Gnomon

:ok: Proves my point once again:

Folks just make shit up, especially when they don't know that they don't know what they're talking about. — 180 Proof

:sweat:

Apparently, his view is Either/Or (Black or White -- no overlap) ... From his Physical vs Anti-physical perspective... — Gnomon

"Bark bark" at another strawman's shadow. :roll:

I keep an open mind - Enformationism isn't such a bad theory. I've seen worse (word salads of PoMo) and surely @180 Proof agrees. The quality of your work shines through the citations, quotations, references, and overall coherency of your posts expressing a novel & interesting take on the nature of reality.

You know it could be said that of the omni-attributes of god, Enformationism is an exposition/elaboration on omniscience. This is the information age as I once told you - the time's perfect for a Lord of Information.

I have heard many metaphysical people that believe in afterlife, psychics, and the like talk about other dimensions or even higher dimensions. But what exactly do they mean other than places that aren't here? To my knowledge dimensions are only things that have been applied to mathematics? — TiredThinker

This video is a great illustration of higher dimensional objects:

I keep an open mind - Enformationism isn't such a bad theory. I've seen worse (word salads of PoMo) and surely 180 Proof agrees. — Agent Smith

I don't agree. "Enformationism" is pseudo-science like "Intelligent Design" & "cold fusion" which, in my book, is worse than bad philosophy (i.e. sophistry) like p0m0.

I keep an open mind - Enformationism isn't such a bad theory. I've seen worse (word salads of PoMo) and surely 180 Proof agrees.
— Agent Smith
I don't agree. "Enformationism" is pseudo-science like "Intelligent Design" which, in my book, is worse than merely bad philosophy (i.e. sophistry) like p0m0. — 180 Proof

This flaw you refer to is part and parcel of attempts to reconcile traditional enemies like science & religion, you know that. Gnomon's position, to refresh both your memories, is that of Euler's who penned a mathematical treatise on music - he was a mathematician to musicans and a musician to mathematicians, promptly falling between the two stools. I view @Gnomon as some sort of negotiator/arbiter, trying to find the middle ground between science and faith and, to my reckoning, he's made considerable progress - more needs to be done, but he regularly tests his ideas, against seasoned philosophers like yourself for example.

Of course this doesn't mean Gnomon is correct, but he makes sense to me at some level. You seem to have found flaws, small & big, in Enformationism and hence your hostile pronouncements; alas, I'm not privy to them.

No, s/he does not dare test those "ideas" against me. @Gnomon is afraid to answer my questions which arise out of the inconsistencies, invalid inferences & factual errors I find throughout the presentation of his/her "ideas". If "trying to find a middle ground between" e.g. 'astronomy & astrology' or 'defeasible reasoning & magical thinking' is what s/he is after, then Gnomon is, at best, merely tilting at windmills and, since s/he won't engage in even semi-rigorous dialectic, it's reasonable to assume that there's no there there for Gnomon to soundly demonstrate or defend.

Gnomon's theory is pantheistic - if he uses the word "god" (Enformer) he does so in a way different from what a Christian or Moslem would. It's very much like the Star Wars notion of The Force which the Jedi and the Sith draw their powers from :grin: You like Star Wars, I know you do. The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree?

Also, Enformationism, especially its BothAnd concept, a derivative of Chinese Taoist yin-yang does a good job of explaining reality - pairs in opposition are the foundation of most processes we know (social, political, interpersonal, physical, chemical, etc. transformations are driven by a difference in magnitude and sign; think of an ordinary pencil battery mon ami + and - (1.5 Volts). We have to then, Gnomon goes on to say, think holistically which to my reckoning means, at least till we can settle the matter, hear, your honor :smile: , both sides of the story.

What sayest thou?

I view Gnomon as some sort of negotiator/arbiter, trying to find the middle ground between science and faith and, to my reckoning, he's made considerable progress - more needs to be done, but he regularly tests his ideas, against seasoned philosophers like yourself for example.
Of course this doesn't mean Gnomon is correct, but he makes sense to me at some level. You seem to have found flaws, small & big, in Enformationism and hence your hostile pronouncements; alas, I'm not privy to them. — Agent Smith

I hadn't thought of myself as a "negotiator", but maybe I'm a navigator. Trying to negotiate a safe passage between the Scylla of Science and the Charybdis of Faith. seems to be unaware that I long-ago left-behind my childhood indoctrination in the philosophy of Faith. But I am also aware that empirical (materialistic) Science has a sort of blind spot (inherent in the philosophy of Materialism) : the non-physical (mental ; cultural ; informational) aspects of reality. To me, the advent of Rational Mind in a material world is much more important than the advent of a sentimental Savior in an imperial Roman world. However, I don't pretend to be so morally or intellectually superior to those who still cling to their Faith (including my own family), that has been stretched over 2000 years, but hasn't completely snapped yet.

