Not sure if it would interest you, but there's a wiki article on this. You might find this Wiki section useful as well.

Anyways, thanks for the post. Sounds like you could probably read [translations of] Einstein's original papers on relativity if you were interested. Apparently they are remarkably short and simple. Otherwise just remember that dimensionality is simply how many numbers are required to describe an object. For location (in time and space), that seems to be 4, but an arbitrary set of properties will result in a particular dimensionality. For example, if I chose to describe particles in terms of x-y-z-t position, x-y-z momentum, and charge, then particles are described by 8 coordinates and I could reformulate physics based on that...

This is a common occurrence. If you look into tesseracts, which are essentially four dimensional cubes, you can observe a common geometric aesthetic as with the DMT experience. Computer models can generate higher than four dimensional geometry rendered on your two dimensional screen, and I see little reason to include time as the fourth dimension when extra spatial dimensions are clearly both theoretical as in the case of the computer models, and found "in nature" via the DMT experience. These dimensions are created by juxtaposing planes at right angles to each other.

Also, I think somewhere some time back everyone got used to the idea of time as the fourth dimension. I don't see a need for this distinction, and it really doesn't make too much sense to me. From my journeys in hyperspace, it seems quite clear that we can add extra spatial dimensions without the need of talking about time as the fourth dimension.

It makes more sense to me that we probably have a certain set of spatial dimensions along with a (possibly smaller set) of temporal dimensions. So let's start at the bottom up, and see how far we get. In geometry we have a zero dimensional point. It is really more theoretical than anything. If we think about a zero dimensional point in time that would be a moment...you know that one that just went by....and here comes another...did you see it? Of course it's easy to see how that's just as theoretical and conceptual as the zero dimensional point in space.

So moving on, we have a one dimensional line in geometry so our corresponding temporal dimension would be a linear one dimensional line in time. This seems to be the way that we tend to experience time (or at least the way we tend to think about the way that we experience time regardless if it's true or not). In two dimensional time (which by my guess would be closer to the way we probably experience time on a day to day basis) time is still somewhat linear, but it's got more flexing room for distortion. I view this as somewhat akin to time flying when you're having fun seeming unusually slow at the dentist's office, but things don't get too wacky in this temporal dimension.

Three dimensional time is something I feel I've experienced on DMT. Can I be sure? Of course not. I can't be sure of anything I've just said, but during some of my godhead experiences, as I approach the godhead, the "particles of time" quite literally seem to dilate into spheroids. I want to stress it's not something that I see visually, but it is perceived in some fashion though I can't really describe it. Time expands and expands and expands until it comes to a grinding halt. This reminds me of the "highest" theoretical spatial dimension which might assume that it encapsulates all of the other spatial dimensions to come before it, and is therefore the 1 sum of the whole. This is how time comes across in the presence of the godhead to me which seems interestingly fitting anyway now that I think about it. Now I don't know if that particular dimension is the fourth temporal dimension or higher, but I see it as a better way to address time than to have a bunch of spatial dimensions and then the fourth one is time and then we're on to whatever. It just seems so inconsistent

if you're a physicist then excuse the absurd simplication of Einstein's theory above - you must have cringed

Having got as far as understanding the basic formula I'd love to delve deeper.

I think that using physics to describe a psychedelic experience will, in general, require a reformulation or extension of some aspect of physics. This means that integrating your psychedelic experience with a physics model will require a balancing act of learning from mainstream physics whilst not getting trapped in the mainstream framework. I used to have psychedelic ideas about physics, but nowadays they tend to be dominated by what I have learned.

Computer models can generate higher than four dimensional geometry rendered on your two dimensional screen

Why do you think it is that human beings are capable to access higher dimensional sensory data?

Moreover, why can't we in everyday consciousness?

why can't we in everyday consciousness?

We do access higher dimensions in everyday consciousness: When you look at a scene you perceive three spatial dimensions + hue + brightness... That's at least 5 dimensions right there, meaning every object in your field of view could be described by at least 5 numbers. I say "at least" because if you add layers of perception such as "usefulness", "hazardousness", "is it alive?", etc. (which are all things that one might reasonably be aware of when they glance over objects), then the dimensionality of visual perception alone can become very large; e.g. 8-dimensional by my ever-rising count, and I haven't even included the other senses yet.

Based on this presence of nowness, I don't think of time as a higher dimension, more as a mind conecpt.

Can we be sure, that what we percieve is information of higher dimensions?

I certainly was hoping psychedelics could help one get a different perspective on what time really is but it seems not so.

I then ask what value does DMT have if (from an evolutionist perspective) we only exist to survive and procreate?

We do access higher dimensions in everyday consciousness: When you look at a scene you perceive three spatial dimensions + hue + brightness... That's at least 5 dimensions right there, meaning every object in your field of view could be described by at least 5 numbers. I say "at least" because if you add layers of perception such as "usefulness", "hazardousness", "is it alive?", etc. (which are all things that one might reasonably be aware of when they glance over objects), then the dimensionality of visual perception alone can become very large; e.g. 8-dimensional by my ever-rising count, and I haven't even included the other senses yet.