What I am saying is that:
- most (all?) topics are not 1-dimensional: they deal with multiple issues with many complicated interrelations and interactions. Let's call them multi-dimensional.
- many people build 1-dimensional presentations using PowerPoint (and related tools).
- treating a multi-dimensional topic as 1-dimensional makes for a poor, confusing presentation.
To connect this with your point: the hard part of building a presentation is mapping an n-dimensional topic onto a 1-dimensional medium (time), while sacrificing the minimum amount of accuracy. Based on personal experience, many people don't spend much time on this part; they just throw a bunch of information onto slides in an arbitrary order. And so this smacks of circular reasoning to me:
> If you are going to talk about point A.1 before point A.2, and B.1 before point B.2, but you will speak about point B.1 before point A.2, then just put them in that order. Problem solved.
But how do you know you're going to talk about point A.1 before point A.2? Figuring that out is the hard part!
-----
All this is just my subjective opinion, of course. :)
We're going to view them in some order, just put them in that order and call it a day. If there is no order, then random order should be just fine. After all, what if you really needed more than two dimensions? You'd have to compress your ideas into a two-dimensional space anyway. Might as well make it one-dimensional and therefore less confusing.
Solution finding in a quantum computer? They're solutions are supposedly parallel and non-linearisable. Reading the solutions I guess forces linearity.
There's also relativistic issues but you can solve those by saying there's an implicit "within any particular Inertial Frame of Reference".
I think perhaps what you mean is anything that we experience we experience linearly; is that a better way of saying it?
A.1, B.1, A.2, B.2
Problem solved.