PTYL
DELTA
THEORY
Written by Ptyl, November 2004, Tel Aviv.
Translated by Ptyl, October, 2007.
Fixed by Ptyl, April, 2008
License:
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-No Derivative
Works 3.0 Unported License.
Contents
chapter null: Prelude
chapter 1: Introduction
chapter 2: Physical Logic
chapter 3: Logical Cosmology
chapter 4: Logical Physics
chapter 5: Life in the Logical Field
chapter 6: The Development of Thought
chapter 7: Delta Theory
chapter 8: Delta Theory and the Inconsistent Metaphysics
chapter 9: Epilogue
Prelude
Everything crumbled, washed away
before I had the chance to feel the lies. Loki died, as the world fell over,
spitting its guts wide open. A vast ocean of nothingness has been spanned with
a growing sensation that something has to be done, with whatever means
necessary. Rebuild or die out. The brain will build the cities of tomorrow. I
may spell it wrong but I must spit it out. Was this the way to call my
awakening or was I awakened to answer the calling? What does it matter? The
apocalypse leaves a blank space in its path.
We wanted to be saved. We asked to
be given redemption, forgiven if necessary, punished if necessary. And we were,
but as the verdict was performed, I knew there wouldn't be a closure. The
closure will be of mortals. The gods have passed away or passed us irrelevant.
I will not observe in awe. I will be the celestial opposition. Take me down!
Reveal yourself. They will not dare.
A great silence…
I started with nothing and ended in vacuum. But I grew.
And so will you.
Introduction
Strangely, I will start with a
declaration: I do not seek to unveil the essence of the world in itself. Woo.
Sounds completely out of place, doesn’t it? Considering the journey that is
ahead of us, this declaration is indeed very strange, on the verge of
being a straightforward lie. OK. To tell the truth I am quite curious about the
essence of the world in itself. But I am not any more curious about
that, than I am curious to know the end of a movie, to hear the latest
sensation on the news, or to listen to the latest release of a favorite band. These are all
kinds of curiosities which can be repressed or forgetted, and that is
why I do not seek them. Not while there are other issues which I seek,
which no matter how many times I will try to repress or forget, they will pop up
again. I seek the answer to one question: What the hell
is the thing which I am supposed to suppose to be?
Ugh! What the hell was that? I will explain. My life, just like the lives you lead my dear readers, has a fixed axis. This axis conducts and defines the form of the life which i lead, and according to everything I know so far, I cannot know anything about this axis with certainty.
Onga-bonga. What in heavens name was that supposed to mean? Let me try and explain. Just like any of you my dear readers, I have material needs, bodily needs, social needs, esthetical needs, ethical needs, and so on. These needs provide the causes of the actions i make in my life. Every planned and conscious actions I do has some sort of purpose. It doesn’t really matter if the action is the purpose, or if only after fulfilling it, this purpose is achieved. Furthermore, I seriously suspect that a big part of my subconscious unplanned actions have a purpose. But the meaning…shit…the meaning…who cares about causes and purposes, if these are all meaningless to me? Why would I care if pork chops are tasty, if Jewish tradition was Meaningful to me? What would I care if I am dying of hunger, if I am unconscious? What would I care if I care about something, if I don’t care about anything? What would I care about my last sentence “What would I care if I care about something, if I don’t care about anything?”, if it isn’t even logical? I mean, it’s either that I care about something, or I don’t care about anything. Otherwise we have a contradiction. But what do I care about logical contradictions? It’s true that the last sentence isn’t logical. Sure. But what do I care about the logical validity of my thoughts, if I don’t care to comply with any rule? But if I say that I don’t comply with any rule, doesn’t that produce a kind of rule I comply with? And what if it does?
HEY HEY! Enough with this mess. It’s obvious that this way of thinking has no end. Worse. Anybody who has already “tore the plastic wrap” off his brain and began to actually think with it, will know that this kind of thinking is a cheap demagogy. To tell the truth, I’ve had it with this postmodernist shit. But, dear readers, do you begin to feel something hiding behind this skeptical rubbish? Not yet? Fine. I guess I still need to "seduce" you. Ok. Let’s start with De-Cart’s famous statement “I think, therefore I am”. Hmm...You know what? Let’s go even lower. Let’s replace the word “think”. Let’s say “I am conscious, therefore I am”, or better, since we exist even when we are unconscious, let’s say “my consciousness testifies before me of its existence”. Cool. Well, then now I say, that if anybody when referring this sentence to his or her own consciousness, says that it isn’t true, not necessarily true, or that he cannot determine for certain if this sentence is true, then I say this man is a LIAR! Assuming this man understands the english, I say that this man is not wrong, not a skeptic, and not open-minded. That is a straightforward LIE!
But why the anonymosity? Let’s give this man a name: Zack the postmodernist. Zack does not take anything as absolute truth. That’s his Motto. He doesn’t even accept logic as absolute truth. Ok Zack. I’m fine with that. No problem. But I will not accept a consciousness which claims it does not exist. Existence is not a result of logical synthesis. Consciousness is a kind of existence. The ownership of a consciousness provides the proof that it really exists.
Oh really? Nope. Zack says that he does not fully understand what consciousness or the ownership of a consciousness is, and therefore this sentence does not mean anything to him. And so I stand, shocked in front of Zack. With eyes full of pity I say: The little you do understand is enough. You don’t have to fully understand the term “consciousness”. The vague idea you have in your mind, already proves your consciousness exists. So decide. It’s either you are lying to me, or you are living in a lie, and you refuse to admit things you already admitted in the past, even if it happened indirectly, the first time you said the word I, “I, Zack!”. In any case, you are a liar, you insult the little intelligence you or I have, you are arrogant and provide annoying company. Damn you, Zack!
But it’s pointless. My little quarrel with Zack is not important. What is important is that two consciousnesses exist in parallel: one states that its existence must exist even if it doesn’t exactly understand how, and the other states that it can claim otherwise, even without existing. Both of these statements are ways of thinking, and we are free to think both. The problem is different. Given that one absolute consistent truth exist in the world, then Zack is really an annoying liar. On the other hand if there isn’t one absolute consistent truth to the world, then there really isn’t any justification to thinking that my consciousness’s existence necessarily exists, (which makes me a pathetic rationalist). What i mean is that while I am allowed to think whatever I want, only the essence of the world in itself can determine if my thoughts are true to how the world truly is. Therefore, in spite of the fact that I only seek the essence of the causes, purposes, and meanings of my life, only by determining the essence of the world in itself, I can find the answer with certainty. It doesn’t work the other way around precisely because I am allowed think whatever I want. The question of the essence of the causes, purposes, and meanings, asks where does my consciousness stands in the hierarchy of the world in which I live. To put my own thoughts as the center of the world is a possible possibility, but only one possible possibility. Thinking it simply doesn’t make it so. It's simply not enough.
And so, I find myself thrown down the snake pit enigma of the essence of the world in itself. Once I land on this toxic land, I immediately know. I will find the answer to the question of the essence of the world in itself, only by means of faith. To really know what is the essence of the world in itself is an impossible task. I can feel the answer burning through me, but that’s not enough. But why? Well, logically it’s pretty easy to understand: Be X a world, whose essence is Y, then there can always be a dormant element Z, which is not included in the essence Y, and when combined with Y, will produce the world X’, and since Z is dormant, then there is no way to determine if I live in the world X or the world X’. Erm. Oops. Sorry. Let me rephrase that. There can always be an element which is essential to the world and does not produce any physical effect, quite like a dormant gene in our DNA. Now, since it doesn’t have any physical effect, how are we supposed to know about it exists? And so there can always be two essences to the world: one with this element that has no physical effect, and one without it. As far as we are concerned, these two worlds are the same. Furthermore. There might be an element which has real effect on the world, but it is incomprehendable to human consciousness. If that is the case, things are even worse. We can’t even know the essence of the world in itself that is not dormant. Since in my stupid argument with Zack I already understood that I can’t determine if my consciousness exists without first knowing the essence of the world in itself, I am forced now to give up, pack the tents, and go back home empty handed. My life has been and remained an enigma.
But wait a minute. I am not willing to give up so soon. I already declared that I am not seeking the essence of the world in itself. Let’s try a different route. Instead of asking if we can know the essence of the world in itself, let’s ask what can we know of essences of worlds in themselves, in general. Maybe this way we'll find some kind of condolence prize to take home. Maybe this way I will learn something about the essence of my causes, purposes, and meanings. It’s true, at the end I may not really know what that essence is. Still, I will have a better idea of what that essence might be. Maybe, considering the options that will unfold before me, I will find some of the things I am seeking. That’s good enough for me. Ok, I decided. I’ll do it. If any of you readers are not satisfied, you can go back home. The money for the rest of the trip will sent to your home by mail.
Good. So I understand that those of you still reading are still on for the journey. Great. Fuck great! What am I talking about?! What is this vague term “the world in itself” that we are searching for its essence? We must first define it. Each and every one of us may have a different idea regarding the nature of the world in itself, but we are not there yet. We are still in the stage of asking “what do we want to ask?” Therefore, I shall define it now: when I ask “what is the essence of the world in itself?” I ask what is the truth that nests all other truths. It wouldn’t be logical to define the world in itself as one unit, because a unit, be it tiny or colossal, is always inside something else, some sort of “field”. Therefore, I want to find the essence of all the units, as well as the “fields” in which they reside, and pack it all under one term: the essence of the world in itself. However, since I just explained that we can’t know the essence of the world in itself, it is obvious that I just defined not the world in itself, but rather the thing my consciousness is trying to think about. What I mean is, I define only the thing which I can comprehend. On the other hand, there is nothing that exists outside what the world in itself allows, because if it does, then it is included it the world in itself, by definition.
Then again, the term the world in itself doesn’t include a lot of things. For example, if we were to prove that objects that appear in our dreams exist only within the boundary of thought, and we were to prove that thought in itself is nothing but a product of a completely mechanical mechanism, like a computer program, then the essence of the world in itself would allow the existence of thoughts about these imaginary objects, but not their existence. This is exactly like the fact that the illusionary three dimensional nature of a painting, does not summon a third dimension behind the cloth. Therefore, maybe we should change our definition of the world in itself. Our new definition will be “the group of elements from which other elements may be produced, and that themselves are not produced by anything”. I shall use this opportunity to define the world as “the group of elements that are the product of something”, and this way we can say that the essence of the world is the world in itself. This way we can explain Zack’s annoying perspective. For Zack, thoughts, or the world for that matter, do not necessarily exist, and it would be the world in itself that would justify this. Zack is a product of the world in itself, but he has no part in it. We can rephrase that and say that the world is the world of phenomena and the world in itself is the world of Ideas, but that would not be a precise translation of terms. Such a translation suggests a-priori that the world and the world in itself are disconnected. Such a claim demands proof, and therefore I think it’s better if we stick with our own terms.
We can now conclude a major difference between the world and the world in itself: existence is included within the essence of the world in itself, but not necessarily in the essence of the world. Our consciousness does not necessarily exist, but in that case the illusion of its existence must exist. Now, this illusion can be included within the essence of the world in itself or just be a product of it, but what’s certain is that the world in itself exists. Zack could now try and attack from the other side and say that the world in itself does not exist, but that would simply determine that the world and the world in itself are the same thing. Something must exist: our consciousness, or the cause for its illusion. If Zack was to say this, it would be as if he joined the ranks of nihilist Positivism: he believes that the essence of the world in itself could be reduced to a purely scientific model, since there is nothing in the essence of the world in itself that cannot be conceived, including the essence of conception in itself.
Every possible essence of the world in itself is a product of the relation between the world, and the world in itself. We could have therefore assumed that this is the thing we should investigate. It sounds only logical to go in the direction to which we want to reach. Sadly, the situation is much more problematic than this. As we already saw, our consciousnesses could be completely sealed within the boundaries of the world, and have absolutely no part within the world in itself. Furthermore. It could be that we never encountered the world in itself, that it never revealed itself before our consciousness. It is quite possible that our consciousness has no way of conceiving the world in itself. Because of that, to speak about the world in itself from the perspective of our consciousness, could be like a discussion about colors between blind people. Kant already understood this, and for Nietzsche this was the starting point for his epistemology: the Perpectivism. It seems like the path in front of us is blocked, and our journey is coming to its end. There is a chance that there isn’t a chance to discover anything, and it’s all just a waste of time.
But why? From the very beginning I stated that I am not interested in the essence of the world itself. True, we discovered that every question regarding the essence of our consciousness will be derived from the essence of the world in itself, but we already agreed that we just want to discover what kinds of answers there are, and not determine which one is true. Therefore, we must climb over this ontological obstacle. We must shift to another, less problematic plain. Maybe through some other plain we could make a detour around it, and carry on with our quest.
So, what are our choices? NOTHING! We have no choices, just one choice: our consciousness. But which consciousness? Zack just reminded us that our own consciousness could be nothing more than an illusion. Well, OK. No problem. I chose my consciousness, just as you readers will choose your own consciousness. I don’t care if it’s a consciousness or just an illusion of having a consciousness. This is exactly the plain I am talking about: the plain of constructive intuitive thinking, rather than empirical consistent thinking. And what do I mean by that? Simple. We are going to use the things we think we know in order to build models about the things we think we don’t know. Will we certainly know if those models are true? Certainly not. We certainly know that we cannot know if these models are true for certain! We have already said that we cannot certainly determine if our consciousness exists or if just the illusion of its existence exists. Therefore, whatever takes part in the phenomenon we call our consciousness, could be nothing more than an illusion as well. Therefore, since we decided a-priori that we cannot know anything for certain, we shall use our consciousness as a starting point. The imminent existence of either our consciousness or the illusion of its existence – this will be our only axiom. Well...not exactly. We shall consider options for several models, in some our consciousness will exist, and in some only its illusion will exist. This way we might get some clue as to what could be the essence of our causes, purposes & meanings.
Now, regarding us not using empirical
consistent thinking: this is exactly why our trip will be philosophical, but
will not form a philosophy. Not that necessarily everything we shall discover
has already been discovered before by past philosophers. To the best of my knowledge, at
least parts of our journey will pass through lands where no philosopher
has passed before. But even so: for certain, we won’t find one metaphysical
model, but rather a model from which other metaphysical models could be built. We
won’t look for relations between the world and the world in itself.
Instead we will find several such relations, some of which might actually
contradict the others on a fundamental level. However, this will not matter for
us, since consistency is a trait that is mandatory to philosophy, and
philosophy, like the essence of the world in itself, and like the
end of a
On the other hand, we won’t deal with psychology. We will form structures to explain our consciousness, which will naturally have implications in psychology, but we will derive these structures from a metaphysical model. The psychological implications we well find will be strictly limited to the ontological axioms we will choose to adopt. I guess this might be a bit hard for you to understand now, so let me explain. While a psychologist is required to adopt some kind of axioms regarding the human psych, he is not required to check whether these axioms are consistent with his own metaphysical beliefs. He is not required to achieve consistency between his work and his faith. To tell the truth, he is not required to think about the essence of the world in itself, at all. The same goes for all sciences. A psychologist is required to have only a functionalistic approach, saying: “I don’t know if it’s true, but it will probably work according to past research”. Simply put, he says: “I guess that’s how it is.”, “since this is the most effective psychological approach I know of, I will use it.” but we won’t care for probability. We will build our models according to intuitive fundamental assumptions, and won’t bother to check their validity. We will compensate on our scientific methodological error, by offering a variety of psychological theories – a variety which will be as large as the variety of metaphysical theories we will derive from our ontological meta-model. For each variation regarding the essence of the world in itself, we will try to see if we can derive psychological explanations which are consistent with this variation on the essence of the world in itself. If we will find that it is indeed possible, we will then ask ourselves if there's any point to build theml. I mean, maybe we won’t be interested in these models at all. If from the metaphysical model in question, we will not be able to answer the basic question regarding the essence of causes, purpose & meaning, there will be no point for us to bother ourselves with it any longer.
There are two other things that differentiate our journey from other journeys into the essence of consciousness. First of all, our basic assumptions, our axioms, will not include specific ontological cases. We won’t deal with ontological differences between Jesus, Jehovah & Allah, between the existence of parallel universes or their inexistence, and so on and so forth. In fact, we will not differentiate any content that may occupy our consciousness. We will only differentiate between differences in the essence of our consciousness, differences that derive from differences in the essence of the world in itself. By using a division that relies solely on the relation between the world and the world in itself, we will offer a meta-model from which a psychological theory may be derived. therefore, a legitimate question for us would not be something like “was Freud right?”, but rather “could it be possible that he was not mistaken?” if the answer to this second question would be positive, we will leave it as it is, and not deal with Freud anymore. If the answer will be negative we will say “it is impossible that Freud was right.” and leave it as it is. In any case, we will not deal with Freud, or any other philosopher for that matter.
The second thing I want to clarify is that our goal is not to satisfy a curiosity. We are not in this journey just to discover the essence of the world in itself. We want to find the essence of our causes, our purpose, and our meaningfulness. Therefore, our goal is almost, if not totally moral. However, we will not offer any moral dogma. Instead we will try to understand what could be a legitimate moral demand, depending on the ontology we chose. Therefore, whatever moral demand we might discuss, we will not be obliged to adopt it, since we will only find recipes for legitimate moral demands. And even if we will decide to adopt a specific ontology, I will leave the actual structuring of your morality in your hands, my dear readers. For example, if we will find that equality belongs within the essence of the world in itself, and that inequality does not, I will leave you the liberty to choose to be Marxists, communists, democrats, maybe even capitalists. That’s your business. I have no interest to know your choice. To tell the truth, I am not even curious about it.
Truth is, the moral interest that may be presumed from what I just said, is also inexact. Any ethical conclusion which may be derived on our journey is not the goal of this journey, but rather a side product of it. For example, if we were to adopt an ontology in which the good god exists and evil transcendental forces do not exist, that would not have meant that the mandatory moral conclusion would be to devote a man’s life to that good god. A man can easily claim that considering the amount of shit he had to live through, he does not think that god is good. This man hates god, and therefore decides to form his moral system that goes against this good god. That's OK by me. But why? Why do I think that this is ok? Simply because I decided in advance not to consider specific cases. As long as this man does not negate the very ontological existence of god, while still claiming it exists, I couldn't care less. We will catalogue what are the possibilities for a god to be. We will not be interested whether it is a good god or an evil god. This god will remain nameless, and it will be your decision to call it Jehovah, Jesus, Satan, Abraxas, I (meaning yourselves), or to say god does not exist at all. Therefore, we will not become ethicists, psychologists, or philosophers. So once again, if any of you would like to leave this journey now; your luggage is still in the jeep. Thank you for staying for as long as you did, but it is best we part ways now.
OK. So our point of origin is our consciousness and what our intuition can tell us about it. Whatever our intuition cannot access we will put in a separate category, a separate drawer if you like, and we will do our best to avoid this drawer. I will put a label to define this drawer: "The consciousness, in itself". It comes to describe the way our consciousness is spawned from the world in itself. This means that this knowledge, even if it was to pass through our thoughts, we would never be able to verify it. Therefore, there is no point in building our models from the way our consciousness is produced from consciousness in itself. We need a different explanation, a model that will derive from the world and not the world in itself. We need to find the components of consciousness, its divisions. We need to find these from their appearances in the world, and not the way they exists (or don't exist) in the world in itself.
I found that most basic division of consciousness is a split in two: the state of consciousness, and the changes in states of consciousness. This division is parallel to the division of reality to space and time, only that here, it is an internal space, and time is relevant only in terms of internal changes, which means it's an internal time. As long as there is no change in our consciousness, our internal time simply stops ticking. If our consciousness changes states rapidly (probably due to some emotionally stirring event), our internal time speeds up. But as innocent as this may sound, we must already be very careful. Why? I will give you an example. Let's ask ourselves: is it possible that because there is no change in the state of our consciousness, our internal time would utterly stop? This may sound romantic, but intuitively, it seems highly unlikely. Our body and reflexes make sure our consciousness changes all the time. But on the other hand, can't our body be drugged? Of course it can. If so, then can't we drug our body to the point it will cause zero changes to our consciousness? But what did I just say? "Zero changes"? Can I use a term of quantity over changes in our consciousness?
Methodologically, NO!
