What is the reason for these differences of power and function? According to the Higher Space Hypothesis they are due to varying potencies of movement in the secret causeways and corridors of space. The higher functions of consciousness--volition, emotion, intellection--may be in some way correlated with the higher powers of numbers, and with the corresponding higher developments of space. Thus would the difference between physics and metaphysics become a difference of degree and not of kind. Evolution is to be conceived of as a continuous pushing back of the boundary between representation and reality, or as a conquest of space. We may conceive of space as of an infinite number of dimensions, and of consciousness as a moving--or rather as an expanding--point, embracing this infinity, involving worlds, powers, knowledges, felicities, within itself in everlasting progression. III PHYSICAL PHENOMENA LOOKING FOR THE GREATER IN THE LESS After the assured way in which the author has conducted the reader repeatedly up and down the dimensional ladder, it may be a surprise to learn that physical phenomena offer no irrefragable evidences of hyper-dimensionality. We could not think in higher space if consciousness were limited to three dimensions. The mathematical reality of higher space is never in question: the higher dimensions are as valid as the lower, but the hyper-dimensionality of matter is still unproven. Man's ant-like efforts to establish this as a truth have thus far been vain. Lest this statement discourage the reader at the very outset, he should understand the reason for such failure. We are _embedded_ in our own space, and if that space be embedded in higher space, how are we going to discover it? If space is curved, how are we going to measure its curvature? Our efforts to do so may be compared to measuring the distance between the tips of a bent bow by measuring along the bow instead of along the string. Imagine a scientifically-minded threadworm to inhabit a page of Euclid's solid geometry: the evidences of three-dimensionality are there, in the very diagrams underneath his eyes; but you could not _show_ him a solid--the flat page could not contain it, any more than our space can contain a form of four dimensions. You could only say to him, "These lines _represent_ a solid." He would have to depend on his _faith_ for belief and not on that "knowledge gained by exact observation and correct thinking" in which alone the scientist finds a sure ground for understanding.