My personal BothAnd philosophy may be a modern version of Aristotle's Golden Mean*1 -- advising moderation in all things. In my experience, Either/Or extremism is the root of all kinds of evil. 180wooboo is indeed a "seasoned philosopher", but he seems to find Aristotle too wishy-washy for his more critical taste. I am merely an amateur dabbler in philosophy, and most of my seasoning has been in the scientific fields of Quantum Theory and Information Theory. Hence, instead of quoting Wittgenstein, I quote Einstein ; instead of linking to abstruse tomes by Kierkegaard, I often link to the "improvisatory" writings of Donald Hoffman*2 *3 (revolutionary cognitive scientist). So, 180 has good reasons to feel superior to Gnomon . . . . as a philosopher.

Typically, his "found flaws" are focused on any of my ideas that don't conform to the "settled" classical science of the 18th & 19th centuries, which rejected the theological science of 13th century Catholicism. Hence, his "hostile pronouncements" on concepts that seem to imply divine intervention, or transcendence in general, or higher dimensions. However, I assure you, it is not my intention to ratify the doctrines of Imperial Religion, or ancient Oriental beliefs.

One reason you are "not privy" to 180's "found flaws" is that he tends to make broad general denunciations instead of tailored specific arguments. Which is why he seems to be frustrated by Gnomon's refusal to dialogue with his diatribes. So, in order to untwist his mis-interpretations of Gnomon's "folly", I like to engage with those who are not so prejudiced against non-mainstream ideas. :smile:


*1. Faces of Moderation: The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes :
Aristotle listed moderation as one of the moral virtues. He also defined virtue as the mean between extremes, implying that moderation plays a vital role in all forms of moral excellence.
https://polisci.indiana.edu/research/publications/faces-of-moderation-the-art-of-balance-in-an-age-of-extremes.html

*2. Q: “Is Donald Hoffmans Interface theory of perception largely accepted? Or do most scientists think evolution has meant we perceive the world relatively accurately?”
It is not largely accepted, but it is also not largely rejected. It provides an interesting way to work with the world, so it sits there as most theories do, considered whenever perception is considered, but not driving how we consider it.
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-have-any-proof-to-disprove-Donald-Hoffman-s-interface-theory-of-perception

*3. The Case Against Prof. Donald Hoffman’s Case Against Reality :
https://medium.com/@paulaustinmurphy2000/the-case-against-prof-donald-hoffmans-case-against-reality-f5fdf692a1c1

You like Star Wars, I know you do. — Agent Smith

Dude, stop ... :snicker:

In the summer '77 I was probably the only 13 y.o. in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, who wasn't WOW'd by Star Wars and grew to dislike it, even hate it, for being a flashy noisy live-action cartoon which insulted my already well-honed scifi nerdy intelligence ... — 180 Proof

:nerd: LLAP

The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

No, it's not "clever"; as you suggest, it's just a stand-in for "The Force" from 70s era kiddie s/fx porn masquerading as "quantum" "information" "non-physical energy" blah blah blah. You're advocacy, btw, isn't doing Gnomon's "ideas" any favors, Smith. :sweat:

Also, Enformationism, especially its BothAnd concept, a derivative of Chinese Taoist yin-yang does a good job of explaining reality - pairs in opposition ...

Complementarity is not "pairs in opposition", Smith. The latter negates the former. "BothAnd" is more coincidentia oppositorum (occult alchemy) than yinyang (nondual harmony). And I've asked @Gnomon more than a few times what exactly does "Enformationism", etc "explain" and s/he's yet to respond to my query or express clearly (in sum) that so-called "explanation". :yawn:

What sayest thou?

I say to "think holistically" is to think dialectically in Adorno's sense – not Hegel's sense – without "the telos", by which I mean 'knowns containing unknowns', such that the whole is infinite (unbounded) and not totalized (bounded) like this "Enformer"-of-the-gaps (aka "The Force" :lol:).

The Enformer is an organizing energy/principle (opposed to entropy according to Gnomon) that's behind the order we see in the universe. This is likely not scientifically valid, but quite clever, wouldn't you agree? — Agent Smith

180wooboo accuses Gnomon of "making sh*t up". And the gnarly gnome does make-up new terms to describe scientific terms that miss an important philosophical aspect of a physical concept. For example, Claude Shannon adopted the physics notion of Entropy for his theory of Information. But that only describes the negative un-informative result of disintegration of Information (e.g. disinformation). So the Gnome proposed the coinage "Enformy" to label the positive progressive feature of Nature that physicists dismissively mislabeled as "Negentropy" (negation of a negation). If creating new names for new concepts is "making sh*t up" then that's what philosophers and scientists do when faced with unprecedented concepts turned-up by pioneering investigators.

In recent years, professional physicists have begun to the equate the positive constructive features of Information*1 (Enformation ; power to enform) with the invisible causal physical agent we know as "Energy" (Negentropy). I assume that 180's philosophical "seasoning" did not include such cutting-edge science. In any case, the notion of a positive causal force organizing randomness into organization may be too woo for his taste. Cleverness aside, does it seem to be "scientifically valid", or philosophically reasonable to you? :smile:


*1. Notes on The Energy Equivalence of Information :
such information is the negative of entropy (negentropy) and is the equivalent of a cost in energy.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpca.7b09528
Note -- Energy (EnFormAction) is a Credit, while Entropy (dis-enformation) is a Debit in the ledger of Physics.