Uh…? …Why? Just think. If I say yes, then it means that our consciousness is a product of the world: the body, which exists in the world, can literally cancel an element basic to the very existence of our consciousness. However, if I say no, then this means that our consciousness always changes in one way or another, and it doesn't matter if the body is in a state of total materialistic freeze. From this we can come to the conclusion that our consciousness exists not as a product of our body, meaning a product of the world in itself. This means that I am in fact deciding here something about the relation between the world in itself and the world: I am actually deciding whether there are elements in the world which do not exist in the world in itself, and vice versa.
Ok. Enough. Let's leave the matter of "zero consciousness changes". So...is this the last of the questions we do not have answers to? Erm…no. Sadly, we will suffer the same fate if we ask whether time is continuous or quantic. How would I know? As far as my consciousness is concerned, it simply flows. I don't know if the continuity of my consciousness is essential to it. It could be an illusion, like the illusion of motion through rapidly changing still pictures of cinema. To know this I must embrace a metaphysical theory a-priori. But BUZZZZ!!!!. I can't.
So we must be very careful even if we are only concerned with our own consciousness. We have many intuitive assumptions which we got from our various beliefs, but we simply cannot use them. Yes yes. Our beliefs were the problem. We believe in the validity of medicine and biology, we believe in the effect chemicals have over our body, we believe that we can toss away metaphysical questions when we are dealing with "science". These beliefs almost busted our philosophical jeep on the first day. Therefore, from now on we will try to avoid categorizing the divisions of our consciousness. We will determine nothing regarding their nature a-priori. We will define divisions over our consciousness to help us find its components, but these will all be very broad divisions, divisions which we will not yet truly understand. To understand them we will have to adopt some kind of ontological axioms.
Ok. So what can we say with certainty about consciousness apart from this basic division of state and changes of state of consciousness? Let's start with the state of consciousness. Intuitively, I think the most basic element of it is sensation. We will define sensation as an element of our consciousness, that our consciousness can identify its existence as separate from other elements in it, at least in principal. It doesn't matter what is the true identity of this element. We don't need to ID it. It's possible that one sensation will be a part of other sensations. That's not important right now. For us, a sensation will be like an intruder in our consciousness. Something that shares our internal space. When we have a sensation that some other sensation is true, that will be knowing. That is, knowing is a synthesis of at least two sensations, one validating the other.
Whoa!...wait! This is getting complicated. If knowing is in effect nothing more that two sensations, then knowing has nothing to do with the absolute truth. We have no absolutely pure knowledge. All of our knowledge is actually beliefs. There is no point in distinguishing between the two, because as far as the states of consciousness are concerned, they are the same. It will be stupid to say that if we believe in something and it turns out that what we believe is the absolute truth, then our beliefs have transformed somehow to knowledge. We have already determined that it is impossible to determine the essence of the world in itself. It is nothing but the arrogance of a pathological believer that spores such nonsense. The only difference between what we call belief and what we call knowledge is the way we choose to validate it, and the level of certainty we have towards its validating sensation. This means that this is something that is entirely dependant on the contents of these sensations, and I don't want to deal with sensation classification jsut yet. So for now, there will be no difference between knowledge and faith (or belief).
Ok and what about memory? Is it a sensation as well? Again, we will turn to our intuition. If we say yes, then all of our memories should be in our consciousness. All our memories are "with us in the room", everywhere and all the time, sharing our present internal space. This does not seem plausible. If that was the case, then how would it be possible to forget or remember things? On the other hand, once we remember an event or detail from our past, we feel and sense it. This means that memory, which is unquestionably a major player in our consciousness, exists both as a sensation, and not as a sensation. And what does this teach us? Simple. It teaches us that memory cannot be defined only as a sensation. So what are we supposed to do now? Should we define new elements of our consciousness? Or maybe we should break down our definitions of memory and sensation to simpler more atomic ingredients? Maybe our consciousness needs a different kind of division altogether?
Intuitively, I find no answer to these questions. Actually, I cannot determine for certain if my memories are real, or if anybody else's memories are real. Therefore, I think the question of what memory is falls outside what my consciousness can "touch", and without pre deciding any basic axiom, it would be best to just leave memory aside. The only thing to remember is that we found sensations and constructs of sensations (that form our belief or knowledge or whatever you want to call it). I'm not saying that this is all there is, but this will have to do for now.
Let's move on now, and try to find a division over the changes of states of consciousness. We saw earlier that dealing with actual questions regarding these broad divisions, leads us to questions we can't answer yet, so let's try to avoid these. Ok, so how shall we define this division? First thought that pops to my head is to divide these changes according to their source, that is divide sensations to those coming from the world through our senses, from sensations emerging in our consciousness through the process of thought. But there's a problem. There is one infantile-metaphysical belief that only I exist, and the rest of the world is nothing but a reflection of my own consciousness. In such a case there is no difference between sensory and thought since both are a product of the same consciousness. And then there are dreams. And if we believe that dreams do not metaphysically exist outside our thought, again we find that sensory and thought are of the same material when encountered in a dream.
Is this a real contradiction? Maybe. We better make a detour around it. We need a similar division, but somehow less prejudging. And that's exactly what we'll do. Instead of dividing between sensations coming from an internal source and sensations coming from an outside source, we will divide between sensations that we consciously intended to bring into our consciousness, and sensations that arrived without our conscious intentions. Those sensations that we intended to bring we will call thoughts and sensations that arrived into our consciousness unintended, we will call sensory. Ok. Let's consider memory again. When we try to remember something, the successful extraction of that memory sensation would be considered thought, but the emotional sensations and unintended memory sensations that we encountered unintentionally as we extract a specific detail within our memory, all of these will be considered sensory. The same applies for dreams, and regarding the belief that only I exist. Premeditated changes of consciousness will be thoughts, and the world around us (be it real or an illusion) we encounter through sensory. So now we need the negative process, meaning a change of consciousness in which a sensation that shared our consciousness has disappeared from it. Again we will divide these according to intent. If the sensation has vanished intentionally, we will say it was repressed. If it vanished unintentionally we will say the sensation was nullified. We will not determine divisions regarding different types of thought, such as synthesis, analysis, deduction, induction, etc. The reason for this is simply because we cannot determine whether these should be considered thought or sensory. We instinctively think in a rational way, just as so many times we instinctively think in an inconsistent manners. What I mean is that it is unclear whether we sense or think logic into our mental actions. Furthermore, we have the Zen metaphysics which seeks to undermine logical rational thought. This kind of philosophy puts our rational thought in an awkward situation when considering whether it is thought or sensory. So to save us the trouble, let us not divide the definition of thought any deeper.
Regarding memory, we saw it has sides used in thought, and sides which we simply sense. Therefore, memory is not a change of state for consciousness. Ok, so what is memory? Let's think about this intuitively. Let's compare what our memory is for our consciousness, to what the world is to our consciousness. Aren't they both the same thing? Do not misunderstand. I am not saying that the essence of memory in itself and the essence of the world in itself are the same. No. but they are both foreign to out consciousness. When I add my memory to my consciousness I define myself before my consciousness. When I add the world to my consciousness, the world in which I exist is defined to me. If by accident i would have lost my memory, my self definition will be lost as well, and if I disconnect the world from my consciousness, I will lose the world in which I exist.
But these disconnections will not necessarily make me lose my consciousness as well. For example, people who have lost their memory, or people who suffer from schizophrenia or autism. Intuitively it is highly unlikely to say they do not have a consciousness. Obviously, there is no way to check this, since the only consciousness we could ever verify its existence is our own (be it real or an illusion). But it seems highly unlikely to think these poor people do not hold a consciousness. This intuition becomes even more valid, when we consider our dreams. Our consciousness exists in a dream, while it is disconnected from the world. Also, in many dreams, our very memory is different to our memory during wakefulness. Sometimes we are even not the same person as we are in wakefulness. Sometime we are not even of the same gender. However, what we do intuitively know is that our consciousness during wakefulness is the same consciousness during a dream. Or at least, this is how it feels. So as far as memory goes, memory will not occupy our basic divisions of consciousness.
Ok. So our list is rather short. We have six terms: sensation, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification. This list will be the lowest bar to cross for every metaphysical theory we might chose to believe in. If a metaphysical theory cannot explain how our consciousness is composed of these, or even allows these, we simply cannot address that metaphysical theory, since all in all our only certainty is our consciousness. This list is the most basic interface that allows a consciousness to exist by. But we will rephrase that and say that if at least one of these terms isn't explained according to a metaphysical theory, then that metaphysical theory is incomplete.
But what does it mean "an incomplete metaphysical theory"? Is this a flaw that can be overlooked or neglected? Well, sometimes it can be, but probably not the way you think. It is not a way to rank metaphysical theories. An incomplete metaphysical theory is simply a theory which we have not yet completed. As long as it is incomplete, it cannot answer questions regarding the essence of the world and the essence of the world in itself. For example, let's say there is a metaphysical theory that determines that all the six items on our short list do not exist either in the world or the world in itself. This theory is a completely useless metaphysical theory. If we embrace this theory, some of our most fundamental questions will never be answered. But on the other hand, it won't "kill us". Actually most of the metaphysical theories people believe in are incomplete (that is if these people actually have a theory in which they believe, and are not just go ranting with the crowds shouting "alla-u-akbar", "halleluiah", etc).
Coming back to the reality of it, what good is this completeness criterion? Isn't it the contents of our lives which is meaningful to us and interests us? If we will only deal with these six terms, we will be left with an obscure metaphysical theory, to say the least. I mean, in general, metaphysical theories do not come to deal and explains these divisions of consciousness I just made. A metaphysical theory's span is by far wider than that. So what's the score? Have I been uselessly messing with your heads?
Absolutely not. Ask yourself this: how many of the beliefs people hold are based on incomplete metaphysical theories? This completeness criterion is a wonderful tool to filter out a lot of those useless belief systems we might accidentally embrace! For example, let's say a man comes telling you that if you touch a dead body you'll be saturated by negative energies. This is the core of his metaphysical theory. What would we do? Would we believe him? No. This will not be enough for us anymore. We will use the completeness criteria. We will ask this man to explain the essence of sensations, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification. If this man does not have answers for that yet, we will tell him to come back when he does have them. Until then we will have no way to deal with his assertions, since we are nothing but observing consciousnesses.
Ok so now let's say the man returned a week later with answers to all these six terms. He changed nothing in his original assertions, just added some elements so he could deal with our short list properly. The root of his metaphysical theory remained these same. Ok. So what good came out of that? A lot of good. We helped him turn a theory regarding the transmission of energies between corpses, into a theory that deals with our consciousness and helps to explain it. Now we can analyze his theory. We will observe the logic that connects the elements of his theory. Now we might be able to put some light on the essence of our causes, purposes, and meaning.
But now, a completely different questions come up. How does the essence of our cause, purposes, and meanings will give us a clue what to do with our lives? How will we extrapolate our moral axioms from this essence? I haven't answered these questions yet. Until now all I said was that without them, I will know nothing for sure about my life. And the truth is it is not enough. We cannot build moral axioms based only on the explanations for our list of six items. But what we can do is determine what these moral axioms couldn't be. Let's say for example that we chose a metaphysical theory that says that all six items on the list are caused only by the body. Our thoughts, urges, and wills, are all produced via our bodily mechanisms. There are no spirits. There is just matter. Under this belief, we will not be able to accept a moral law or rule that will endanger our body (as long as it isn't proven that it was the body which called for this law or rule). We will refrain from considering the needs of the spirit, or soul if you like, before the needs of our consciousness, because we will not believe the spirit exists at all. Every moral hierarchy we will build from this belief will be determined according to the needs of the body (which according to this belief is the source of our consciousness). We will not obey any moral demand that endangers the body without the body being the one to "ask for it". We will not tolerate any form of asceticism without any proof that it was the body which caused this asceticism to be "willed". We will filter all our spiritual wills so they will be consistent with the bodily needs. Every person has a body, and every individual body forms a balance of wills. This bodily balance of wills will be the foundation by which each person will have to form his own personal moral hierarchy. Questions of gain and purpose will also be answered according to the bodily mechanisms, and so there will be no contradiction between any damage done to the body, and the wills that caused this damage. In effect this determines that there is no higher cause than the body. The body is the essence of all causes, purposes, and meanings. The body will balance cause with purpose, by balancing thought with sensory: new purposes will be sensed, and motivate thought how to actually "get there". And so, the purpose of thought becomes clear: to repress and nullify sensations of purpose. Only this way can any purpose be achieved. And what about meaning? Meaning will be a kind of purpose for which the cause is thought and sensory regarding the world in itself. This way we keep everything consistent: all the elements of our consciousness are a product of matter, and so our meaning is materialistic as well. And the reason for this is simple. Ontologically speaking, there is nothing else. there is only matter. This is just one example, anyway.
Another question that comes up is what good are all these metaphysical theories, if we will always have doubt? Since we are only dealing with our consciousness and not our consciousness in itself, we never really know anything for certain. And you know what? I confess. It's true. We will never know anything for certain. But there is another thing I am also convinced in, and that is we will never know more than that. But that's beside the point. What makes this attitude productive, this completeness criteria filtration, is that all our complete metaphysical theories are based on the way our consciousness is built. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the existence of our consciousness or the mere illusion of consciousness. In both forms, as existence or illusion, our consciousness needs its causes, purposes, and meanings (or this need could also not exist, but I believe that it surely exists in every person that has read this text so far). If our consciousness is nothing but an illusion of existence, then this need is an illusion as well, but we can overlook this difference. It is obvious that the way our causes, purposes, and meanings are produced via an illusion of consciousness, is connected with the way the illusion of consciousness was created to begin with. So in conclusion, we will not be interested in a state where our consciousness is an illusion, while our purposes and meanings are not an illusion. Under this condition our lives will never be meaningful to us. Our lives will be nothing more than screws and bolts in an intangible and unimaginable metaphysical machine. Our very lives will mean nothing but the continuation of this machine's existence, while within our consciousnesses we will want nothing of it. This condition serves the metaphysical machine, but leaves us to live pointlessly. Even if it was true, we will never want it, and we will never be content with this kind of theory.
So, what does it all come down to? Simple. This path we've chosen is a good path to find the most useful and desired metaphysical theories for us. These theories fit us best because we are all locked within our consciousnesses. This is the road to find what we are looking for in our lives. Come to think of it, what does it matter if the theories we'll find are perhaps wrong? Even if everything in our lives is an illusion, we would rather be satisfied illusions, won't we? We can still wonder if by doing so we do good also to the world in itself, but come to think of it, who cares? If this is how we are created, then there is no point in doing good to anything but how we are created. There may still be objections from those who claim that even if this is how we were created it is our goal in life to transcend this nature. This kind of argument I would expect to hear from tightly religious and ascetic individuals, those who seek "enlightenment". All I can say to these people is good luck. Be careful not to lie to yourself though. Your consciousness is here. It exists. What I mean is, the fact that someone argues against my assertions, proves he is conscious to what he just read. This means that if he argues with me, he is in a psychological contradiction: he argues for something he does not know to be true. If he did achieve this kind of enlightenment, he would not have a consciousness to argue with. But there is one thing that is important to understand here, and that is the ontological difference. If we are built of "stuff" that is ontologically detached from the ontological "stuff" that makes up our causes, purposes, and meanings, then it means that there is no way to ascend to the "enlightened level". To make it possible for you to reach enlightenment, your infinity, your god, would have to be human in a way. but we will never be any more divine. This claim coming from these enlightenment seeking individuals unintentionally unites the world and the world in itself into a single ontological category. Therefore what it determines also is that there are no "illusions of existence". Everything is equally "real". And since I decided not to adopt any metaphysical axioms, I think that these claims simply don't concern me. It's their problem. If someone doesn't like it, he doesn't have to read this text.
Ok then, let's
continue. We can now start reviewing the various metaphysical theories. With
which shall start? From the one I believe to be true? Why not from the one you
believe to be true? And why shall we not go back to ancient
Ok then. Let's start from the borderline case of a complete skeptic, a person that does not believe in any metaphysical theory whatsoever, complete or incomplete. Nothing. Nada. I'm not saying there is such a person, or that ontologically there could be one. But let's just try to imagine this person. A man who believes in absolutely nothing. If this man senses a sensation, will this man agree to validate it with another sensation? Of course not. This man does not believe in the truth value of any sensation, so as a result, his sensations are incapable of validating each other. It's not that he does not believe that his sensations are real. His consciousness simply lacks the motivation to bind these sensations together and form constructs of sensations. It is for him like it would be for us to bind the sensation that comes from eating a banana with the sensation of failure after losing all your investments in the stock market. It's not that it is a forbidden thing to do, but it simply doesn't make any sense. You can say "I am bitter for my stock market failures because the banana is sweet," but this construct simply implies you are a rather stupid individual. If our consciousness was to do these arbitrary bindings, we will dwell in total epistemological chaos. Back to our hypothetical skeptic, if he was to randomly bind sensations together without any logical reasoning, he would definitely be incapable of even understanding the sensation that is to be skeptic of anything.
But the opposite is even worse, that is, that our skeptic man would not bind sensations at all. If he did that then he would be left with nothing but basic sensations. What does it mean? What is the difference between basic sensations and constructs of sensations? To understand this we should turn to the Zen metaphysical conception. Zen seeks to totally nullify the instinct of our consciousness to rely on causality. It seeks to create a stream of consciousness that is "causality-free". Can a consciousness be able to generate any form of intent under this condition? It appears that it can't. If we disconnect the causality between cause and purpose, it is quite obvious we would not be able to intentionally think about anything. And how does that help us with regard to our skeptic man who lost his motivation to bind sensations into constructs of sensations? We already understood that the dismissal of causality can be done by choosing to believe in it. Now we must ask the opposite question: is causality a product of what our consciousness chooses to believe in?
Hold on. We are getting closer to question about our consciousness in itself, but we are discussing this without considering any specific metaphysical theory. We should step back and remember our six terms. It is obvious that a rational logical mental process, meaning thought, does not require we chose to believe in something. It is an automatic process, an instinct of a consciousness to believe in causality. Therefore, the very act of believing could not be considered as thought. So, it is sensed. If our skeptic friend is telling the truth, and he never refers to belief, it means that he never lets sensory validate any sensation. If so, this man will never think either. And since he does not posses intent, this man will never repress any sensation that pops into his head. So in total, this skeptic is deprived of both constructs of sensations, thought, and repression. He only knows is sensory and nullification of sensations. His consciousness is occupied only by basic sensations which come and go, without him trying to respond to them (since he doesn't intend anything).
And from our experience in life, what does this skeptic man resemble? Hard to tell. A "vegetables" maybe. People who suffered some kind of head trauma, appear to be in this condition. But I can't really say if that is the case. Even when people treat an inanimate object as having a consciousness (like when playing with dolls), there is no intention to animate it in a way that the object will not react to physical changes. On the contrary, this kind of "animation" of inanimate object is done with the intention that the object will appear as if it is reacting. So anyway, it appears that the consciousness of our skeptic friend is nothing like our own consciousness, and since we are only interested with metaphysical theories that are applicable on our consciousness, we will simply not be interested in total skepticism. Oddly, we see that if we try to relate to a metaphysical disposition that seeks to remove the relevance of some of our consciousnesses' ingredients, we end up understanding that this line of thought is irrelevant to us. And it works the other way around too: Zen seeks to undermine consciousness since Zen and consciousness are incompatible.
So what did we learn from this? We learned that in any metaphysical theory that we might be interested in, sensory will validate thought, and together both processes will make the formation of constructs of sensations possible. And so we also found a new way how to sort our way through the vast variety of the metaphysical theories that might yet interest us. We can divide and sort these metaphysical theories according to the way they balance between thought and sensory. We can create categories and come to conclusions that will be true to all the metaphysical theories possible. If we will come to these conclusions, I guess our journey will come to its end, since we will learn all we could possible learn without choosing one metaphysical theory over all the rest.
