The world around us is given to us in sensations. It is unlikely that anyone will come to mind to dispute this textbook fact. Everyday experience also teaches that for orientation in the surrounding world, most people feel it as a four-dimensional (including time as a dimension) space. And all the arguments about a different multidimensionality of space are the point of view of one or another individual. Thus, the observable properties of any object depend on the observer. Any number of measurements (which only an observer can make) does not change the properties of the environment, but it changes the observer's picture and his point of view. Therefore, the generally accepted point of view is not absolute, but only one of the infinite sets.

   Similarly, this reality is one of many points of view and depends only on the observer. And attempts to define the essence of things outside of human consciousness are absurd by definition. Just as attempts to classify things inside consciousness are fruitless, since they reflect only one of countless points of view. Two–dimensional or three-dimensional (except for time) space came up - and they began to use it. At the same time, in art, a person makes extensive use of both two-dimensional (in painting) and three-dimensional (in sculpture) spaces. It is quite possible that primitive life forms perceive the world as one-dimensional. Returning to the described models of the multidimensional world, it should be remembered that they are used by people because they are familiar, but by no means as objective as possible.

  There seems to be a slight difference between agnostic theists and agnostic atheists, but it is not remarkable. Because both of them believe that earthly beings are unable to understand the Truth, and it is, in the final understanding, inaccessible to people. And instead of empty and meaningless searches for it (as in Gnosticism), all sages (including the priests of the Temple) should be engaged in finding constructive practical solutions to pressing problems. Such agnosticism, in terms of level, is by no means inferior to the actual scientific one. He is completely devoid of any signs of pluralism that modern philosophical agnosticism possesses, and one should think that his relationship with modern aggressive gnosticism (such as Islamism) will be quite adequate. For, in the relationship of aggression and peacefulness, no pluralism is inappropriate. And reborn (Jewish?) agnosticism will, in all cases, receive preference.

  Conceptual symbolism is based on the symbols of our thinking, as the basis of our ideas about the environment. These ideas are constantly changing and the picture of the surrounding world is also changing. As for the dimension of conceptual symbolism, the number of dimensions is also no more than one of the (infinite) points of view and it is hardly possible to judge how correct it is - or just strange. The advantage of this view is that it goes deep to the origins of consciousness and allows us to analyze not only the consequences, but also the causes of phenomena – simply because of the symbolism of our thinking. It is only necessary to take into account that a final verdict is impossible in principle – and this is the meaning of ideas about agnosticism, as about the inexhaustible diversity of the surrounding world.