ENERGY / INFORMATION EQUIVALENCE

@180 Proof

The BothAnd of Enformstionism surely does explain the, how shall I put it?, the dialectical (+ vs. -) nature of interactions in reality - from a cooling cuppa tea on your table to this debate the three of us are engaged in, it's all duality at work. If you ask me, we can even make predictions - where do you think this convo is headed? The more one digs one's heels in, the more vulnerable one's position gets. I propose that we pursue some kinda ad interim philosophy e.g. physiciality is actual, nonphysicality is (only) a possibility and so materialism, but only provisionally, to be modified/swapped in the light of new evidence.

Thanks but I understand the geometry. I was just assuming ethereal lovers were imagining something real versus thought stuff only.

Thanks but I understand the geometry. I was just assuming ethereal lovers were imagining something real versus thought stuff only. — TiredThinker

:up:

I don't care how you interpret @Gnomon's "ideas" when s/he can't substantively address my questions. There's nothing s/he has presented yet worthy of deep discussion and, so long as s/he refuses to clarify points of contention or falsity in "Enformationism" etc, that's our impasse. For my part, I've not countered his "position" with another (post history is my witness!); I've only called into question a number of the conceptual flaws and factual errors which confuse his/her presentation; and so I won't waste anymore time responding to you, Smith, about Gnomon's "ideas" which s/he cannot critically defend on a site dedicated to philosophy.

I understand. Good day.

The BothAnd of Enformstionism surely does explain the, how shall I put it?, the dialectical (+ vs. -) nature of interactions in reality - from a cooling cuppa tea on your table to this debate the three of us are engaged in, it's all duality at work. — Agent Smith

Whew! These 180wooboo bushwacks are antithetical & polemic & off-topic. He seems to feel that an Idealistic or Holistic worldview is anti-science, and takes every opportunity to counter-attack what he interprets as an assault on "settled" Science. Yet, Enformationism is not presented on this forum as a scientific paradigm, so it makes no attempt to "explain" any scientific evidence. It does however interpret some bits of scientific evidence -- specifically Quantum Theory and Information Theory -- in terms of a personal philosophical worldview. So, Gnomon's Information-theoretic arguments are merely personal opinions, not assertions of physical fact. You are free to decide if a dualistic (complementary forces) & dialectic (decision tree) worldview makes sense for your own philosophical purposes --- higher dimensions or not.

Of course, an Idealistic Dialectical interpretation of Natural & Cultural "interactions" is significantly different -- not necessarily diametrically opposite -- from Materialistic Realism, including Marx's Dialectical Materialism. A dialectic view merely acknowledges the observed fact that natural forces have counter-forces : for every action there is an opposing reaction (that may or may not be equal). Newton was making an idealized equation. But in real-world interactions those impacts are seldom perfectly offset -- see Dialectic Diagram at bottom. That's why natural progressions typically follow a zig-zag or up & down path instead of a back & forth stasis, or circular recycling. Of course, the judgment of overall, or historical, direction-of-progression may be subject to personal values. :smile:

Hegel’s Dialectics :
As in Plato’s dialogues, a contradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel’s dialectics leads to a linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/
Note -- Some diagrams of these dialectic interactions are presented as non-progressive : simply marching in place, or going in circles. But most Evolutionary Dialectic diagrams show the pro-cess (to go forward) making progress from imperfect toward more perfect states. But the concept of pro-gression (to go forward) requires philosophical evaluation, whereas Scientific views are supposed to be value-neutral.

ZIG-ZAG MODEL OF EVOLUTION :


EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS : progressive or circular, by whose values ?
Note : The march of evolution actually had a few stumbles along the way. In this diagram the Antithesis set-backs were omitted. And the white guy leading the way is debatable.


EVOLUTIONARY PROGRESS : is complexity a higher value than simplicity?

Enformationism is not presented on this forum as a scientific paradigm, so it makes no attempt to "explain" any scientific evidence. — Gnomon

And yet my critique still stands
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/644062

especially given ststements like these:

The Enformationism thesis is indeed "exotic" and "non-standard". But that's only because it is on the cutting-edge of Information science & philosophy. — Gnomon

The core idea of yyEnformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2 — Gnomon

The Woo-lady doth protests too much, methinks. Reductionism of 'Its to Bits' is a speculative "scientific paradigm" (Wheeler, Wolfram et al). As I've pointed out (re: link above), Gnomon, your formulation is, however, pseudo-science akin to "cold fusion" & "intelligent design".

You like Star Wars, I know you do.
— Agent Smith
Dude, stop ... :snicker:
In the summer '77 I was probably the only 13 y.o. in the Northern Hemisphere, at least, who wasn't WOW'd by Star Wars and grew to dislike it, even hate it, for being a flashy noisy live-action cartoon which insulted my already well-honed scifi nerdy intelligence ... — 180 Proof

I only just saw this. Perfectly articulated... and I thought I was the only one... :flower:

:up: