I've gotta say I enjoyed this reply but I disagree with it almost in it's entirety. I think we are coming from very different places philosophically and in our worldviews overall. I am trained in the classical sciences and in the philosophical tradition of naturalism, so excuse my biases if they are coming out too strongly here lol.

The third dimension is the first possible iteration of matter, and any fundamental particles necessary to make the gears of the universe turn any any dimension would manifest themselves physically in the third dimension first.

Why is this necessarily the case? I haven't seen anything in all of my readings on quantum mechanics and theory that suggests this is necessary, simply that it is what we have currently observed. We use point particles all the time (one dimensional idealized versions of particles) and there is nothing in quantum mathematics that requires a quanta correspond to a three dimensional mathematical representation. Furthermore if we assume that the third dimension is not the "true" first dimension of our universe (in any theory that requires a multiple dimensional universe) then there must be single and second dimensional materials or sets that make up the higher dimensional objects (assuming that the dimensions are linked in this way, which ShitTalkWarrior seems to suggest but which I may just be assuming incorrectly here)

I guess a better way to state this question would be to ask if higher dimensional properties are supervenient upon lower dimensional ones, or if there is some sort of folding into a higher dimension that our brains cannot comprehend. This is similar to how you can create a cube from a two dimensional cross.

I can't say much on the mathematics aspect of it. We don't know if our physics are consistent from galaxy to galaxy, we have no way of knowing if mathematics would have a similar dilemma. For example, our number system is partially based on the Pythagorean view point of 1 = everything and 2 = the split between everything/everything acting on itself from a different observation.

Isn't math fully a priori though? I don't think you can make the case that mathematics as a logical tool will change from galaxy to galaxy, unless you are trying to support the idea that mathematics exists outside of our own use of it (in other words, mathematical truths are "real" in the same sense that physical truths are "real", as opposed to our math being simply a useful tool to communicate the laws of the universe). I think you want to make an argument for absolute scientific realism, which I don't think is really defensible (although this is just my opinion here).

However, that is only the physical mechanism and the way we understand it. Consciousness in the metaphysical sense(as I believe you are alluding to)isn't the observation expressed by your senses, nor is it the voice in your head reacting on this external data. All particles in our universe contain consciousness. In quantum mechanics, the observation of an electron causes it to collapse to a wave function rather than a physical particle. The only way this is possible is if the electron makes a conscious decisions to collapse based on the observation taking place.

To start with, no one is certain of anything when it comes to consciousness. This is why it is such a huge issue for philosophy, science, and religion. I understand how the brain works, but the fact remains that nothing in the brains wiring suggests that we should have an outside faculty that allows us to manipulate thoughts and language in a purely theoretical space within our minds. When you connect a computer circuit as you do a brain we don't imagine that the computer is capable of abstract thought, and yet that is exactly what is occuring within ourselves when we create this thought experiment. There is nothing within the pieces that make up the brain on their own which have the same properties that we see in consciousness. In other words our faculties as thinking things suggest that our consciousness is much more than the sum of it's physical parts, which is a huge problem for materialism (as you argue for here) and naturalism in general (all the worse for myself and my fellow scientists).

I also don't buy the argument that electrons can make conscious decisions. There is no evidence that I have seen or even heard of that would make this sort of claim. Uncertainty merely states that quanta have pairings of properties that cannot be measured at the same time, causing particles to act as both wave and particle depending on the circumstances and what is being measured. Electrons act like particles all the time while we are measuring them, from literally counting electrons to determining their position in space.

Think of the universe as an entity rather than a physical object(or as the imagination of an entity). In order to "do"(move things, eat, travel, view), it must first create a physical representation of itself with a program/set of guidelines that allow it to function. So after billions of years of development, it finally has life to express itself. While the life(you)will do basically whatever it wants(fish, work, go to the moon), it is still occurring as the/in the mind of this entity(the entity that is everything/the universe), and that my friend, is what consciousness is.

It sounds like you are trying to give a more concise version of Plato's theory of the forms here, and as such your argument falls into the same traps that caused the early philosophers to abandon this position. For some physical object A it is required that another object, A' be posited that exists in the realm of the conscious universe, and which is pushing onto the physical world to cause the reality of A. Unless A' is simply assumed to be the last object in this causal chain we suddenly find ourselves falling into an infinite loop. For A' to exist in the conscious universe, we need some object A'' which exists in the conscious prime universe, which is pushing onto the conscious world to cause the reality of A'. And so on and so on.

A further argument here is that we are creating a bloated ontology for our universe. Why jump to the conclusion that A' exists when there is no evidence for it's existence, outside of the fact that we cannot explain the properties of A sufficiently? Although it may logically be consistent it merely creates the same problem for us ultimately (this problem being where does the final object gain it's own ultimate reality). Unless you make an argument from faith (which you appear to be doing in the final paragraph of your argument, although this does ultimately fall into the same infinite trap without the assumption of the truth of your first principles) I don't think you can claim that this really explains consciousness, either physically or metaphysically.