So what could be the criteria by which we will divide between all the complete metaphysical theories? Would we differentiate between metaphysical theories which claim divine beings exist from those who claim they do not? I find no reason to do this. We must remember that this criterion must balance thought and sensory. If we consider Judaism for example, we won't find many differences between a rabbi and a scientist. A rabbi utilizes thought as the main tool to understand the world. Indeed, a rabbi bases his thoughts on axioms which he senses (i.e. believes in), that god is what god is according to Judaism, but to his consciousness there is no difference between the idea of god and the idea of "truth", the idea of the essence of the world in itself. To the religious man, these are all the same. If you tell a religious person that the idea of god is an irrational idea, he will be furious. For the religious man our inability to make sense of the idea of god, or of god's alleged actions is due to our human, mortal, and limited nature. For a religious person, god can't contradict itself, since god is his instrument for explaining everything else in the world. And this is exactly the case for the scientist, but what each scientist believes is a flawless scientific truth. The point is that the consciousness does not act any differently, since the belief in a monotheistic god folds within itself the belief that god is flawlessly consistent. God is forever rational. It is good to think about god. Once you are able to sense the existence of god, you become qualified to study "the science of god". However, if we consider Zen again, there is no possible way to put it in the same category as Judaism or any other monotheistic belief system. Zen asks the believer to refrain from thought and by that reach enlightenment. In Zen, only by not trying to understand can the consciousness truly sense the essence of the world in itself. The consciousness is asked not to seek an explanation, and persistently tries to tear off the world's consistent cover, and see "beyond it". For our consciousness what this translates to is to use sensory instead of thinking. In the end sensory is abolished as well, as we break the barriers of the physical world. Or something like that. I must admit I don't "know" much about Zen.
However I have noticed something here. The question of consistency. The
more consistent a metaphysical theory is, the more it allows me to think,
and the more a metaphysical theory claims for existence of inconsistent
elements, the more I am required to use sensory. This poses a problem
for us. We can go on counting the number
of inconsistent elements a metaphysical theory claims to exist, and so
make a hierarchy between the metaphysical theories based on these variable
amounts. Maybe we will even find metaphysical theories which share the same
amount of inconsistent elements within them. But how can we know that
the explanatory weight of all these inconsistent elements is the same?
Why should we think that the quantity of these inconsistent elements is
the attribute that interferes with our ability to think within the realm
of a metaphysical theory? Maybe the numbers only enriches our consciousness
with colorful mystical thoughts? In ancient
My fish suffered in silence, but what does it mean? Metaphysical theories such as Zen are totally inconsistent. They come to totally undermine thought. And what does Zen has to offer us in terms of our causes, purpose, and meanings? Absolutely nothing! Nothing in the most explicit sense of it. We already understood with our pathologically skeptic person, that as long as we are all locked within our consciousness, we have no real interest in these. But if we address some of the ideas that appear in Zen and find these in let's say Judaism, we are moving into the category of inconsistent metaphysical theories. In the category of inconsistent metaphysical theories we could find an almost infinite amount of theories, a number that is proportionate only to the number of thoughts that passed through the excited consciousnesses of human beings from the dawn of human history. A lot of times we will find inconsistent elements which try to hide behind a net of logical arguments. But this is nothing but camouflage. In monotheistic religions, the infinite attributes of god logically contradict god's ability to change anything in the world. God, being infinite in all sense must also be capable of knowing the result of any test of faith, and so, it cannot change the outcomes of it, in terms of reward and punishment. For a person believes only he exists and all is but a reflection of his subconscious, the fact the world does not behave as he wishes indicates that there is another consciousness that rules his world. His consciousness is alienated and left detached from his sub consciousness, in a way which cannot be logically explained. In science as well, the great riddles remain unanswerable. What was before the beginning of the universe? What was before the first "cause"? Even Nietzsche's perspectivism, just as all other existential theories, can't logically deal with the existence of the essence of the world in itself. I can go on, but my point is clear. It is always the ontology of a metaphysical theory that fractures the consistency of an otherwise flawlessly consistent metaphysical theory. To adopt any of these metaphysical theories, at least one sensation must be sensed, and another sensation must be repressed, in order to keep the whole theory on its legs. And what could these inconsistent metaphysical theories say about the essence of causes, purposes, and meanings? A lot of things. They vary between devotion to god through religion, devotion to benefits through science, devotion to existence through existentialism, and so on and so forth. As of yet we cannot form any conclusion from this variety. We will have to wait with our conclusions from this category, until we are mentally fit to process this variety.
Ok then. Let's carry on. So what about consistent complete metaphysical theories? What can fill this category?...hmmm… echo…
Nothing. The category is empty. How can it be possible to logically explain such ideas as the essence of the "first cause"? It appears to be way too "out there". Our consciousness rejects any attempt to logically validate such speculations. Totally inconsistent metaphysical theories avoided dealing with these questions by undermining the conscious ability to think, but if I still try to think about this "first cause", my consciousness is suddenly filled with all kind of strange beliefs and fantasies, with all sorts of inconsistent metaphysical theories. Heavy clouds cover this path my friends. We are stuck in the middle of an inconsistent jungle.
What shall we do? How can we fill this deterministic hole without a shred of faith? How?
Hey! Wait a minute. Isn't determinism also a sort of belief? We don't think causality. We sense it! But haven't we just determined that in the category of consistent metaphysical theories we never use sensory and only think? So it appears this problem is solved. The "first cause" is not a problem for us simply because it is not definable according to consistent metaphysical theories. In fact, consistent metaphysical theories have absolutely no contradictions, since contradictions are a result of causality, and now we know that our consciousness senses causality. But what is this nonsense? How can these metaphysical theories be consistent, if they don't allow causality?! This is beginning to sound like Zen!
Calm down. It is obvious that causality exists in consistent metaphysical theories. The point is that nothing else can exist in it. A consistent metaphysical theory determines that everything which is logically explained can exist, and what cannot be explained logically does not exist. In a consistent metaphysical theory the essence of the world in itself is logic in itself. Everything that exists in the world is a product of pure logic. A contradiction can spore only from a wrong definition of logic in itself. Therefore, in order to populate this category of consistent metaphysical theories, we must redefine logic in such a way that will enable us to map all the consistent elements into logic and in a way which is consistently logical. But what exactly is a consistent element? Intuitively we can understand that in a consistent metaphysical theory, everything in the world, the physical world that is, is consistent. It cannot be a product of anything but logic, since it is the essence of the world in itself. Anything we sense or think is a product of logic as well. Therefore, whatever sensation occupies our consciousness, it is consistent as well. Make no mistake. It is not that the contents of every thought we might have is consistent with the contents of all our other thoughts. It is consistent with the essence of the world in itself. But on the other hand, logic does not really exist; it's just that the essence of the world in itself is logic. The world in itself is an existing logical construct.
But what does it mean an existing logical construct? Simple. An existing logical construct is a construct in which only logical things exist, without anything thinking about it. For example, Pythagoras' theorem may not exist, but the regularity it defines could be found in consistent logical constructs.
?
???
STOP! Things are getting complicated. Ok. I think we just reached the end of the introduction to Delta Theory. But before we start talking about Deltas we need a new model for logic. Therefore in the next chapter I will define one: the logical physics. We'll see where we can get from there.
Physical Logic
The model of the physical logic is rather simple if obly considering the number of elements it defines, but it may prove to be a bit of a headache when trying to actually think about it. The best way to approach it the first time is through the use metaphors: Imagine a photograph of a boat sailing in sea. A huge chunk of metal afloat peacefully above an ocean blue. Can you imagine it? Good. Ok. Now, let me ask you a question. How high is the boat? If you know something about boats, you would know that about half the height of a boat is underwater, so you could guess that the boat is two time the height you see in the picture. This is usually a plausible guess. But what if I told you the boat photograph you just saw was done using computer graphics? You could say that the boat has no height whatsoever, since it does not exist in reality. But the picture does exist in reality, so I ask again you what is the height? Here you would rightfully get a bit angry and ask: What? The height of the paper?! Dumbass!
Forget about the picture, but in the context of the physical logic I will be more persistent. Do you agree with me that everything a computer can do is consistent? I mean, do you agree with me that there is no "ghost in the machine" that generates recognizable images in the computer? Do you agree that the computer is made of nothing but pieces of metal and plastic? Without having a metaphysical theory that will somehow breathe real life into the computer, I believe you will all easily agree on this. Now, for those of you who know something about how computers are built, you know that apart from what the software tells the computer to do, the only things that can determine the actions of a computer are the laws of mechanics and electronics. Are these laws defined through mathematical equations? Yes. And is mathematics consistent? This question may be a bit tricky, but for our metaphor, let's agree it is. The equations performed by a computer are of a consistent nature. Ok. So from what we all agreed on, the boat in the picture was created consistently by the computer. The boat's CGI image is compatible with the physical existence of the computer which made it. Let's say you all agree untill now.
Ok. Then the physical logic determines that exactly as the CGI boat is a product of the materials that the computer is built from: metals, plastic, atoms, electrons, etc, the same applies for everything in the world: matter, sensations, changes of consciousness, all items on our six term list, all the consistent elements in the world are consistently derived from the logical field, which is the essence of the world in itself. When considering the problems of mechanical determinism, meaning the sensation of consciousness which relates to such limit problems as "the first cause" for example, then the sensation is consistent with the logical field. It is consistent with it as a sensation, but the content of this sensation, meaning the term "cause" itself, does not exist. The very idea of "a cause" does not exist, and so the first "cause" did not exist as well. Causality is something that happens in the present, but does not exist outside the border of what is happening in the present. In a broader sense, no idea exists, because the existence of an idea will allow an inconsistent element to exist in the logical field. Back to our consciousness, all of the elements of our consciousness: sensations, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification, do not exist as ideas. Generalizations do not exist in the world. The only things that may exist are specific cases of existence of regularities that make up thought, sensory, repression, and nullification. It is the same as I have mentioned before with Pythagoras' therom. You can find them in existence, but you would not find them in any other form other than existence.
As of yet, we cannot map the essence of sensations to the logical field, as we have only explained what is "isn't". We need to start explaining what is "is". We need to start explaining the logical field. But first I must explain these terms "is" and "isn't". When I have chosen to explain a consistent metaphysical theory, I put myself in a complex situation. I simply have no place "to put things in it". I am not allowed to believe in axioms, and therefore I must build everything out of nothing basically, and keep everything consistently logical. And that is where my terms of "is" and "isn't" come into play. "Is" is whatever is consistent. "Isn't" is whatever is inconsistent. If something is "is", it exists. If something is "isn't" it doesn't exist. However when something is "isn't", although it does not exist, it might still be useful for our understanding, in order to see the boundaries of our world. In short whatever is "is" exists in the world. Whatever is "isn't" does not exist in the world because of one simple reason: "isn't" is inconsistent with the logical field. The reason I need this definition is that unless I have it, I will not be able to address the things which do not exist, and so, I will not be able to fully explain any consistent metaphysical theory. So to sum it up: Bla. Bla bla. Bla bla, blab la. Bla.
Ok. Let's go back to the logical field. First thing to understand about the logical field is that it's not like there is such a thing as a field, of which the logical field is a type of. The term "logical field" is just a name I use in my thoughts, because for some reason, consciousnesses "love" generalizations (more on this later). The logical field is simply a name I give to the regularity that exists in the world according to the physical logic. This means that the term "logical field" should reside in our consciousness as part of the definition of the generalization we call logic. The bottom line is that the logical field is a sensation in our consciousness, and since it is the most basic element of the physical logic, it is not even a construct of sensations, as it does not rely on any other sensation to validate it. It is a sensation that you can't think about. You can only sense it. It is the sensation that you are asked to embrace as your belief when you chose the physical logic's explanation for the essence of the world in itself. It is the only thing the physical logic asks us to believe in: to believe in the existence of logical consistency. But this does not mean that the term physical logic exists. Only the regularity it defines exists. Actually, apart from the existence of this regularity, nothing exists. Nothing is "is". The whole world is constructed by a flow of consistent causality of regulated consistent causality. Ladies and gentlemen! Watch and learn! We went as far as we could from Zen, and ended up in a total ontological nihilism!
Well…not really. It's not that "nothing is". Pretty much everything we know is "is". Everything we know exists, and it exists as a result of the regularity that is existing within the logical field. Ok, so what is this regularity? Let's not be too haste and jump into making definitions too soon. If we forget the route by which we arrived here, we might get lost. So again, let's start from our consciousness. We can immediately understand that our consciousness does not exist in the logical field as a definition of a group of elements, as no generalization exists in the logical field. But does it exist as a single entity? Does it exist or is it an illusion of existence? Well, if we consider that according to the physical logic, the world is made of nothing but streams of consistent causality; it is quite obvious that our consciousness cannot be anything but an illusion. Everything in the world we know is somehow made from the stream of consistent causality, and whatever other nature it might have, must be nothing an illusion or a delusion. Our consciousness must be a type or construct of a flowing consistent causality stream. There simply isn't any other "stuff" to make it from when you are "in" the physical logic.
But why did I claim that all generalizations create inconsistencies?
Let's see. When we say that some element exists, it is as if we pack
all our various sensations from this element under a single sensation.
It is equal to the mental action where we give a generalization a name.
Just like our own name. When I say: "I am Ptyl", I am actually generalizing
my consciousness, my body, my memories, and so on under the name Ptyl. In this sense,
the term Ptyl is an idea, exactly like the concept of the term "I" is
an idea. They both do not exist in the logical field. Still,
these generalizations are two different sensations. This
duality gives the sentence "I am Ptyl" a validating characteristic:
On one hand, the name Ptyl defines me for strangers – and their existence
assert that the "I" exists. On the other hand, the existence of the
"I" qualifies me to have a name. Therefore, when I say "I am
Ptyl" my consciousness is hopelessly trying to validate its existence with
a tautology. Now let's consider another sentence: "I am not Ptyl". It
seems this sentence is incorrect, but it is not only incorrect. If you remember
our friend Zack the postmodernist, for him this sentence would be perfectly fine,
while at the same time for me it's false. Why is that? Simple.
It is because the validity of my name is not as meaningful to me as the
idea of the "I". But what would have happened if both would be
equally meaningful to me? Then we would have a paradox. Then it would be
exactly like saying "I am lying". If the idea of lying would
not be as meaningful as the idea of the "I" there would
not be a paradox. I will give an example to clarify this point. If I
say "I am here with you in this room, I am Ptyl, it is my name, I am
speaking, I am thinking, I am fantasizing, I am lying, I am living", where
does the paradox go? I do not wish to go into the different uses of language,
but I do want you to pay attention to the fact that the paradox was not created
from the meaning of the generalizations themselves, and not from
the way these generalizations where formally put together in the
sentence. The paradox was created only by the way the consciousness decided to
subjugate these ideas together. To be more exact, it was determined by the
different sensory which sent the thought to try and build
a construct of sensations, in order to understand the sentence.
Therefore, if the logical field was to allow the existence of generalizations
in it, then it would allow the randomness of different consciousness and conscious
states to select the sensory by which to interpret the sentence. What
this translates to is that if generalizations existed in the logical
field, it would allow this choice of sensory to destroy the logical
field's consistency.
And why
is that? Think about it. Let's say we have two consistent sensations which
are actually two generalizations. we subjugate them inconsistently,
and give this construct of sensations a name. Now we have a new sensation
which is a generalization. It exists. Everything's fine. Only one
problem. Now we have an inconsistency which exists within the logical
field. So to sum it up, what I am saying is that in a consistent metaphysical
theory, generalizations cannot exist, because the consciousness
in itself exists. Because it is mandatory that our consciousness exists as an illusion,
it is also mandatory that this illusion is consistent
with the logical field. To sum it up, what I am saying is that in a consistent
metaphysical theory, generalizations cannot exist, because the
consciousness in itself exists, and because if it exists, it must be consistent
with the logical field. And so every sensation in our
consciousness that is possible to create an inconsistent sensation,
must not exist. It can exist as a dellusion. We must choose one side
which exists and one side which doesn't exist if we wish to keep the world
consistent. The consciousness in itself is "is", and the
consciousness as an entity capable of holding inconsistent sensations,
is "isn't".
What does all this say about generalizations and paradoxes in consistent metaphysical theories? Well, I think the best way to pour some light on this issue is to think of the logical field as a great white sheet. I will add an illustration to help you understand this better:
Every generalization is like
a hand that pushes under the sheet. When you look at it, you see a shape of a
hand formed by the white cloth. In our case this sheet covered hand is a sensation
in our consciousness. A paradox is like an attempt of two of these sheet
covered hands to create the illusion that there is a hole in the sheet, as they
touch each other with their fingertips. It appears as if they create a
"hole" in the sheet, since there is a perspective from which we can
see through the sheet (i am referring to the space between the point where the fingers
push against one another through the sheet, and the base level of the sheet).
The sheet allows this illusion of a "hole",
because it does not allow any real contact of the two hands. The sheet
separates the two hands, and by doing that it prevents a real hole in the sheet
from forming. The two hands can still actually touch each other, but only if
they do it underneath the sheet. The joining of the two hands will
create a bigger bump underneath the sheet, one in the volume of two hands
instead of just one hand, but for an observer looking from above the sheet, all
that can be seen is a single if slightly bigger bump. To allow the existence of
generalization would be like allowing the hands to poke holes
in the sheet. Only then could the hands meet above the sheet. In
analogy, the sheet is the fabric of consistency that characterizes the logical
field. Every point on the sheet can be retraced to an earlier point in that
direction. This is like the consistency of the logical field,
where to every point there is always a previous point which is consistent
to it. Being above the sheet
means being visible from a perspective above the sheet, and in
analogy, it means being logically possible and so to exist in the physical logic.
Without tearing holes in the sheet, the only way to be visible, to be
possible, is to be a shape covered by the sheet. However, a consistent
metaphysical theory that allows these generalizations to be possible
is like an easily torn sheet that we better replace before our butts will be
left out cold. And if generalizations already exist in a consistent metaphysical
theory, then it means the theory is no longer consistent. To find
the "hole" in its consistency all we need is to
find these generalizations and split them to their ingredients.
We can map all the items on our list to this white sheet metaphor. Each sensation is derived from the logical field, and so a sensation is analogous to a hand rising from beneath the sheet, creating a bump. A construct of sensations is analogous to the bigger bump made by two hands touching beneath the sheet. Sensory is analogous to the rising of a bump, and nullification is when the bump flattens. Thought is analogous to the interaction between these sheet covered hands. The hands can "help" one another and create a construct of sensations (create a big bump), or flatten each other down. This forceful flattening of one hand by another hand is analogous to repression.
However, if we remember what we
already know about the physical logic, there can't really be any hands.
All we have is the logical field. The logical field is the only
thing that can create these bumps, and it is only the logical field
which can cause any interaction between these bumps. Therefore, the reason thought and
repression are different from sensory and nullification is that
our consciousness can separate two different sensations with thought
and repression, while sensory and nullification happen as
solo events. But this separation is just an illusion as all our sensations
are consistent with the logical field. All the different sensations in our consciousness are just different
areas of the sheet. Sensations do not poke holes in the sheet, and there
is only one sheet. Nothing exists but the sheet. Our consciousness as a whole
could also be mapped to this sheet metaphor. Our consciousness is an area in
the sheet that has been raised and folded to cover itself. Every change in the
sheet on one side of this fold is sensed on the other side of the folded area.
A good way to imagine this is by thinking how it feels to grab a piece of cloth
with your fingers. You grab the cloth with your fingers and you think
you sense your fingers touching each other. But in actuality, all you sense
is the cloth. With one finger you feel the texture of an opposite finger, and
the opposite finger feels the texture of the first finger. But within your
consciousness things are defined differently. Your consciousness generalizes
this dual-finger action under what we call "grabbing". This
grabbing of the cloth is analogous to the sensation of "being conscious"
the feeling of being alive. And so, the existence of our consciousness is
nothing more than interaction of bumps in the cloth. The consciousness is
nothing but an area of the cloth, but the cloth does not exist. It is just a
metaphor. The only thing that is "is", is the existence of the regularity
described by this metaphor.
Shit. Now even I have a headache. What am I trying to say? That the consciousness is located somewhere in the brain, and when that area of the brain suffers trauma, the consciousness is nullified? And what about these "bumps"? Are these neurons in the brain that push and trample one another? And what the hell is this "sheet"?! I mean, all i have ever seen in the world were three spatial dimensions. So what's the score? The consciousness "folds" space? Maybe the reason I didn't find any consistent metaphysical theories is because these theories are in fact utterly inconsistent!
Then again, maybe these are simply the wrong questions. Let's look at it from a different perspective. If I said that all that exists in the world is logical regularity of the logical field, then what exactly is time and space? Where exactly does this regularity exist? Let's think. On one hand, a type of spatial dimension must exist in order for anything to exist in it, even if it just the existence of a regularity. On the other hand, a type of regularity must be in existence to make sure that this special dimension exists. It could be even the simple regularity that determines the persistence of existence for this spatial dimension.
But why? Why should the existence of a spatial dimension be dependant on the existence of a regularity? Well it is quite obvious that without a regularity that determines that the spatial dimension exists, it cannot continue to exist in time. It is "quite" obvious. But it is "obvious" only intuitively. When we try to think about the vague notion that is "the end of time", we do not think about a world that has frozen, but rather of a world that has totally disappeared. So that's not good enough. We are dealing here with a much more fundamental aspect. If there is no regularity existing, there is no matter. There is nothing to glue the particles together, or to keep these particles from disintegrating into nothingness. There is nothing to prevent space from disintegrating. What I mean is that the very fact that space is a single element is in fact an existing regularity. If it didn't exist, then it wouldn't have existed, which means that space was no longer a single element, and it would have disintegrated. We cannot claim that space is a single element, simply because nothing tries to take it apart. In order for something to take it apart, there must be another spatial regularity by which this thing could sabotage the unity of space. What I mean is that this kind of thought refers to space as a subspace of some greater form of space where such sabotage could happen. If that is the case, then by the word space I am referring to the greater form of space, for which such sabotaging regularities cannot exist. So what this all comes down to is that it is impossible to separate between the existence of space and the existence of some sort regularity on it. Ontologically, according the physical logic, the spatial dimension is a regularity, and therefore a regularity defines a dimension (although not necessarily a spatial dimension). If a regularity in itself exists, then a dimension in itself exists. If a dimension in itself exists, then a regularity in itself exists as well. So we can conclude that there is no need to find a place for dimensions in the logical field. Dimensions are already built in the logical field.
Surprisingly, this unification between spatial dimensions and the existence of regularities can explain some of the confusion we faced earlier. We said that the logical field exists, and therefore space exists. Now all the other things we need "to put in it", will be placed there using dimensions. We just need to know how many dimensions does the world in itself posses. We know of three spatial dimensions, and modern science as well as popular culture says time is a "type of" dimension as well. So what about consciousness? What about this "folding" of the logical field that happens in our brain? How is it possible that the existence of our consciousness doesn't interfere or even break the consistency of the spatial dimensions?
Again, in order to answer this question we should first answer some more basic questions. All we have is the logical field. We only have the logical consistent existence of regularity. Since I have not yet defined this regularity I ask: Must there be a regularity for the three spatial dimensions and some other regularity for the temporal dimension (i.e. time)? If so, then what regularity exists while I am dreaming at night? My dreams are projected in a three dimensional space, but the backdrops of my dreams do not occupy a location within the three spatial dimensions of wakefulness. And furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, scientific brain research does not support the notion that the sensation of being conscious spores out of a single well defined area of the brain.
Urm…yeah. Let's take a step back and get back to the matter of these dimensions. What is most crucial for having a multiplicity of dimensions?
…illustration please…
Let's take for example a square. If
we wish to add depth to a square, we must expand the sides of the edges of a
square. We won't damage the square. What was once was a square, will now be the
front edge of a cube. And what does that have to do with the logical field?
Simple. There is no limit to the number
of dimensions the logical field can have. The only restriction we
do have that it is forbidden for one dimension to damage the consistency
of another dimension. That would be like damaging the initial square
we had while expanding it to a cube. There cannot be a cube without six edges.
There cannot be an inconsistent dimension. Therefore, our consciousness
does not have to be a product of the spatial or temporal dimensions. As long as
consciousness does not temper with the consistency of the spatial and
temporal dimensions, it can perform its own regularities, by adding its
own dimension ot dimensions. As long as there is no regularity that prevents it, more dimensions can always be added to the logical field, but with
each dimension added, the restrictions of consistency make it
less and less potent to actually change something in the world.
What does it mean? Well, if we go back to the
cube, in order to reach the edge opposite to the initial square we had, we have
to continuously go through the whole depth of the cube. We can't just jump to
the back edge of the cube. If somewhere along the depth of the cube
the continuity of the cube is interrupted, we will no longer have a cube. At best
we will have the delusion of having a cube, but in fact we will
have two adjacent boxes. Back to our dimensions, there are no
"short cuts" to jump through within dimensions. We cannot generalize
a consistent logical process under some name, and expect that recalling
the name of this process will recreate that process in the world. I
mean, we can do that in our heads as we think, but we cannot expect it
to actually happen in the world.
I will give an example what I mean. Let's say a cardboard box capable of holding ten apples. We have one box, but for some reason we need a hundred apples. Now we know the mathematical idea of multiplication. It is a mathematical, hence logical process, generalized under the name "multiplication". So based on our mathematical knowledge, we know it would take ten such apple boxes for us to have all the apples we need. But we cannot just multiply the box we have by ten. Someone needs to go and fetch another nine apple boxes. We cannot jump through the physical aspects just because we generalized this process and treat it as an abstract in our consciousness.
This idea will rid the physical
logic of such inconsistencies such as Russell's paradox. Russell, a
philosopher and mathematician, found a paradox in set theory: The set of all
sets that do not contain themselves. If a set contains itself doesn't fit Russell's
set, and if the set does not contain itself then it matches Russell's set defintion. Now
according to the physical logic, this definition made by Russell is
nothing more than a load of bullocks. There is no such thing as a
"set". A "set" and a generalization are basically synonyms,
and I explained why generalizations cannot exist with
the logical field. But it goes way beyond that. The set Russell came up
with can never refer to anything in the world, because the construction
of it can never be finished. With every step in the set's creation there is
another step that must be done before it will be eligible to be something we
can generalize under a name. Whenever the set includes itself it must be
removed, and once removed the set must be inserted back in. Russell came up
with a regularity how to fill a set with objects, and this regularity can
actually be practiced in the world (let's say by thinking about it). But
as with the cube that was split in the middle into two boxes, we cannot take
this regularity and skip all the way down to the opposite edge. We cannot
create a cube this way. Trying to define a set by the regularity that defines what it includes
is inconsistent because it breaks the logical continuity and consistency
of this regularity. And if as we said all regularities are in fact dimensions,
then when we generalize a regularity in such a way, we will break a dimension in
two, and by that we will break the world into two different worlds:
A. This world, as in the world we live in, where we came up with
this regularity (in analogy it is the initial square we had).
B. another world where Russell's set (or in analogy the depth of the cube) exist,
but Russell's regularity (or in anlalogy, the initial square) cannot exist in it.
But, that is all just conceptually speaking. Regarding the world we live in, this paradox is nothing
but nonsense. It simply cannot exist.
So we see that while we can name a generalization that defines the paradox, we can never find an element in the world which will be analogous to it. The paradox was created only by our delusion that a logical definition can allow us to "jump" or "skip" over what is possible within the boundaries of the world. In effect, Russell showed us that we can think in terms that defy the limitations of temporal consistency. But there is no way to really "poke a hole" in the fabric of this consistency. We might be deluded to think it is possible, but we make this mistake only because we don't pay attention to the way the sensation of "understanding" the essence of this "hole" was created. We simply failed to see the crack between the two boxes as we thought we were seeing a cube. Back to Russell, all he proved was that the mathematical terms by which set theory was defined, are inconsistent. Arrogantly, I can say that what Russell proved was that the physical logic is a necessity not only for solvinge these metaphysical problems, but also for solving inconsistencies in logic systems which failed to sufficiently include temporal restrictions.
So what about time, the temporal dimension? Is it not a regularity? Hold on a sec. Why should we define time as a dimension? It's true that modern physics have somewhat taught us to treat time as a dimension, but now our most basic definitions of the world have flipped. So let's think. What is the thing that separates the generalization we just made for a dimension, from what we will generalize as not a dimension? Well, we defined a dimension as the existence of a consistent regularity, which does not damage the consistency of any other regularity (any other dimension). Also we determined that a regularity is analogous to space, in the sense that space is a dimension. Since the regularity of a dimension is just a sub set within the set of all the regularities that are consistent to the logical field, we can say that a dimension is sub space of the logical field. If so, then think what does a dimension hold, which will vanish once this dimension vanishes? If we go back to out cube, we can ask: What will vanish once we lose the depth dimension? Well, it's quite simple. Depth will vanish. The ability of our initial square to hold any sort of distance in the direction of depth will vanish.
Ok then. So what will vanish if time vanishes? The regularity itself! On one hand, if there is no time, any change that derives from any regularity ceases to "happen". And if the regularity does not "happen", it simply doesn't exist! It is very important to remember that a regularity does not exist within a dimension or space. The dynamical change that the regularity defines is a dimension. On the other hand, if all regularities vanish, it would mean that the logical field has vanished. So what will then maintain the persistence of time? I mean, the persistence of time is in itself a regularity! So if time will both persist and cease to persist, time becomes an inconsistent element. This means that if time exists independently from the logical field. If so, we can be sure that at least one element exists, or is "is", outside consistency, outside the logical field, and it is time.
So we can conclude that there must be at least two variations to the physical logic. In one variation, the consistent physical logic, time is space is the logical field, is the essence of the world in itself. In this variation, the world in itself is totally consistent. In the second variation, the inconsistent physical logic, there exists at least one inconsistent element in the world in itself, which is time. However since we are trying to build a consistent metaphysical theory, the inconsistent version of the physical logic will not interest us. Even if it is correct that time is an inconsistent element, it is simply not signifcantly different from a lot of the other inconsistent metaphysical theories. Therefore I conclude: time is space is the logical field.
Let's hold on a minute. Can I do this? Can I just decide that time is not outside the logical field? Isn't this decision inconsistent to rational thought? Am I allowed to make this kind of decision based solely on personal taste?
Of course I am. It is just that we have no way to determine if it is indeed true. Go back and remember what I said in the introduction. In this text we are thinking in a formalized intuitive manner. But that does not mean that the consistent physical logic is inconsistent. It just means that it is impossible to verify against empirical data. There are a lot of consistent metaphysical theories that are mostly consistent, like Judaism, Christianity, and so on. The resemblance between the consistent and inconsistent versions of the physical logic does not matter when it comes to their place in our metaphysical categories. What I concluded regarding time is equivalent to what I concluded regarding generalizations. I defined it in such a way that will keep the world consistent. Is it true? Well, that is a different question altogether. If there are inconsistent elements, elements outside the logical field, then I guess there simply cannot be any consistent complete metaphysical theory. If there aren't any inconsistent elements, then maybe it is all true. For now, all we have is our intuition.
I would like to add another thing regarding this. It has more to do with inconsistent metaphysical theories. A religious person might claim that the logical field is in fact the essence of god. If that is what this man believes, I am fine with that. What this man in fact says is that god is consistent. But the problem is that if this is indeed the essence of god, then that's what it is. God is the logical field. God is not a consciousness. God is impotent of any meaning. It is only in the inconsistent versions of the physical logic that god can become something else, something beyond cold logics, beyond proof, something meaningful, something inconsistent. I personally believe that a religious person would prefer these metaphysical theories. And for the same reason, whoever decides to adopt the consistent physical logic will resent the metaphysical models offered by far eastern civilizations. According to the consistent physical logic, the so called enlightenment is in actuality an attempt to reach the impotence level of our consistent god. It isn't human, and it has nothing interesting to offer for humans.
Ok. Let's carry on. We have a long way ahead of us. Let us proceed in the direction of the dimensions. We said that a dimension is a subspace of the logical field. Now, a first step in the right direction would be to ask if the dimensions in themselves exist. And the answer is: Of course not. A dimension in itself is perhaps the most classic case of a generalization. The only things that exist are regularities that are limited to a subspace of the logical field. We can distinguish three aspects of these regularities:
1. Part of the regularity of the logical field exists within a dimension (since it is a sub part of the logical field)
2. A regularity exists within a dimension. The existence of this regularity metaphysically divides the logical field to areas where it exists and areas where it does not exist. Where the regularity is "is", and where the regularity is "isn't" (by referring to areas of the logical field, I mean that not everything that happens within the logical field happens at the same place. However, what should be considered as "place" according to the physical logic is profoundly different from our intuitive concept of it. So you'll just have to wait and understand only later what exactly is "an area of the logical field").
3. The regularity of one dimension does not damage the consistency of another dimension.
I love lists. Lists are cool. Ok. So where will we go from here? As always. Let's go back to our consciousness. The sensation of being in a three dimensional space is clearly a generalized sensation. By the term generalized sensation I mean a construct of sensations we have in our consciousness as a result of a generalization cognitive process. Our consciousness picks three orthogonal areas of the logical field, and treat it as a three dimensional space. What does it mean? Does it mean that the logical field is three dimensional? Let's think. Wherever I look my consciousness can sense three spatial dimensions. Therefore, wherever I look my consciousness divides an area of the logical field into three spatial dimensions. But each division is different! If for example I am looking in direction of the sun, the sun dazes me and I shift my gaze in twenty degrees. Now in front of me there is a completely different division of the logical field into sub spaces. Therefore I conclude that if there is an absolute division of the logical field into three dimensions, and if there isn't such a division, my consciousness can sense an infinite amount of such divisions. And what does it mean? Very simple. It means our consciousness can sense the logical field as at least three subspaces.
You may wonder why I chose to say "at least". Well, so far we have discussed only a specific kind of dimensions. The three spatial dimensions are such that allow us to sense the generalized sensation of distance. But is that all we sense? Of course not! For example, we can sense color (if we are not blind or color blind that is). Let's say red. Isn't being red a sub space of the logical field? According to our definitions, yes! Being red does not damage the consistency of other dimensions. It is still within our world, and it is caused by an existing regularity of photons. The same rule can be applied on sounds, smells, and even our own sensations such as moods and mood swings. These are all dimensions by definition.
Are these absolute divisions of the logical field? I believe they are, but we must explain what the term absolute means according to the physical logic. We have already concluded that according to the physical logic the illusion of having consciousness exists. Therefore, the division of the logical field into illusions of divisions is absolute as well. Therefore, each division of the logical field within our consciousness is indeed an illusion, but it is also absolute. The logical field does not contradict these divisions, but if it wasn't for our consciousnesses' illusion of existence, the logical field would not demand them either.
What does this mean? Think of your hand. Your hand can be divided according to color, shape, smell (lol), and so on. If you take some LSD and hallucinate, your hand could appear as the nose of a dog. It all depends on how your consciousness senses the dimensions of the logical field. It depends on the choice of dimensions by which the logical field is filtered before it reaches our consciousness as sensations. The same applies when we dream. When we are dreaming our consciousness is totally detached from the manner by which it divides the logical field into dimensions during wakefulness. The dream exists within the logical field but it does not damage the divisions we know from wakefulness. So now we must ask a critical question: If it is our consciousness that divides the logical field to dimensions, then why does the wakeful world exist? Why does the wakeful world appear to remain the same, while our dream worlds are repeatedly nullified? There can be only one explanation to this. Our consciousness is a product of the division of the logical field into dimensions. Our consciousness derives from a-priori divisions of the logical field into dimensions and matter (as in the matter we know from the wakeful world).
But why? Well, the truth is there is no real connection between matter and wakefulness. It is simply that our consciousness is not a regularity, but rather a product of a regularity in action. Our consciousness is a product of a dimension. Before, I mentioned the metaphor for the sensation of having a consciousness. I said that this sensation of having a consciousness derives from a kind of "feedback" between sensations. If we now continue with this metaphor, what then the "fingers" holding the cloth will continue to exist even if they will not grab the cloth. Back to our consciousness, what this means is that our consciousness does not have to exist continuously. We do not always think or sense that we exist. As long as we are awake, we sense the world and we sense our consciousness, but we don't have to always sense them.
When don't we sense our consciousness? When we pass out for example. This is actually a very interesting case, because when a person has passed out, the bodily regularities pauses the continuity of our consciousness. If matter was to derive from our consciousness and our consciousness was a dimension, that would mean that a dimension that derived from another dimension has broken the consistency of its "parent dimension". When the division of the world into matter derives from our consciousness, it is impossible for the material world to conduct any regularity while our consciousness isn't around. We can try to go around this argument and blame our subconscious for dividing the world into dimensions. We can claim that our subconscious exists continuously even when we pass out. However, the problem with this argument is that it totally separates our consciousness from our sub consciousness. Under this condition we are practically making a god out of our subconscious. Now, although we are allowed to think like this, we must understand that what this means is that our subconscious is what divides the world into dimensions, and creates the regularities that are in action between matter and our consciousness. The subconscious makes sure our consciousness retains its consistency with matter. It is the subconscious which makes sure no "crack" appears in the consistency of the material world. But on the other hand, it does allow "cracks" in the continousity our consciousness' existence. It allows us to pass out. This means that our subconscious takes better care of the materialistic dimensions, than it for our own consciousness. I don't know about you, but I think this is just silly.
Therefore, if we define a dimensional derivation as the appearance of a dimension in manner which is consistent with the regularity of another dimension, I conclude that the regularity that creates the illusion which makes us sense our consciousness, the dimension of consciousness derives from the material dimensions. The soloist point of view that puts the subconscious as god does not change much. It still puts matter before mind. At best the soloist point of view produces a nice ego trip. The problem is it is the subconscious that gets all the credit. In physical logician terms, the soloist view simply claims that our subconscious is the logical field. Personally, I'm not impressed.
It would be by far more correct to put the sensation of having a consciousness aside, and think of our consciousness as a dimension where other regularities, other dimensions constantly appear and disappear. Thought would be an intentional insertion of a new regularity, a new dimension, to our consciousness. Repression would be an intentional removal of a dimension from our consciousness. Then we have sensory and nullification, which are caused by the consciousness' "parent dimensions". Sensory and nullification are caused by the material dimensions, the same dimensions responsible for the creation of our consciousness, and not regularities that derive from the dimension of consciousness. If we go back to our postmodern friend Zack, we can now understand this better. There can be no thought without sensory, since there is no consciousness without matter. Back to soloistism, we can say that without a body, or without a sort of "god", there can be no consciousness. If they both do not exist, there can be no "parent dimensions" from which the dimension of consciousness to derive from. There is no reason for the consciousness to persist its existence. It is inconsistent. If someone wishes to talk about a consistent physical logic he must let go of his soloist fantasies.
There is one more important issue regarding the physical logic. One cannot stop from wondering why does any regularity exist? Why do regularities exist and not something else? What is so special about regularity that it must exist? My answer is that there is absolutely nothing special about it. The thing is that only the existence of a regularity can cause another regularity not to exist. In fact, all regularities exist. Whatever is possible is just "is". It is simply that no possible thing contradicts all regularities, because any possible thing is a regularity. There is no existence which is not based on the regularity of persistence, meaning its own existence's persistence. If something does not persist to exist, then any regularity it contradicts is possible again, and therefore that regularity exists. Any possible world exists. It is just that if it is possible, then it does not contradict any regularity. This issue might seem a bit strange now, but it will be most basic to the way we will construct the world according to the tools provided by the physical logic.
So let's go back to our first question. According to what we have learned so far, in order to understand the essence of our consciousness, we must first understand the regularities that are at work in the material dimensions. This is actually the meaning behind the name "physical logic". The physical logic comes to describe the essence of matter as logical and consistent, and by that allow it to derive from the logical field. So what does the physical logic actually say? Well, it's very simple. It says that only regularity exists. That's all. No additions. All that ever existed, that exists now, and all that will ever exist is regularity. Time and space are dimensions of that regularity. Therefore, all is the logical field. Again, there is no "field". This "field" is just a generalization that helps us think about the essence of the world in itself. Nothing more. We can say even less. There is no regularity that exists without it actually presently existing, even if we will be satisfied with the existence of the pattern that defines this regularity. Therefore there is no existence without the regularity of persistence: The regularity that makes sure that "what was will be" – which is the exactly the same as the regularity of existence. Therefore, we can rephrase the essence of the physical logic as existence. However, since the existence of our consciousness or our illusion of having a consciousness makes existence obvious to us, there is no need to say even that. In actuality, adopting the physical logic metaphysical theory is the decision not to adopt any metaphysical axiom, apart from the one axiom forced upon us simply because we exist. The physical logic is a metaphysical theory that involves no belief. From the point of view of the physical logic, it is a metaphysical theory that does not require us to span more dimensions on the world. It just describes the essence of the world in itself.
Ok. We're done with the metaphysical theory, but we still have a lot of work. How the hell can we possibly build a world filled with matter, life, consciousnesses, distances, only from this?! We need to build a cosmology in which physical models could operate. Only once we have this new form of physics can we build life and consciousness.
What a mess!
Ok everyone. Pack your bags. We're
moving out.
Logical Cosmology
In order for us to be able to talk about the material world, we need to start using more concrete definitions. Because we are dealing with a purely consistent system, we need clear definitions such as those found in mathematics. Also, we cannot be satisfied just with the general knowledge that the world is divided into dimensions. We must deal with the contents of these dimensions. So let us start by reviewing what we already learned:
1. Existence necessarily exists, because our consciousness or our illusion of having a consciousness necessarily exist.
2. The logical field is regularity is space is time is existence.
3. A dimension maintains a consistent regularity. It divides the logical field in such a way that it is always decidable if a consistent element within the logical field behaves according to the regularity sustained by this dimension, or not.
Ok. Now I will add a new definition to the term world. This definition will not add anything we don't know, but it will help us speak in the generalized abstract manner we like so much.
4. A world is a set of dimensions.
5. The world is the set of dimensions from which the existence of our consciousness is derived.
Ok. Let's carry on. We already understood that every regularity exists (or 'is sustained') if it is possible. By the term possible we separate between a regularity that maintains the consistency of the world in which it is sustained (a possible regularity), to a regularity that damages the consistency of other regularities sustained by that world (an impossible regularity). If for example we have three regularities, three dimensions, and adding another dimension will damage the consistency of one of these three original dimensions. If this new contradicting regularity is indeed added, then we would have two sets of regularities, two worlds: the original world with its three original regularities, and a new world with two of the original regularities, and one regularity which is the new regularity that has been added. To retain consistency, this new world would be completely disconnected from the original three dimensional world we had. If you ask how this new world is created, well then the answer is simple. There is nothing to prevent it from being. There is no regularity to contradict it. There is no regularity to determine that the consistency of all regularities within the logical field are interconnected. Therefore, this new world does not collide with any dimension of the original world we had. The new world that is created simply isn't relevant to the original world we had.
The idea is that every world is a system of regularities which is sealed under its own consistency, and only its own. Therefore we will now define it: A dimension consistent to a world is a dimension which can be spanned from a world. A dimension which is not consistent to a world is a dimension which cannot be spanned from a world, because that will damage the consistency of the world from which it will be spanned. This dimension is transcendent to this world, or we can say this dimension is external to this world. This does not mean this dimension does not exist. What it means is that if this contradictive dimension exists, it exists in a transcendent world, or external world. There is no connection between a world and another world which is transcendent to it. If both a world and another world which is transcendent to it existed and were connected, they would both be inconsistent, and they would both vanish, they would both be nullified. The contradiction that these two worlds create within each other will seep through their regularities, through the dimensions of both worlds, and eventually will damage the regularity sustaining their very existence. Both worlds will simply "cease to persist". But do not make a mistake thinking such things don't happen. If it is possible in some world for two contradicting worlds to collide like this, then both these worlds will indeed be nullified. However, if in another world it is possible that both these worlds will exist without colliding, then in that world, both these contradictive worlds will continue to exist (still somehow separated from each other of course, because the logical field does not allow inconsistencies to exist within it).
I would like to clarify some of the basic concepts that make up what I just said. I will start with the concept of a world within another world. The idea is that a world is a set of regularities consistent to one another. These regularities define dimensions, but that does not mean that the only thing existing within these set of existing regularities are the dimensions. On the contrary. Every single regularity that is consistent with the dimensions of this world exists in it. Furthermore, if several regularities which are consistent to this world are also consistent to each other, then these regularities are also a world in themselves. These regularities are the dimensions of an existing world within the original world we had.
Then we have sub worlds. A sub world is a world which sustains only a sub group of the dimensions of a world. A world does not allow the existence of any of its sub worlds within it. These sub worlds cannot exist within it because their existence will damage the consistency of the dimensions which are not included in these sub worlds. I will explain. If a sub world would to exist within a world, it would mean that the dimensions left out of the sub world do not exist there. If they were to exist, then there would be only the original world. But actually it is much more than just a game of definitions. What's important to understand is that the less dimensions a world has, the less restrictive it is. Each regularity that exists in a world limits what could exist in a world to what is consistent to it. Therefore, for every sub world there must be at least one element which is consistent to it, but is inconsistent to the original world. That element is a regularity that contradicts a regularity that exists within the original world but does not exist in the sub world. Therefore the existence of a sub world within its original world would cause the original world to be nullified.
For this reason we cannot physically find in the world any flat geometrical shape such as a two dimensional square, two dimensional circle, two dimensional triangle, or one dimensional lines. The existence of such shapes would damage the consistency of space. However, it is possible to consciously think about a two dimensional world. These sub worlds can exist as long as they remain irrelevant to the world.
One thing that we can be certain of is that every world must have a dimension of existence. Every world must sustain the regularity of persistence. If it doesn't, then it doesn't persist, and it must nullify itself. Therefore, two worlds which contradict each other's consistency, two irrelevant worlds, cannot share the same dimension of existence. These are contradictive worlds, and so each world must sustain its persistence separately. However, as I said, it is still possible for two contradictive worlds to exist within a world. Actually, it is not only possible, but it is also very easy to "set up". All it requires is the addition of another regularity, another dimension. This dimension "slices" a third world which hosts these two contradictive worlds, into two "areas": One "area" in which one world is consistent, and another "area", an "area" outside this "slice", where the other world is consistent. We will call this kind of dimension a hosting dimension, as it helps to host two contradictive worlds in a single world. Still we must remember that once we add such a hosting regularity to a world no other dimension of this world can contradict it. Everything must remain consistent or this world will have to nullify itself.
Ok then. Let's update our list of definitions. This time we will add not only old definitions, but also new definitions and conclusions. One of them will be a singular world as you can see below:
6. A singular world is a world which does not exist within another world. Each singular world has a unique dimension of existence which maintains the regularity of persistence of this singular world's existence. As soon as this basic regularity becomes inconsistent, this singular world is nullified.
7. A dimension of existence cannot be nullified, since it contradicts the regularity it defines.
8. Contradiction is itself created by a regularity, and so there is no way to fundamentally contradict the existence of regularity in itself.
9. A dimension which is spanned from a world is consistent to that world. This dimension will be called relevant to that world.
10. A dimension which is external or transcendent to a world if the regularity it sustains damages the consistency of that world. This dimension will be called irrelevant to that world.
11. If there is at least one dimension to a world which is irrelevant to another world, these two worlds will be irrelevant to each other.
12. When at least one world is irrelevant to another world, these are contradictive worlds.
13. A sub world of a world is a world in which only a sub group of the dimensions of the original world are sustained. A sub world has less consistency restrictions than its original world
14. Every sub world is irrelevant to its original world. Each world is relevant to its sub worlds.
15. A world and a sub world are contradictive worlds.
16. A hosting dimension is a dimension that sustains a regularity that allows two contradictive worlds to exist within a single world. These sub worlds are not singular since they exist within a hosting world, and therefore they share the same dimension of existence.
17. When contradictive worlds share the same dimension of existence, as soon as their hosting dimension is nullified, these contradictive worlds will be nullified as well.
Ok my friends, we have reached a critical point. The dimensions of existence must exist because the existence of the illusion of having a consciousness, is undisputable (we already went over this issue). But as soon as a dimension of existence is maintained, an infinite amount of worlds can spawn, and persist to exist. The thing is, that for that to happen, these worlds do not need a large variety of dimensions. On the contrary. The fewer dimensions these worlds will sustain, the lesser the chance these worlds will contradict their existence. And if these worlds will perform nothing but persistence of existence, then there is practically no way they will contradict themselves! They wouldn't be able to, since a dimension of existence cannot be nullified.
Therefore, in order for more dimensions to exist, in order for more regularities to exist, we need another regularity. We need a regularity that will ensure the singularity of the world, which would "force" the world, "force" our world, into dimensional complexity. This regularity will prevent the dimensions of the world from spanning their own dimension of existence whenever an inconsistency arises in the world. Another way of looking at it is that we need a hosting dimension for the existence of regularity in the world. We need something to put the regularities together in our world, and leave all the "damaged" worlds out. Doing this does not contradict existence, since existence is itself a dimension, and therefore it is possible. And because it is possible, it exists!
Therefore, the first thing to be "created" in the world once it came to exist was the regularity of having dimensions. It is the hosting dimension for other dimensions, or what I call the dimension of dimensions. This dimension separates what is regulative, from what is not regulative. It separates what's consistent from what's inconsistent, what is causative to what is not causative. So, what will we have within this dimension? Well, it's simple. We will have causality. There is no other trait to this causality. It will be the the job of other regularities of other dimensions in our world to specify the nature of the causality in these dimensions.
The consistency of the world is kept when we add the dimension of dimensions. For the dimension of existence, whatever was created it's irrelevant to it. Whatever the dimension or sub world which is spanned from it, if it contradicts existence, it simply will not be. It will be nullified. And this is where the dimension of dimensions comes into play. The dimension of dimensions is the thing that "makes sure" that future worlds will not be nullified. For this to be possible, the dimension of dimensions had to make sure that the dimension of existence will indeed be a regularity.
You might wonder what it means "to turn existence into a regularity". Well, the dimension of dimensions is the hardest dimension to comprehend, as it filters out possible worlds that we will never even get to even imagine. The idea of turning existence into a regularity basically means, to keep the regularity of existence equal in nature to all other regularities, all other dimensions. Before we said that when we add a dimension to a world and by that create a contradiction, a new world will be created for this "marriage". The problem is that it is too easy for dimensions to avoid the contradictions altogether by spanning their own unique dimension of existence. But such behavior would tear our world apart. And this is where the dimension of dimensions comes and determines that the regularity of existence will be singular in this world, just like any other regularity. Once a regularity exists in the world it cannot be tempted to exist in some other transcendent world, with some other transcendent dimensions. If the regularity becomes inconsistent with the world, it can't just leave and come back again when it's more convenient. No. It will be nullified. The dimension of dimensions determines thattthe world will not be taken apart due to an inconsistency. Instead, the inconsistency will be nullified. We can metaphorically say that the dimension of dimensions is like a jar that keeps only pure consistency in it. Whatever may be outside the jar is irrelevant. Inside the jar these is a singular consistent world.
And so spanning the dimension of dimensions enables us to reinterpret the work done by the dimension of existence, as the regularity of "what was, will persist". In other words the regularity of the dimension of existence is the persistence of time, or in simpler terms: time. The causality that takes place in the dimension of existence is the consistency of all the other dimensions which exist within it. This however does not mean that nothing else exists within the dimension of existence. It just means that whatever else exists within the dimension of existence, and which is inconsistent with the regularity of the dimension of dimensions, it does not contradict the consistency of the dimensions that exists within the dimensions of dimensions. If it contradicted it, then our world would have had to be nullified. And since our world persists, then that clearly isn't the case.
I wish to explain something regarding my last argument that based itself on the claim that the world has not been nullified. You could easily claim that the world hasn't been nullified yet. It is quite common in today's scientific thinking to put everything under doubt. This doubt is based on the notion that all we know is what we learned by observation. Considering this line of thought, if we were to observe the end of the world, then we could claim something different. Now, this is all nice and well in science, but we are not dealing with science. We are dealing with still metaphysical models, somewhere between pure abstraction and the physical world. And why do I say this? We must remember our metaphysical conclusion that if something is possible, then it is "is". If something can exist now outside the world (or in our case, outside the dimension of dimensions), then it must be possible for it to exist in any other time as well. And since it is possible, then it is "is". If a collision between elements of the world and a transcendent world is possible, then it must happen immediately. We don't need to wait for time to take its toll. Time is an internal part of the world. Such a transcendent collision would have to happen between two transcendent points in time. It will be between two transcendent eternities. There is no point in time for this collision. Such a collision is an eternal collision.
So we now have a new answer to the question: "what was before time?" It's simple. There was existence. The only thing is that "before" is not as in "an hour before", but rather as: "What would there be without time?". The answer is the same for before the dawn of time, and after the end of time. The question has been transformed from a question in physics, to a question in metaphysical hierarchies and metaphysical constructions. In that sense, existence can precede time.
Hmmm…yes…I know. Things are getting really complex. I am aware of that, but what can I do? It is not an easy task to build a world out of nothing. You may not be aware of this, but we made a lot progress. Now however, I would like to go back to the inconsistent physical logic. If we try and recreate the logical steps we took to conclude we need the dimension of dimensions, only we do it the other way around, we can discover something rather interesting. If we try to think what could precede existence in the metaphysical hierarchy, there is only one thing we know about it. It is not existence, and not even something that existence is crucial to it. In order to keep our world from nullifying itself, it has to be something that allows regularities, but does not require it. Therefore, it must be something both possible and impossible, both "is" and "isn't". It must be something inconsistent. It must be the hosting dimension for both existence and inexistence. And why? Well, simply because if there is something above existence in the metaphysical hierarchy, it must be in the position to allow existence to be. If it did not allow it, then the world would have been nullified.
But on the other hand we must keep our metaphysical theory consistent, and so the dimension which is above the dimension of existence in the metaphysical hierarchy must be consistent as well. But how? How could this be possible? Simple. This dimension above the dimension of existence simply does not exist. If it existed then it would not have been above existence. It would have been bounded by time, by the dimension of existence, by the world. If that was the case, then it would not be above existence, and therefore, it would not have been the dimension above the dimension of existence. The dimension above the dimension of existence would have not existed. And that's fine actually; the dimension above the dimension of existence would not exist. But on the other hand, by claiming that this obscure dimension exists, and then claiming it does not exist, I contradict myself. I contradict the existence of its existence, and again, the logical field can easily declare that it does not exist. And so again, this dimension does not exist.
Ok, I can see how this last paragraph could be quite hard to understand, so I will try to simplify it for you. We have three categories for metaphysical theories. In the first category, everything is inconsistent. In the second category some elements are inconsistent. In the third category, everything is consistent. This third category is where we find the consistent physical logic. This thing that is located hierarchically above existence is actually hierarchically above consistency. On one hand, it can wear "a consistent suit", walk among people, heal the sick, and revive the dead. On the other hand, it can transform into an absolute nothing. This "thing" is the transcendent god of the physical logic.
The physical logic has no problem with inconsistent elements. The consistent physical logic just has a problem with their existence, and so the consistent physical logic consistently determines that these elements do not exist. But this is not something that the consistent physical logic wants. If there is any sort of will involved, then it must be "what god wants". It may be hard to understand this, as it might still not be so clear to you, what exactly does exist in the world of the physical logic. Only consistent elements exist. If a "god" is not bound to consistency, then "god" simply isn't a consistent element. Therefore, if "god" is not a consistent element, then "god" does not exist within the logical field. Therefore, if "god" does not exist within the logical field, then its existence as an inconsistent element is consistent to the logical field. To sum it up, "god's" existence is in fact inconsistency in itself, and there is absolutely no problem with its existence, as long as this existence is totally external to our world. But just promise to take what I said seriously, and leave "god" outside of the world. If you truly bring god into the world, the world will have to be nullified.
Still don't understand? Ok. Maybe this will help: The same way the dimension of length separates movement to the length of something from movement to the width of somethng, the dimension of consistency separates possible existence from impossible forms of being. In that sense existence is like a horizontal movement, while "god" is like a vertical movement. Existence is measured by consistency. "Godness" is measured by its inconsistency. It's rather simple if you think abstractly enough, and not immediately try to think what it means. The truth is it is really a waste of time thinking what it means. You cannot think about something if you just can't comprehend its existence. you can only know it does not exist. If you try to grasp it, it will just slip through your mental fingers. If you speak in terms which are general enough you just might get it, but down to earth, you understand nothing.
But there is something here
that will be important to the consistent logical physics. Except for
existence itself, which we took for granted, every dimension we defined
(and will define as we proceed) was defined on two levels.
A. We defined it as a hosting dimension for divisions of the logical field,
meaning as the dimensional base of a world.
B. We defined it as a sub world spanned from some hosting dimension.
Therefore, we must define consistency as a sub world spanned from
some other hosting dimension, if we want to indeed prevent the consistent
physical logic from being inconsistent.
But why? Why deal with these definitions so much? Well, we must remind ourselves that if an axiom other than the axiom of existence itself exists, it will lead to an inconsistency in the logical field. So the consistent physical logic must determine that there are inconsistent elements which are "are", but they don't exist. And why is it ok? I mean, it sounds like nonsense!
But that's exactly the idea. When the consistent physical logic makes such a claim, it is absolutely meaningless in the existing world, and therefore it doesn't damage the world's consistency. Don't forget we are thinking here using crazy-ass-generalizations, and we already know these generalizations do not exist (I promise I will explain later what I mean when I say generalization "do not exist"). So this claim is consistent and therefore it exists.
Again, don't try to understand this. Conclude it. Think about it. Don't try to sense it. There is nothing to sense. It does not exist. And then, once you understand it, you can sense it. Strangely the consistency of inconsistency is magically kept. I wonder why…
Ok. Take a ten minute rest. Scratch
your head, ram the wall with your head, wash your face, drink some coffee, smoke
a cigarette, and come back. There's still a long way to go.
Grrr…grrr…grrr [ scratching the head ]
Boom! [ ramming the wall ]
Pshhhhhh… [ washing the face ]
Gulp gulp [ drinking some coffee ]
Pfffff….COUGH [ smoking a cigarette ]
You're back?
Great! Ok. For those of you who
forgot where we stand, let's conclude what we just learned:
18. The dimension of dimensions is a sub world that is spanned from the dimension of existence.
19. The dimension of dimensions ensures the validity of the dimensions. The regularity it sustains is that all the dimensions which are spanned from it will be consistent and relevant to each other.
20. The dimension of dimensions determines that only causality is valid in it. Because the dimension of dimension is a dimension, causality is a regularity, is time, is space, is the logical field.
21. The dimension of existence is responsible for sustaining the existence of consistency within the dimension of dimensions, as well as the consistency of all other dimensions which are spanned from the dimension of dimensions.
22. The dimension of dimensions maintains the consistency of the dimension of existence by defining it as the consistency of existence, meaning the regularity of persistent existence, which we call time.
23. The dimension of dimensions maintains its own consistency, by defining existence as a dimension.
24. The dimension of existence maintains the consistency of consistency, by defining itself as a dimension which is spanned from a hosting dimension.
25. The dimension of consistency is the hosting dimension of the dimension of existence, and therefore the dimension of existence is irrelevant to the dimension of consistency. However, the existence of our consciousness proves that the dimension of existence does not contradict the dimension of consistency.
26. The dimension of existence maintains its own consistency by defining consistency as existence, and inconsistency as existence of inexistence, meaning inexistence. The dimension of consistency exists only where consistent causality exists, meaning only where the dimension of existence is "is".
27. The dimension of consistency is not a consistent element, and therefore it is not a dimension. This fact is consistent with the regularity of the dimension of dimensions, and therefore it is also consistent with the regularity of dimension of existence. Since it is not a dimension, it does not exist.
Pay attention! We have determined
that the dimension of existence derives from itself, because the only
existent metaphysical area from which it is spanned is its own reflection
within the dimension of consistency. This is consistent with the
last conclusion, as well as with the dimension of consistency. This may
seem to be a double definition or even a contradictive definition, but because
we have the dimension of dimensions there is not contradiction. Since we
think from a perspective which is far lower in the dimensional
hierarchy, to us, these definitions are consistent. What I mean is, the
bond between the dimension of existence and the dimension of
consistency is a product of the regularity sustained by the dimension of
dimensions. It is a bond of pure consistency, a connection between definitions.
it is not a connection of dimensions. There is no imminent regularity that
exists between the dimension of existence and the dimension of
consistency, on which they depend, in any way. But you know what? I've had it
trying to explain this point. If you got it, you got it. If you didn't get it,
then you didn't get it. Whatever.
However, what is important for me is that you understand that if it is logically valid, then it is valid. It exists. It's good enough. We began from the assumption that only regularities exist, and from that point we kept everything consistent. Our inability to fully understand this specific point comes from the fact that according to what we learned, existence derives from the dimension of consistency. This derivation from the dimension of consistency determines that there will always be things which we understand, and things we do not understand. there must always be elements which are not understandable, because the essence of the world in itself defines inconsistencies in order to maintain its own consistency. But it is not because of mental deficiencies, or mortal limitations. These inconsistent elements quite simply do not exist, and because they do not exist, the consistent physical logic remains consistent. The fact we cannot understand something that does not exist, is practically meaningless.
Ok so what have we managed to build so far? We have regularities, existence, dimensions, time, and causality. Now we need to build what we intuitively know as space. I mean the kind of space that has distances in it. Miraculously, by now this task will be rather simple. We will define the dimension of space by the following regularity: The existence of three consistent dimensions without a hierarchy structure between them. This is not so hard to agree on, no? The existence of three dimensions is consistent with the regularity of the dimension of dimensions. The existence of the dimension of space is consistent with the dimension of existence, as well. Now since every distinguishable thing in the world "happens" within three spatial dimensions (which means it is consistent with three spatial dimensions), then there is no important hierarchy between the three spatial dimensions. We won't find things disappearing from one spatial dimension while still existing in the rest of the spatial dimensions. The three spatial dimensions behave as a single dimension, and so we will call them the dimension of space.
What? Wait! Can we be sure what I just said is correct? Well the truth is, not really. But you have to think about all of this in a much more subjective manner. First of all, because we grasp space as three dimensional, there is no point for us try and divide it. In our consciousness the experience of space will forever remain three dimensional no matter what we do. Secondly, we have to understand that we could just as well have chosen any other set of three dimensions and call them the dimension of space. But that would only be correct from the perspective of the dimension of dimensions. The way our consciousness "chose" to give meaning to the dimensions, determined the way we distinguish between them. And so, since we do not actually sense two or one dimensional matter, there is no point in making separation between them. They will always come as this triplet. Any selection of three dimensions creates a three dimensional space, but our consciousness specifically selected these three. So from now I will call this chosen triplet the dimension of space.
After considering the way we came to understand the dimension of space, a new conclusion pops up. Space is infinite. And why? Well it is very simple, and it has a lot to do with how we defined our space. We defined it as three consistent dimensions, meaning three regularities existing independently. Nothing can "interrupt" a dimension without totally nullifying it. If we said that at a specific point space ended, it would mean that something interrupted this entire dimension, and not just at that "point". So the whole dimension would have had to be nullified. And so we can conclude that in order to keep space three dimensional it must never be interrupted. Space has to be infinite. The only possible spatial end for the world could be created if the world would not have occupied all of the free space it has. But that's a different matter altogether.
Ok. So we have our dimension of space. But according to what sort of causality does the dimension of space divide the logical field? The answer is quite simple. The dimension of space divides the logical field to what is consistent with the three spatial dimensions, and what is inconsistent with them.
Whatever is consistent with the three spatial dimensions we will from now on call a point. There cannot be a point which is consistent with less than all of the three spatial dimensions. Such a point would contradict the consistency of the dimension of space, and inevitably cause space to be nullified. "Wise guys" might claim that a point which is consistent only to two dimensions is in fact a line, and that a point which is consistent to only one spatial dimension is in fact a plain, but that's not really the case. There's a problem. The problem is that these "wise guys" are wrongly reversing the order. If we have one spatial dimension, then our point has only one spatial dimension to be consistent with. We do not yet have the other two spatial dimensions to form a plain. The same goes for two dimensional points. The point has two spatial dimensions to be consistent with, but it simply lacks any relevance to a third spatial dimension in which the line will be formed.
I believe this kind of thinking comes from both common knowledge in geometry, and a misunderstanding of what we defined so far. We have not yet come up with the means to "slice" space into shapes. In order to "slice: space we will have to find new different regularities, new dimensions. We can say that with one spatial dimension we will get the line dimension, with two spatial dimensions we will have the plain dimension, and with three spatial dimensions we get the volume dimension. So ok. If it helps, what we have defined now is the volume dimension. The dimension of space is the volume dimension. But that does not mean we already have volumes. In order to "slice" our volumes, we will have to span more dimensions. We will have to define or find more existing regularities. But so far, all we have are points of consistent three dimensional causality. Nothing more. There are no points which are actually lines, curves, squares, circles, triangles, and so on.
I would like to add a comment here about how I chose to name the dimensions. I am choosing the names for the dimensions according to their so called purpose, that is, according to what they create for my consciousness. But it would be a huge mistake to think that this purpose is also the cause for their creation. The only reason dimensions are created is because their existence is consistently possible. And this is the reason why each dimension exists not only as a single purpose one dimensional world, but also as a regularity active in the dimensions which were spanned from it: Existence is the dimension of time, existence is a space in time, a dimension is a space (or more specifically, in our case, a three dimensional space). What I am trying to show you is that the plausibility of the dimensions precedes their purpose. The dimensions are not here to "serve us". Don't ask questions like "why do the dimensions exist?" Being consistent precedes the regularity of existence. Being consistent precedes causality. Being consistent is a possibility provided by the dimension of consistency, and therefore it precedes the world. We must shift our questions to the likes of "Why should any specific dimension, not exist?"
The last paragraph already hinted another important issue. Because all the dimensions are consistent to one another, it is impossible to find the temporal order by which they appeared. We could have started with space, on which we would then force consistent regularities (as in dimensions), which would then allow existence. We could have started from existence as we did, but then follow a different path: First go through space and only then force the existence of consistent regularities.
But listen to this. The big "Wow" is that we can span the dimension of consistency from the dimension of existence, the dimension of dimensions, the dimension of space, or any other imminent dimension (we will later learn what imminent dimensions are, but for the moment know that all the dimensions we have encountered so far were imminent dimensions). We can claim that existence precedes regularities, and then it will be consistent for the dimension of consistency to exist, making inconsistency a form of existence. Only thing is, if we chose that order, then the dimension of dimensions will filter all the inconsistent elements out of the world, since they do not sustain consistent regularities. Under such dimensional hierarchy, spanning the dimension of consistency cannot add a single thing to the world. Every possible inconsistency will be nullified by the dimension of dimensions, leaving the dimension of consistency barren of any form of existence. And so again, according to the physical logic, it will not exist. What happens is that for every dimensional hierarchy we can find an explanation why the dimension of consistency cannot actually change a thing in our world, and so we can omit it from existence. But the dimension of consistency is still necessary. We need our little garbage can to keep all our inconsistencies in it.
So anyway, the order which I chose to span the dimensions is the order that was intuitive to me. It is a possible order, but furthermore, the dimension of dimension determines that any order is possible. However, it is impossible that it really is the only order which exists. But why? Well, it's quite simple, and I believe we mentioned it before. A single order to the appearance of the dimensions, determines that there is a dependency between them. And what's wrong with that? Simple. In the physical logic a regularity just exists. A regularity is not defined on one metaphysical level, then starts operating on another metaphysical level. It simply is never defined. Such a define-less regularity simply does not have the ability to define any sort of dependency on any other dimension. A dimension just can't "hit" another dimension, as this would damage the dimensions orthogonality. A dimension can't remember anything like "don't hit the dimension of space now, but later it's ok." A dimension does not have memory. Therefore if there was indeed only one single undisputable order to the spanning of the dimensions, then the world would have contradicted the logical field. The world would have been rendered inconsistent, and could no longer exist. This is not something new I add. i'm just being consistent with my previous definitions.
Now please. Don't jump now saying: "How can you say that for certain?" You must understand that if I never mentioned that dimensions have memory, it's because they are incapable of remembering anything. Don't add possibilities in your head without first assuring these possibilities are explainable on the fundamental atomic logical level. In this case, the possibility for dimensions to remember is simply nonsensical. It has nothing to do with anything remotely related to the physical logical or any idea expressed so far in this text.
If you noticed I repeatedly stop a lot of intuitive ideas you readers might get from negating my claims. The reason for that is psychological actually. I know how people tend to think. They combine two elements according to hearsay, and come with conclusions based their will to feel like they know the truth before they actually know it. The problem with this is not that you have an active imagination, but rather that we are now trying to compile a consistent metaphysical and cosmological theory. Our intuition is a flashlight, but we still have to walk step by step on the path of consistency. So please, I do not wish to sound arrogant, but this text is not another conversation over coffee and biscuits. Don't get too carried away with abstract metaphors to loose track of any constructive path.
Ok, we went a bit off course, so let's focus back on the dimension of space. What about the possibility that other worlds exist with more spatial dimensions or less spatial dimensions? Well, we must make sure that will not contradict any element in our three dimensional world, so that the dimension of dimensions will not nullify them. But that basically means we cannot know anything about these dimensional freaks. We cannot contradict an inconsistent element (meaning, we cannot determine if it doesn't exist). However, an inconsistent element can contradict basically any consistent element. What this means is that we cannot really know if these dimensional freaks exist, since we cannot know if an inconsistent element outside the world does not nullify them. But actually, it really doesn't matter. Because the dimension of space is spanned from the dimension of dimensions. There are no inconsistent elements existing in it. This means that there are no points which have are consistent to a different amount of spatial dimensions than those held together by the dimension of space.
But then we have a different matter. According to the dimension of space, space is infinite. So there must be the point of infinity. Huh? What? Why? Well it is kind of a tricky matter. If the point of infinity is "isn't", space must be finite. In other words, we always need a point at the "end" to have a point after the end. Otherwise there is no point there, and space ends where there are no longer any points. Furthermore, if there is no point at the "end" then the last point before the end cannot go any further in that direction. This means that the last point before the "end" cannot maintain its consistency with the three spatial dimensions, and so the last point before the "end" will contradict and nullify the dimension of space. However, if there is a point at the "end", then there is no point after it, and again the point at the "end" contradicts the dimension of space. You could argue that space is infinite by definition, so there is no sense in talking about a point of infinity, but you forget one thing. We measure spatial infinity with infinite distances. Without an infinite distance, an infinite space means nothing. But distances must connect two points, and so when speaking about space being infinite, we must also refer to the point of infinity.
So what's the score? Well, the point of infinity is "is", but because the space provided by the dimension of space is infinite, it does not exist in the world. The point of infinity is an inconsistent element, which we encounter simply because of the scarce nature of the logical field. The point of infinity is "is", but it does not exist. The infinite essence of space is the inconsistent part of the dimension of space, that lies within the dimension of consistency. But because the dimension of dimensions filters out all the inconsistent elements from existing in our world, the point of infinity poses no problem. Neither the point of infinity, nor the dimensions of consistency exist in our world.
If you understood this regarding the point of infinity, well, the same thing happens with the dimension of existence, meaning with time. I am talking about "the first cause". "The first cause" is an inconsistent element, and therefore it does not exist. But it is still "is". "The first cause" is located in the inconsistent parts of the dimension of consistency, but it does not exist. However, what is harder to understand is that it never existed. I will not fully go over this now, but you should be aware of the fact that in the physical logic, there's only a present in which regularities are existing. Therefore, the past is an "isn't". When I say "the first cause" never existed, I mean that the very idea of referring to the past as existence is inconsistent with the logical field.
Maybe now we can understand the dimension of consistency a bit better. It provides all the basic conditions for consistency to exist, and it is "is" simply because it doesn't need to be consistent. It doesn't need to exist to be an "is". It doesn't need to exist to be able to provide the dimension of existence the metaphysical "raw materials" it needs. Quite simply it is not bound to consistency as it does not challenge existence. No regularity can force it to obey anything. Nothing can nullify it and nothing can negate its revival once it has been nullified. I guess it is rather godlike.
Ok. Let's focus again. Before I mentioned distance when referring to the point of infinity. How are we to define distance? Well, this is a problematic matter. Spanning another dimension from the world will only divide it to more infinite partitions. It could divide space to a finite partition and an infinite partition, or it could divide space into two infinite partitions, but it still won't give any meaning to what we call distance. Spanning more dimensions will only enable us to divide space into "sets", in which we will "accumulate points" according to the regularity these dimensions will sustain. We can be sure however that "slicing" distances in space would have to include the work of new dimensions, because if it doesn't then all we have is an infinite space.
However, there is one answer which we can already answer: From what will distances be made? From what do you think? From points of three dimensional causality! But is that all they are? Points? How can there be "points"? A point has absolutely no volume! A point is not thick, long, or deep. What the f@#$ am I talking about? Well don't forget we defined the term point without yet having any sort of distance.
So what is a point? Maybe we better just "ask" the various dimensions what kind of regularities a point sustains. The dimension of space determines that a point is consistent with the three spatial dimensions. The dimension of dimensions determines that a point takes part in a consistent causality. The dimension of existence determines it exists. And then comes the dimension of consistency that determines it is "is", but it cannot exist!
Huh? Wait. Why? What does it mean that a point is "is" but it cannot exist? Consistent causality does exist in a point, but there is nothing existing in a point. It is inconsistent for anything to actually be there, because we already know that in a point there's just a flow of causality (meaning a causality that happens within the three spatial dimensions). If this piece of space is already occupied by something else, then think, what would happen? Under the physical logic two things existing means two regularities in existence. Therefore, two thing existing in the same point means a contradiction between two dimensions which are hosted by the same dimension, which is the dimension of space. This can mean only one thing. The world must be nullified. Now, I'm not saying that this never happened in other worlds, but since our world had not yet been nullified, I'm quite sure it doesn't happen here. So to sum things up, we can define a point like this: A point is an existence of a unique consistent flow of causality, in a manner which is consistent to the three spatial dimensions. So from now on we will call this long shlong a point, as it is a rather tedious definition.
We should be aware that according to our current metaphysical definitions, any flow of causality exists simply because it is consistent with the logical field. We don't yet have any inconsistent flows in the dimension of space, because such inconsistencies demand other dimensions to be spanned to be able to contradict other flows (from now on I will be using the term flows as short for "regularities of causality which isconsistent to the three spatial dimensions"). We don't have distances yet, so it's a bit hard for us to understand how points are supposed to interact with each other. However, strictly from our dimensional definitions it is important that we understand that causality exists in any point in space, and with all the spatial dimensions. It's not a question of the direction in which this interaction exists. It's simply a result of the continuousness of space. If there was a "hole" in space, meaning a place which blocks causality from being possible between two points in space, this would damage the very consistency of the dimension of space, and so it would have had to be nullified. And make no mistake. This kind of inconsistency is severe. A "hole" damages the consistency between the dimension of space and the dimension of existence, since it does not exists where it consistently should. Therefore such a "hole" also contradicts the dimension of dimensions, for making the regularity of the dimension of space become inapplicable in this "hole". And if you are wondering, then yes. This is bad. Really bad.
So far I have been speaking about points, and even mentioned the idea of a specific point, but you must realize that I did this only so I could explain myself better. As I said, to "slice" a point or points from space, we have to span more dimensions that will actually "do" that. But since we have not yet spanned any, then we won't yet have even a single point. We do have an infinite amount of points, but since we do not actually have a single distinguishable point, then I guess it means that we do not have a single point yet! Yep. We have no specific points to talk about yet, but we have a dimension of space that allows us to potentially have an infinite amount of points. These potentially possible points have no role in any flow yet, so they are currently quite useless. We could start using them once we span more dimensions from the dimension of space.
Then why do we already have a point of infinity? Well, first of all, it doesn't exist, so we don't really "have it". But more importantly, we have it to enable the regularity of the dimension of space to exist. But what exactly did we put in the dimension of consistency? What kind of point did we "slice"? Don't be confused. It's a point of inconsistency. Within the dimension of consistency now resides a point that does not exist. It does not exist because we never could have "sliced" it from space. This is kind of like the issue we had regarding the metaphysical hierarchy of the dimensions. Just as we could span the dimensions in any order we want, all the points are possible. However, just as we are not allowed to determine that only a one order for this spanning of the dimensions is valid, we cannot "slice" a single point from the dimension of space, regardless of the fact that this point might very well be in front of our very eyes.
Maybe now you begin to see what exactly is "is" in the dimension of consistency, which absolutely cannot be in the dimension of existence. Every regularity that is nullified in the dimension of existence is "relocated" to the dimension of consistency if it is crucial to the definition of the regularity of existence. It stays there solely as a definition. Pay attention however that these are definitions which cannot exist. As far as the physical logic is concerned, what the dimension of consistency holds are definitions. Those definitions which are consistent with the regularity of existence exist. Those which are inconsistent with the regularity of existence do not exist. Those which are consistent with the world exist in the world. But whatever is the case, the definitions themselves (meaning, the piece language that describes these regularities) remain only within the dimension of consistency. However, do not think of it as the place where all our regrets or disappointments go, or any other sort of emo crap clichés. Nothing exists in the dimension of consistency which does not exist in the dimension of existence. The dimension of consistency is not a place to go to. More like a place to run away from. The best definition I can find for the dimension of consistency is oblivion.
Ok then. Let us conclude what we
just learned:
28. The dimension of space (the volume dimension) is three consistent dimensions spanned from the dimension of dimensions. These three dimensions are the three spatial dimensions.
29. A point is the existence of causality in a manner which is consistent with the three spatial dimensions.
30. The dimension of space maintains the consistency of the dimension of existence, by defining space as a consistent existence of regularity in three dimensions.
31. The dimension of space maintains the consistency of the dimension of dimensions, by defining space as three consistent dimensions.
32. The dimension of space maintains its own consistency, by defining a point of infinity within the dimension of consistency, which does not exist in the world.
33. Consistency itself allows any order to the spanning of the dimensions. Therefore it is impossible to distinctively find a single exclusive order for the dimension's creation. Each order must remain possible in order to maintain the consistency of the world.
34. The existence of a single distinctive order for the spanning of the dimensions will damage the consistency of the world, and force the world to be nullified. Therefore, the existence of such a distinctive order of dimensional spanning is impossible.
35. The dimension of consistency holds definitions. Definitions which can be transformed into consistent existing regularities exist in the dimension of existence as such existing regularities. Definitions which cannot be transformed this way, do not exist.
Well well. So now we have space,
and we have time. Sounds promising…
Who am I kidding?! We still got nothing!
Not even distances. Nada. Zilch. And in spite of all that
this is where I chose to end the cosmology, and move to the logical physics.
If you wonder why are we "leaving so soon", well the answer is that
the logical physics will be something we could actually check. It is
possible to find an empirical way to validate or negate it, and therefore, it's
no longer a cosmology. This is physics. We will continue on going in the same
path we did before, but from now on, if we will find contradictions between the
way the world behaves, and the way it is supposed to behave according to
the logical physics, well then, it will just might very well prove it's
simply not true. In a lot of ways, from now on we are vulnerable. Whoever
wishes to contradict the physical logic, will find that the logical
physics is its Achilles hill. But don't worry too much. We can always blame
the dimension of consistency for all the sores of the world, so I
guess it's ok.
Logical Physics
I believe it was Galileo Galilei that said "And yet, it still moves!" And indeed, it moves. The world moves. The three dimensional space that sustains a temporal dimension, moves. How do we know this? It's not that every world must move. A world can remain just am existence of regularities. But if it does it does not create a world which we can possibly grasp with our consciousness. The truth is that in a lot of ways, we can say that the world moves because we grasp it. Because the illusion of having a consciousness exists, motion must also exist so the illusion of having a consciousness could persist as well. And indeed, "it's still conscious!" The consciousness exists (one way or another).
But what is the connection between motion and consciousness? Aren't there cases of people who by sheer misfortune lost the ability to sense anything? For these poor chaps' consciousnesses, there are no spatial dimensions, and therefore motion is really irrelevant. This is correct to some degree. Spatial motion is irrelevant to these poor chaps. But still, their consciousnesses exist. We can try and speculate that their consciousnesses exist directly on the dimension of dimensions, but if that is the case, then how do their consciousnesses maintain thought, sensory, repression, and nullification? All these changes of consciousness require far more "sophisticated" regularities than just the regularity sustained by the dimension of dimensions. It's not enough that everything that exists in the world is consistent regularities. The regularities that enable the changes of consciousness must be spanned from other hosting dimensions, before eventually being spanned from the dimensions of dimensions. But what could be this regularity, other than some sort of change? Some sort of "motion"? If change is not a regularity, then it is not a regularity, and it cannot exist in the logical field. If that was the case then the world would have been a frozen world. But a frozen world would contradict the existence of change in our consciousnesses.
Therefore, the dimension of motion (or the dimension of change) must exist in order for our consciousness to exist the way it does. Ok. So what is the regularity that is sustained by the dimension of motion? Before we had in our world "the existence of causality in a manner which was consistent to the three spatial dimensions". So now we'll set the world in motion. We'll set this causality in motion. We will let it flow. If causality does not flow, it means that it does not change, and our consciousness could not sustain any changes either. If causality doesn't flow, the changes of states of consciousness would be inconsistent to the logical field, and could not exist within it.
Therefore, the essence of the world is motion (or alternately flow or change) is space is regularity is existence is time is consistency. All that exists in the world is that which is changing. But what does it mean? Let us consider matter for example. If matter is frozen, it cannot exist! All matter must maintain some sort of constant change otherwise it will have to be nullified. Therefore, all matter is in fact existence of flow of causality. Such a claim differs from our intuitive idea regarding matter. We think about matter as something to "hold on to", something to sense, not something to think about. But we have not yet formed any sort of consciousness in the logical field, so we do not yet have a clue how it is even possible that we think about it.
I think the source of the confusion is the fact that we have now shifted from cosmology to physics. Until now, nothing we said really sounded like "reality". We declared that everything in the world must be existence of regularities, and no one had a problem with that. So we declared it. No one can really visualize a three dimensional space without having any distances in it. Actually, even if we had distances, it would still be hard to visualize a totally empty space. From geometry we learn how to make a three axis scheme, with three arrow representing three dimensions: x, y, and z. but this is not an empty three dimensional world. It is a scheme for a world which exists in our world. It is really hard or even impossible to think of such a scheme, without having a world that serves as its metaphysical anchor. The best we can do is think about it as formal definitions.
The truth is, I simply have not yet finished explaining the physical logic, so as of yet you have no reason to even consider adopting this metaphysical theory. You cannot yet fully understand the meaning of the sentence "existence is regularity". And that's fine. But it is time to change our tactic a little.
Take everything I said so far and say: "Ok. Let's assume such a world can exist. Not necessarily here, but somewhere". Now try to evaluate this world theoretically. Step by step, slowly build this world in your mind. When we will be done, if you will find that this world is identical to the world you live in, you will be given the choice to adopt the physical logic as your preferred metaphysical theory or "belief system" (I put belief system in quotes since the physical logic does not requires you to believe in anything). I am not forcing you to believe in it, even if it perfectly fits. Stay with me but don't promise anything. Believe what you want. I think it's a fair deal.
But still, to keep you interested, I want to ask you something. What is matter? What is the "stuff" you touch? As far as I know there are two basic approaches regarding the essence of matter. One is that there are elementary particles, and the second approach is that aren't elementary particles. What does it mean? I'll explain. In the first approach, each particle can be divided or split a finite amount of times before reaching a particle that can no longer be divided or split. These are the elementary particles, particles that have no substructure. According to the second approach there all particles can be divided or split. With the first approach (where there are elementary particles), what exists inside these elementary partices? I mean, these particles must have volume; otherwise they would not be particles. Let's say that inside these particles there is matter. Ok. So now I ask, how can you know what is inside them? These are elementary particles. You cannot split them and peek inside their shell. So I can claim there is nothing inside it. These particles are empty crusts of absolutely zero thickness (otherwise again, we could peek inside their crust). But can I scientifically claim such a thing? Maybe this question can only be answered by resorting to faith?
Let's check. Let's say that there is something inside them. Now again there are two options: One is that an elementary particle cannot be disassembled into other things, and another option is that it can be disassembled. For example, It can be disassembled into energy. If it cannot be disassembled then for the world it is nothing but a crust of zero thickness. If inside the particle there is a smaller particle, then it could be an elementary particle, but we can be sure that our original candidate for being an elementary particle does in fact have a substructure. Therefore, it is not an elementary particle, just a "box" that keeps elementary particles in it. Actually, only if there is absolutely nothing inside this crust, can it be logical that this particle is elementary. So if an elementary particle cannot be transformed into energy then whatever is inside an elementary particle can never be revealed to the world. For any scientific end, an elementary particle is a crust, which has absolutely zero mass. It has zero thickness, as there is absolutely nothing to fill up the crust to make it "thick". So we've reached a dead end there.
Ok then, let's check the other option. This is the option which is the current scientific paradigm, the approach that claims that an elementary particle can be transformed into energy. Under this approach, an elementary particle is a type of energy, and therefore energy is matter-like. But behold! If an elementary particle is jus a kind of energy, then this contradicts the very idea that there is matter. We perceive energy only by its effects on matter, and we perceive these effects only by energetic transformations from matter into our brains. When we see or eat an apple, the apple does not physically exist in our brains. If that would have happened, it would cause our skulls to explode! So all we ever get to meet during the course of our lives are energetic structures. Therefore, as far as we can ever know, only energy exists. Sometimes energy appears to us as matter, but it doesn't really matter, since we already know that the particles this matter is made of are also energy. Energy not only precedes matter. It replaces matter. Therefore, the elementary elements of our world are not matter at all. They are energy. So not only does a materialistic elementary particle have an (energetic) substructure, it is also not elementary in any way. It is just the last particle that has a subdivision into solid particles. It can still be divided though, but not into particles, but rather into energy. And how many times can we divide energy? What does it mean to divide energy anyway? How far down the rabbit hole do you want me to go until you understand that our conception of what matter is are nothing more than nonsense? The thing you cling on to thinking it is so "solid", where did it go?
Ok. So let's say there are no elementary particles. Now what? From what are we going to build matter? From patterns of energy? From patterns of causality? From regularities of regularities? From the logical field? Understand people. You've got nothing but divisions. You have no matter. The best thing for you to do is to believe you have matter. To sense the existence of matter. You know nothing more. You have no other asserting sensation.
Let's come back to where we left off. So in this world, within the logical field, exists a space filled with an infinite amount of points which are moving constantly. But as of yet we do not have a single point, and we don't have matter. What we do have is the existence of consistent flows. Now, if there are no specific points and there is no matter, then there isn't any form of singularity, and therefore any "slicing" of space which we would call distance will be meaningless. And why is that? We simply don’t have anything to define distance with. What is the difference between two points if we don't have a single point, let alone two points, and if every point is consistent to all the other points? It seem like we have not progressed one bit with this addition of motion into our world.
But we did add a new dimension. It can't be that "nothing changed". Of course not. So what did we change? Let's see what we added to the world. We have motion. The points can start moving. But they must move in a consistent manner. Now you can jump and ask: "What are you talking about? The points start moving? You just said there isn't a single point yet! Now you want to say the points are moving? Which points?" Well, the answer is simple. They all move.
"So you want
to be a comedian, huh? If they are all moving, then in what direction are they
moving?"
Hmmm…how would I know?...in all directions!
"HELLO!! Are you stoned or something? What does it mean they are moving in all directions?
Why doesn't that contradict you precious spatial consistency?"
Well you see, if a
single point would have existed, then maybe. But so far the only point
we know is the point of infinity, and we sent it out into the dimension
of consistency. The point of infinity doesn't exist, so I don't
think we need to worry about it. If the point of infinity will start
messing with us, the world would be nullified, and since
it hadn't been nullified so far, I strongly suggest you just drop this
idea.
So we have existence of consistent flow in space, but the only point we found so far does not exist. Doesn't look like we made much progress, does it? Maybe we should ask ourselves a different question. Do we really expect points to appear? I mean, these points do not have any volume. These points are nothing in itself. No. Once we added this new dimension all our points have been transformed to flow, and since a sub space does not exist inside its parent space, we are not going to find any points in the world. What we are looking for now are shapes, or consistent patterns of flow in space. The thing is, we have not yet defined any regularity that will determine what a consistent flow is, and what is an inconsistent flow. At the moment, all of the flows are consistent to the world, and therefore, none of the flows can exist in the world.
And why? Let's say we had an "upward" flow in space (if the term "upward" is unclear to you, well then it is simply an abstraction for saying "the flow has the same causality according to one of the spatial dimensions, meaning a linear flow). Now, since every flow is consistent to the world we defined so far, then it is absolutely consistent for this flow to start flowing to the "right", as well as flowing to the "left". This already sounds contradictive a bit. We can settle this contradiction by saying that our "upward" flow has splited into two flows: One will be a "left upward" flow, and the other a "right upward" flow. But hey! Since all flows are consistent then they are also possible and therefore they already exist. This means that before our initial "upward" flow even began to move to the "right", the "left upward" and "right upward" already flowed.
And what's wrong with that? A lot. First of all, we have now two identical flows in space: Two "left upward" and two "right upward" flows, flowing through the same points. This starts to sound like a real contradiction, but the real problem is with our initial "upward" flow. It's obvious that if it had transformed into a "left upward" flow, or a "right upward" flow, then it can no longer be an "upward" flow. Our initial "upward" flow no longer exists. But we saw that all flows are consistent in space, and therefore they actually exist in space. Therefore the "upward" flow exists as well. Now this is a real contradiction. The "upward" flow both exists and does not exist, and therefore it is inconsistent and must be nullified from the world. The same could be applied to the "left upward" flow, and "right upward" flow, and practically to any flow. Therefore, all flows must be nullified from the world. The thing that really interferes here is not the existence of flows in parallel, but rather the fact that the flows cannot change. In a state where flows cannot change, flows cannot affect one another. In such a state, the world must remain still in the sense that any change happening in it cannot actually form motion. This would have been fine if it wasn't for the dimension of dimensions. The dimension of dimensions determines that if indeed all these flows exist, then the regularity sustained by the dimension of motion does not exist, and therefore, the dimension of dimensions must nullify the dimension of motion.
So all flows are individually consistent with the logical field, but we do not yet have even a single flow in the world. However, now we can determine that the parallel existence of all flows simultaneously, the infinite flow is "is" in the dimension of consistency. We know this, because if the infinite flow wasn't inconsistent, it would have had to exist in the world. This is quite similar to the condition we had with the point of infinity. There are infinite amount of flows, since space is infinite, and they are all consistent with the world. The problem is that once we try to isolate one flow from the infinite flow, the rest of the flows that take part in the infinite flow immediately nullify it. The infinite flow does not exist, until a flow tries to actually appear in the world. Then the infinite flows spores contradictive flows which nullify this renegade flow. The infinite flow is therefore the logical sum of all the flows which are consistent to themselves and to the "flowless" world. The infinite flow does not exist because the flows that compile it nullify each other. But again, the infinite flow is "is" in the dimension of consistency, in order to maintain the consistency of the dimension of motion.
In order to really have flows, we need to have some sort of filter. This filter will determine which of the consistent flows is consistent to the rest of the flows. But before that, let's go over the rest of the dimensions we have, and see how the dimension of motion (or dimension of change, or dimension of flow) maintains consistency with them. The consistency with the dimension of existence is maintained by defining existence as change, and by that transforming the concept of time into our more intuitive idea of present time. The dimension of motion determines that there cannot be any form of time other than the present. If time stops it will contradict the persistence of time, and the world will be nullified. And what about the dimension of dimensions? What is the connection between motion or change and the plausibility for regularities to exist consistently? I guess this question is a bit too abstract, so I will ask the opposite question: If there is no change can a regularity exist?
Of course not. The logical validity of a regularity will not be damaged without the dimension of motion, but it would not exist in any comprehendible way. Without change, all that we can have is a definition for a regularity that never actually "happens". Does this remind you of anything? Yes yes. It's our old pal, the dimension of consistency. We saw how the dimension of motion retained its consistency by placing the infinite flow in the inconsistent part of the dimension of consistency. Now we can see exactly how does the dimension of motion "defrost" the world. It extracts the definitions out of the dimension of consistency, and into real existence. This is perhaps the most important role of the dimension of motion, although as we already know, there is no exclusive order to the spanning of the world's dimensions. We can borrow a term from computer engineering and say that the dimension of motion is the world's internal quartz clock.
Last thing we have to settle is the consistency between the dimension of motion and the dimension of space. What is the connection between motion and the three dimensional space? Hmmm…this is a bit unclear. Let's try to think about it. If we say we have existence, regularity, and then we add the dimension of space. The dimension of space is of no size and it is utterly vacant. All that it does have is the potential for an infinity of causality points, consistent to the three spatial dimensions. In order for space to indeed spread out to infinity and realize its potential, the regularity it sustains must be realized. It must be realized not as a definition of regularity, but as an existence of regularity.
It requires change, and change is exactly what the dimension of motion provides. The dimension of motion enables the dimension of space to realize its regularity so that it would actually instigate space. If it wasn't for the dimension of motion, space could not have expanded at all, and so there would have been "no room" for any flow to exist, and so there could have been no change in space. But this can't be, as it contradicts the regularity sustained by the dimension of motion. So if space was not to expand then the dimension of motion would have had to be nullified. But that we already know that is impossible, because we know that our illusion of having a consciousness exists. To sum it up, the fact that we sense the three dimensional space, proves that the dimension of space and dimension of motion exist, even if only before our consciousness.
Now, what I am going to say next is only a speculation, but it just might be that this is what scientists call the "big bang". I mean, even if it isn't, according to the logical physics, as soon as the dimension of motion, the dimension of space, the dimension of dimensions, the dimension of existence, and the dimension of consistency were spanned, such an expansion of space must have happened. Therefore, I conclude that existence is consistency is regularity is present time is space is motion (or change) is the logical field.
Ok. Let's sum it all up:
36. The dimension of motion (or the dimension of change, or the dimension of flow) sustains the regularity that every spatial flow exists, if it is consistent to itself and to the world.
37. The dimension of motion contradicts the possibility that motionless matter exists. Above all, matter must sustain motion. Furthermore, there is no way to prove that elementary particles must exist.
38. The dimension of motion maintains the consistency of the dimension of existence, by defining existence as consistent change.
39. The dimension of motion maintains the consistency of the dimension of dimensions, by defining the dimensions (meaning existence as regularity) as consistent regulative change.
40. The dimension of motion maintains the consistency of the dimension of space, by defining the existence of space as the result of the temporal existence of spatial regularity (or in another word, expansion).
41. The dimension of motion maintains its own consistency with the dimension of consistency, by defining the dimension of consistency as a dimension made solely of definitions. Since the dimension of consistency holds definitions which do not sustain any regulative change, the dimension of consistency does not exist.
42. The dimension of motion maintains its consistency with itself, by defining any flow of causality as possible, even flows which may contradict each other. By this, the dimension of motion defines the infinite flow as inconsistent: It is "is" but it does not exist as anything other than a motionless definition within the dimension of consistency.
43. As soon as the dimension of consistency, the dimension of existence, the dimension of dimensions, the dimension of space, and the dimension of motion were spanned in the world, the world's space had to expand.
Ok. We made some progress don't you
think? Maybe. But we still don't have anything other than dimensions.
The universe expands infinitely into nothing. What a bummer. We don't even have
matter. I would release my anguish and frustration over a nice hamburger,
but I don't have matter, so I don't have a hamburger too. Shit. If there
really isn't matter then there wouldn't be any food. We would all die of
hunger. NOOOO!!!
Wait. I have not died of hunger yet, but I can see around me a world filled with matter. I can see my hand. I can see it typing what I am typing right now. I can sense matter. This and more. I can see other animals sensing matter. I can see my cat Yahoo running in panic as it senses vibrations in matter which I generate at his direction (what can alternately be considered me shouting "Yahoo" at him so he would jump down from my computer). I can see my dog "Bush" sensing its dog food, as it devours it with pleasure. I can see a mosquito flying toward my hand, with every intent to suck my blood and lay its eggs in it. I've got this ball in my hand. Now I watch it fall to the floor. Now it bounces back. Wait a minute. What the hell is happening here? Can the ball sense anything? Holy shit! All these basketballs, footballs, and other bouncing fellows. They all seem suspicious to me…
Ok, that's enough. What is it I see? I see the existence of regularities. Now I need to ask, can these regularities be the product of only one dimension, the dimension that sustains my consciousness? Can there be some sort of regularity existing in my consciousness, if no other regularity exists other than the single regularity that sustains my consciousness? What will that mean? It will mean that my consciousness is the dimension which maintains all the matter in my world. But if that was the case, then that regularity would only take care of the matter in my world! How am I supposed to explain thought, sensory, repression, and nullification, with that?
I guess we're simply going in the wrong way. We are still a long way from talking about our consciousness. What we can be certain of though, is that the dimension of matter exists. We just have to check which regularity is sustained by the dimension of matter. Now, if you'll consider our options you'll see we don't have much choice. The only regularity to add now is a regularity which asserts the existence of all the flows which are consistent to themselves, to the world, and to other such flows. That was the problem we had before with the dimension of motion. We could not dismiss the problematic flows. Either all the flows existed and contradicted each other, or none of the flows existed. So in both cases we had no flows in the world.
So now we must find the criterion that maintains consistency between flows. But how can we know what it is? What do we know about the consistency of flows? I mean, what do we know about the existence if consistency in three dimensions? I mean, what do we know about the existence of existence of existence³ (which is existence to the power of the three spatial dimensions) of consistent regularity? I mean, what do we know about existence of existence³ of existence of consistent existence? I mean, what do we know about existence of existence³ of existence of existence of consistency? Or to sum it up: What do we know about the existence of consistency? Hey! Wait a minute! This is a question in logic proper!
So what do we know about consistent logical systems? Well, there's not that much to "know". Logic is just a tool to reach conclusions out of axioms. Ok, then what are the most basic units in logic? Well, the answer is there aren't any. There is only the regularity by which we progress argumentatively, while making sure consistency is maintained. But to start off the process, we have to have axioms. And that's a problem for us. Axioms, if they are indeed atomic (meaning they cannot be dismantled into "sub-axioms"), cannot be proven metaphysically. If we start off from atomic axioms and try to prove these axioms, we could only find ourselves back at square one. This is what is called a tautology.
It is like an argumentative ring. Let me give you an example: Let's say we have two atomic axioms, axiom A and axiom B, and we have a regularity stating that if one of these axioms (A or B) is true, then the other axiom (B or A) is also true. What can we prove with this? Absolutely nothing! If A is true then B is true. If B is true then A is true. Therefore, if A is true then A is true. Now remember that according to the physical logic, being true means being consistent, and therefore possible, and therefore existing. So we can rephrase it and say that if A exists then A exists.
Now we have two options at our disposal. The first option is to recognize the duality sustained by the argument "if A exists then A exists", stop, and say enough. It would have been consistent for A to persist with its existence, but A simply never shows up! It is a definition we cannot turn into existence because A is too lazy to appear. This is one "physical" aspect of a tautology. The second option is that we fanatically continue with our argumentation and say: "If A exists then A exist? Do you think we will stop here?! Never!!! If A exists then if A exists then B exists! And don't think we are going to stop! Common lads! If A exists then if A exists then A exists!!!!!"
And what happens if A is inconsistent? Oops! What a mess. If that happens, we can even argue that "if A exists then A does not exist". But since we are dealing with consistent systems here, we can safely say that if that happens, then the system is inconsistent, and therefore the system does not exist! Back to the logical field, we know that the system must exist to enable the existence of our illusion of having a consciousness. Therefore, if the system holds an argument (or regularity) in the form of "if A exists then A does not exist", then the only way to settle this system is to define A as inconsistency in itself. This way our inconsistent A translates to: "If inconsistency in itself exists (or is "is") then inconsistency in itself must not exist".
Now you may have noticed that I jumped a level here. In one time the term "exists" meant to be "is", and in the other time it meant to be "possible". This may seem like a trick of the language, but it isn't. To be "is" is to be comprehendible to us, as consciousnesses, just as consistent possible existence is comprehendible to our consciousness. The term "to exist" itself is an idea in our head, a generalization made from our understanding of the world, and the same goes for any metaphysical idea we might have. What I mean is, the generalization of to be "is" and to be "possible" are intrinsic to our idea of existence, and to our ability to comprehend a consistent logical system. However, for the physical logic, to be "is" and to be "possible" are distinctively different attribute, as it lets only consistently possible elements enter the logical field. The rest remain as "is", no matter if we cannot comprehend what that means. We are bound and in many ways protected by the logical field. Now, if we go up the ladder to our comprehendible terms, we can understand a sentence such as "if inconsistency in itself exists, then inconsistency in itself does not exist. Inconsistency is simply outside the scope of what a consistent logical system is supposed to handle. It cannot handle inconsistency as inconsistency is fundamentally different to any possible axiom. The term "inconsistency" itself has no meaning other than "what a consistent system does not allow". To sum it up, within every consistent logical system there is a hidden axiom, Which states that any relation with inconsistency will be done in a way which is totally independent from the axioms it holds. In this inconsistent space we can put any ridicules idea we can think of. The consistency of the system keeps the border between the axiomatic world and the inconsistent space completely sterile.
Why did I say axiomatic world? We have defined a world as a collection of dimensions, a collection of existing regularities. Would it be right to say that an axiom is an existing regularity? Well, not in the full extent. We can say it is a description for something that exists, but there's a fundamental difference between the existence of consistency "on paper", and its actual existence in the world. The fact that it is written does not make it so. It is like saying "if it was true, then the consistency of the system ensures that the logical connection between the axioms will not create contradictions in the system". But that is just "if". And that's the difference. Axioms are just definitions "on paper", or alternatively, sentences of a language.
But let us think of something a bit different: What would be the case if our axioms would indeed maintain a consistent logical connection between them, but we had "no paper"? What would happen if the consistent regularities existed but we had no consistent system to host them in? But how is that possible? It is the consistency of the system which ensures that axioms will not contradict each other! It is the system that ensures that what was set to be true in one axiom will not transform into false when reaching another axiom. And also, if we have no system, then where are the axioms defined? What is this shit?
We need to think. If the axioms are not defined in any system, then they are not the product of language. They are not regularities formalized into sentence of a language. They are simply the existence of these regularities (if you have not yet understood, these axioms are dimensions). If the axioms do not contradict one another, it means that they cannot contradict one another. They do not have any way to do it. And why is that? Well, it's simply because they do no have a consistent system to host them. They do not "sit" in any system, and so they cannot "collide" within any system. It isn't just that they are not dependent on each other. These axioms are irrelevant to each other. There is no consistency to the system that hosts them because there is no system. What we have here is an unregulated set of regularities, defined as an inexistent list of definitions. Each axiom exists without ever referring to the other axioms. If it happens that one axiom stumbles across another axiom, it defines it as another variation of itself, as the only thing it "knows" is its own regularity. But this definition is only its own, so it does not contradict its own self definition (i.e. the axiom or regularity that defines it). So while we do not have a consistent system, what we have is a consistent system, . This by itself creates an inconsistency: The regularity of having a consistent system does not exist while the regularity of having consistency in a system exists de facto. A consistent regularity is formed without ever being defined or spanned. And what does all this mean? It means that what is essential to consistency is not the regularity which hosts it, but rather the irrelevance between its axioms' self definition. Consistency between axioms is the product of the independence from the regularity which hosts the axioms.
If you failed to see it, all that I've described so far is analogous to the logical field. The inexistent list of definitions is the dimension of consistency. These unwritten axioms are the dimensions, and the existence of the dimensions is bounded with the requirement that the list would not exist, meaning that the dimension of existence will not exist.
Now we can go back to the issue of what would be consistent to flows. Since each dimension can refer only to itself, the regularity it sustains can only address itself. If for example we will say that the regularity a dimension holds is A, then the definition for the regularity sustained by this dimension will be "A can exist", or "if A then A". Therefore, if this dimension exists, then A truly will exist. So in the end we get the following situation: A exists, therefore A exists, therefore A exits, therefore A…
As far as the dimension which sustains the regularity A is concerned, the regularities of the other dimensions are irrelevant to it. But if that is the case, then what happens when our dimension A stumbles across the regularity of another dimension, say, regularity B? How can A dismiss the relevance of B? Well, it's simple. It treats it as a tautology, as if saying: "I will not address the question whether B exists, because all that B says is that if B exists, then B exists. But I, the wonderful A, can exist quite comfortably without it. I do not require the existence of petty little B. B is irrelevant to me. I am as god in my dimension…"
So we can identify the flow each
dimension sustains as an endless sequence of causality toward an
infinite destination. It will identify other flows as tautologies, as
"loops" of causality. For each dimension it seems like only
it progresses, only it exists, while the rest of the dimensions are
chasing their own tail. If one of these "loops" was to unravel, then
it will either disappear, or be assimilated by another "loop". We
will never find one dimension "trying to help" another dimension
keeps its consistency.
In mathematics
there is a standard term for such a ratio between dimensions. It's
called being orthogonal. The problem with this mathematical definition is that
we instinctively project it onto geometry. We think of a plain or line,
and then visualize another plain or line with an angle of ninety degrees between
them. Like in this little sketch, I show you a dimension A which encounters
another dimension B, which sustains a tautological loop orthogonally to dimension
A. This kind of visualization is nice as long as we are dealing with a maximum
of three spatial dimensions, but if we try to think of a dimension
which is vertical or orthogonal to a three dimensional space, then
everything becomes much more "philosophical" for our visual
imagination. For that reason I wish to keep our discussion on a logical level,
and not on a geometrical level. Besides, since we are not going to do any sort
of calculations, there is no point to annoy you with terms which are
useful only when solving mathematical problems. Our daily expressions are much
more useful, since they enable us to understand why something is
logical, in a far more intuitive way. For example, a dimension
encountering another dimension would say something like: "What do
you mean 'you exist'? Prove it! I am sustaining a regularity. I exist. And
you?! You are just chasing your own tail! You go up your loop and then down
your loop. From my point of view, your very existence appears like a contradiction!
You know, you're lucky you never tried to set your regularity over here. I
would have nullified you in no time!"
The next issue
might seem silly to you, but still I wish to go over these tautological
"loops". There is a real problem here. Think of a circle on a plain.
Now I'm telling you, the circle moves. We can mark this movement as little
arrows revolving around the outline of the circle. On the vertical dimension
we can find arrows going up and arrows going down. On the horizontal dimension
we can find arrows going right and arrows going left. So how does this not
create an inconsistency? On one hand the arrows show movement in one
direction to be consistent, and on the other hand they show movement in
the opposite direction to be consistent. It's obvious that the point
where the circle goes up is different form the point the circle goes down, but
still, what is going on here?
Let's go back to our logical system. What does the dimension of consistency determine? It determines that because it sustains absolutely no logical regularity, nothing is metaphysically outside the grasp of the dimension of consistency. The same applies when the dimension of consistency assert the other dimensions. As far as it is concerned, everything they might do is valid, since the dimension of consistency doesn't sustain any regularity that could contradict them. If we shift now to the other dimensions, then we can see that they do sustain a regularity, but as far as each dimension is concerned, only their own regularity is relevant. From a dimension's point of view, if it appears that’s some other dimension contradicts itself, then that contradictive element must be nullified. This observing dimension does not care how it will to be nullified. Except when talking about the dimension of matter. It does care. It is the one making sure that inconsistent elements which may appear in the flows will be nullified, and so the world will continue on flowing consistently.
And how does this help solve the tautological "loops" we saw going up and down, left and right? Well, if the dimensions changed the ratio between themselves in a random fashion, meaning if they changed what these dimensions define as the "direction" of the other dimensions, then there would be no "loop". The flows' movements will not be hermetic, and will revolve around a central pivot. There would not be a consistent pattern created, that will allow the existence of anything. So the dimension of matter sustains the following regularity: In matter, each dimension will change its ratio to the regularity of other dimensions in a consistent manner. The dimensions cause matter, and therefore are "blind" to the existence of matter.
What does this mean? If we go back to the spatial dimensions, we can see that for every type of spatial existence we need three spatial dimensions. I am not only talking about the fact that our space is three dimensional. No. I'm talking about the fact that we need two dimensions as pivots and another dimension to define a ratio between them; without making this ratio relevant to itself (otherwise we may tamper with the consistency of the system). It is impossible to define a regularity between two regularities, without a third regularity. Therefore, the dimension of space holds the minimal amount of dimensions to define any sort of ratio between the spatial dimensions. So if for exampled you were wondering if there could be a consistent two dimensional world, then yes, there could be, but it is impossible for matter to exist in it. A two dimensional world, does not have the means to hold anything in it, as it lacks the third party, the observing spatial dimension which knows and "remembers" the ratio between the other two dimensions. And what about a three dimensional world? In the world we have more than three dimensions. Three dimensions could sustain only existence, regularity, and one more regularity "for kicks". That's all.
Another important thing to understand is the type of ratios that we could find between dimensions. For this we'll reuse our geometrical metaphor (the one with the plain, circle, and arrows). Because the regularity which exists in this plain is the regularity of spatial expansion, we will borrow this type of ratio, and define the ratio between the dimensions, as the angle between two lines drawn on this plain. An angle is basically the only ratio we know to define between two static intersecting infinite lines on an infinite plain. Hmm…well, actually there is also the option of two parallel lines with distance between them. However, if we go back to our dimensions, dimensions are not lines. They divide the logical field. Two parallel lines distant from each other are in fact defining a division of consistency, rather than a ratio between two intersecting dimensions. The space shared by the two parallel dividing lines is equivalent to an area of the logical field where the existence of both dimensions is consistent. What's outside this united space are areas of the logical fields where the existence of both dimension is impossible, since it will form an inconsistency.
So we are talking about angles. If we go back to the plain and lines metaphor, For two dimensions to be independent of each other, they have to be vertical to each other. If one line is vertical, then the other line should be horizontal. Nothing vertical happens in the horizontal line, and nothing horizontal happens on the vertical line. It is as if the dimensions are telling one another: "You don't exist here, and I don't exist at your place." This is the condition we have as we try to define a new regularity. Now, which angle will be consistent in this condition, and which will cause a contradiction?
First of all, we can always define a 180 degrees angle, meaning to reverse the direction of the lines. We have not said what the original directions were, and the dimensions themselves couldn't care less, as this reversed regularity is irrelevant to the original dimensions. The same could be applied to multiplications of 360 degrees, as this simply does not change a thing.
But problems start once we go through the in-between. What happens if we turn one of the lines in 90 degrees? We will be making the line parallel to each other. Now this is a mess. If both lines, both dimensions are parallel to each other, then as I already explained before, an inconsistency is created within the space formed by these two.
But why? I will try to explain. If through the same two dimensional point, two different regularities are trying to exist, then the plain becomes inconsistent. When two dimensions both try to influence the logical field, then the action of one dimension influences what the other dimension is trying to do. The independency between the dimensions is damaged, creating contradiction. These contradictions cause the world they exist in to be nullified. This condition is unacceptable according to the dimension of dimensions rendering a 90 degree angle of change (or orthogonal change) impossible.
Ok then. We went over the major angles and still got nada. So now it's time to go through the in-between angles: the angles between 0 and 90 degrees, 90 and 180 degrees, etc. I suggest you take a pen, a paper, a ruler, and a protractor, and draw what I will be explaining now, to help you understand.
Draw a 3 cm long horizontal line. Now, start from the right hand edge of this line, and draw another 3 cm long line in a 60 degrees angle from the plain if the first line.
On your paper, a
shape like this is supposed to be drawn:
Now, continue and
make 4 more lines in the same way, so that in the end you get 6 lines, 3 cm
long each. What did we get?
A hexagon!
Great! We have a
hexagon on paper. However, if we think what we would have if we were the dimension
of depth, all we have is an irrelevant tautology. The only thing that
the dimension of depth sees is the depth of the paper. The regularity
that exists on the surface (or plain) of the page is irrelevant to depth.
Ok. Now, let's consider another question. What would we have gotten if we would
have diminished the length of the hexagon's edges to zero? In principle, we
would get a dot (or point), but we can't find anything on the paper
which cover absolutely no area. It simply isn't there. Therefore, we got a new
insight as for the nature of points, and we can see again why it does
not exist, and that's fine. It is consistent with everything we already
said about points.
Now we can take these insights from the paper and onto our
understanding of dimensions. A point does not exist because
it does not expand in any dimension. For example, if the regularity sustained by the
paper's length is "if length exists, then length exists", and the
regularity sustained by the paper's width is "if width exists, then width
exits", then within a point, nothing is spoken. It is inexistent, by its lack of
ability to be defined.
So again, we found a way to remove these troublesome points out of our world. But now a new problem arises. Its name is "regressus ad infinitum". What does it mean? I explained that in order for a "causality loop" to be created, a vertebra must exist within every dimension the "loop" runs through. There has to be a "pulse" of causality, which will prevent the edges of the hexagon from having zero length. There has to be a "pulse" to inflate the point into a loop.
For example, if we have a dimension A which sustains the regularity "if A then A", then a single stroke of the "pulse" would be "place A within the right term of this regularity". I will demonstrate:
Start: if A then A
If A then [A]
If A then [if A then A]
End: if A then if A then A
So where is the problem? It looks innocent enough. Doesn’t seem like there's much that can go wrong here, right?
Wrong! We have to remember that what we have within a dimension is the existence of a regularity, and not the definition of a regularity. The existence of this regularity must be wherever is consistent for it. Otherwise the dimension would be nullified. Therefore, the existence of the regularity must exist in both directions. You probably don't understand what I mean by the term "both directions", so again, I will demonstrate:
Start: if A then A
If [A] then [A]
If [if A then A] then [if A then A]
End???: If if A then A then if A then A
Ok, now this is a problem. It's not just the fact that we are getting weird sentences (to put it mildly). The problem is different. Each stroke of the "pulse" which tries to move "to the right", must compete with an infinity of strokes "to the left". We always have to start off by placing the regularity in the left A, as in "if [A] then A". And it never ends. We can't progress "to the right", as we are stuck with an infinity of ifs: "if [if [if [if…]]] then A". To get to the right side we have to go through an infinite amount of "ifs", which is impossible to do.
So we failed to build a "loop" because we failed to create the "raw materials" it needs. We have no "beads" to link in our chain of causality with. It is inconsistent for us to have these causality "beads". We failed in building the world. All is lost, arrogant humans. All is lost.
Oh really? It's
obvious that existence of the regularity's definition is impossible. But
that does not mean that the regularity itself is impossible. It is possible,
but the thing is, that in order for it to exist, it requires that the definition
of regularity will not exist! Therefore, we will take the regularities' definitions out of the
world. But if we do that, where shall we put these definitions?
Consider what we already know. All the dimensions are blind to each
other. If a dimension does not sustain the definition of itsown or
of any other dimensions' regularity, then no dimension sustains
a definition of a regularity! This means that not a single definition
of regularity exists in the world. But these regularities are definable.
They are "are". So where are they? You can probably guess the answer
already. Yep. The dimension of consistency holds the definitions
of the regularities which the dimensions sustain. These definitions are
therefore "are", but they don't exist.
So what does it all come down
to? Well, there simply isn't progress "to the right", or any other
formalized logical progress for that matter. There's only existence. The dimension
of consistency holds the definition "if A then A", and dimension
A sustain the regularity "if A then A". But it's not a textual
interpretation of the sentence "if A then A". It is the regularity
of persistence of existence, the regularity of constant change, of existence,
of expansion of existence, of flow as existence. Back to our
tautological "loops", the dimension of consistency cannot see
the other dimensions for the same reason. The dimension of
consistency is saying: "All you dimensions keep saying that if
you exist then you exist. I'm fine with that, but the thing is, as far as I am
concerned, you only exist as definitions. So just drop it. Your so
called existence is irrelevant to me."
So the definitions of the regularities the dimensions sustain are "are" in the dimension of consistency, but they do no create any form of existence in the world. Ok. So how does that help us build the world? We wanted to build "loops". How does this help us build "loops"?
Again, we will have to wait with this question. Let's try something different. If we have definition of a regularity in the dimension of consistency, how are we supposed to cause it to actually exist? This is a bit of an odd question, because if we were talking about a world of definitions written on paper, then we could simply imagine their existence. However, it is obvious that we can't expect these definitions to exist if we stop thinking about them. That doesn't make any sense. No. It is obvious that the definitions derive from their existence and not the other way around. Therefore, it is safe to assume that the dimensions exist, and our definitions derive from generalizations which we make up. This makes more sense. Furthermore, we agreed to investigate a consistent metaphysical theory, we agreed to assume that the world is consistent. This was our starting point. Therefore if our definitions are correct, we can use these definitions to conclude what are the necessary conditions for the existence of consistent flows. Or at least, we can hope as much.
Let us now consider the unique nature of the dimension of matter. With all the previous dimensions we uncovered, we dealt only with a potential for existence. The "real" work was always left for later, to be done by dimensions which will be spanned from them. Until the dimension of matter, all we had was the possibility to "slice" a consistent flow from the three dimensional space and time. But "down to earth" we could not yet truly imagine any world, since we did not yet have matter. No matter meant no distances, nothing. The world we explored had no contents. At best we hoped we had the conditions that will enable the world to be filled with contents. However, once we span the dimension of matter, we expect to finally be able to visualize this world. Therefore, considering the fact that we are trying to build a consistent world, we must expect matter to remain consistent with all the other dimensions of the world.
And from this
idea, we finally can see some light. If we remember our conclusion that every dimension
is "blind" to the rest of the dimensions, we can determine a few
helpful guide lines. First of all, to remain consistent, matter
must exhibit the regularities of all the dimensions. Secondly, matter
must be created in such a way that does not require the dimensions to
"become involved" in its creation. To keep matter in
existence the dimensions shouldn't need to
do anything other than what they normally do. In this sense, for each dimension, the sub world which
is formed by removing this dimension from the world must be able
to exist without it. Otherwise there is a dependency on this dimension
which makes the sub world relevant to the world,
and we can't allow that. Thirdly, if we take these sub worlds and return
the dimensions we removed from them, then we should be able get a full model
for the creation of matter. We will therefore go over the dimensions
in the following manner:
For each dimension, we will:
a. Ask what does the regularity it sustains demands from the world.
b. See why it is possible to build a consistent sub world without it.
c. See how the world is created by spanning this sub world from it.
d. Conclude the attributes of this dimension and this sub world.
This way, instead of struggling with ourselves how to build these "loops", we will ask the dimensions how they "think" the "loops" should be made.
Ok, cool. Let us begin. I choose to start with the dimension of consistency. What does the regularity sustained by the dimension of consistency demand? Well...nothing. Regularities are powerless within the dimension of consistency, and therefore nothing consistent exists in them. In the dimension of consistency, definitions exist like gibberish, like sequences lacking any semantic meaning, like nothing in itself. But it is a necessary nothing! We can have consistent world exactly because it is "is". We saw it with the point of infinity, the infinite flow, the tautologies, with the definitions themselves. We absolutely need it.
Now, regarding the
question of how the world is created by spanning a sub world
from the dimension of consistency, well, it's simple. The definitions
simply need to transform from generalized language strings (or sentences) into
existence. But how does a definition transform from gibberish into
existence? To understand this we must let our minds loose, since no regularity actually
exists in the dimension of consistency. The very idea of "how"
is irrelevant to the dimension of consistency. It just happens
because it is consistently possible. Not only that. There is no way to
"insert" new definitions into the dimension of consistency.
It doesn't happen this way. Definitions can be found in the dimension
of consistency because the existence of the world implies they
should be there. The bottom line is that the dimension of consistency
can do the impossible, because it is impossibility in itself. But it is
necessary for existence, and existence is a fact brought to our proven by
our existence as illusions of having consciousness. As long as we insist on
investigating consistent metaphysical theories, we must define the dimension
of consistency. The dimension of consistency derives from the
world, as long as the world is consistent.
So what have we learned? Let's conclude it:
(1) For the dimension of consistency, existence demands the transformations from definitions of regularities into existence of regularities.
(2) For the world, the existence of regularities is obvious and self evident, because definitions derive from the world.
Ok. Let's move on to the dimension of existence. What does the regularity of existence demand? Well...existence! But what does it mean? What is the difference between existence and inexistence? Simple. If something exists, it continues to exist. If something does not exist, then it remains inexistent. If something existed, but it does not exist any more, then it stopped to exist (or alternatively, it has been nullified). If something did not exist, and now it does exist, then it appeared (or alternatively, it was spanned). So what is the essential basis for existence? Well, it appears to be persistence. And how is persistence expressed in the world? In the present time, and only in the present time. The past only reflects that the dimension of existence made the existence of the world in the past possible. But that's it. We cannot go back in time. Such time travels demand the nullification of the dimension of existence.
But why? Just think. What are we asking the logical field to allow, if we are planning to send something that exists in the present back into the past? What are we telling it to do? Its existence in the past has already happened. We are asking the dimension of existence to change the existence of what already existed. Now this may be intriguing on paper, but in reality what we are asking is that it will allow the existence of two contradictive things "at the same time": What already was, and what we sent back in time from the present. So we are basically trying to nullify the world. Now, let's say that's ok. Let's say that's not the problem. The problem is that it is the same world. The world in the past, present and future are all the same world. It is the same world which the dimension of existence is "blind" to. It is a great big tautology, a definition that does not exist, a sub world that would produce the world if we span the dimension of existence from it. Will a new world be created if this one is nullified? Maybe. But one thing is certain. It will not be this world. It is perfectly fine for someone to claim that he or she exists as a soul, outside the world, and so if this world is nullified, he'll just shift to a different world. The only problem is that he or she does not "believe" in the consistent physical logic, so his or her opinion do not interest me. Anyone thinking of existence outside the dimension of existence does not interest me, as he or she clearly belongs within the dark inconsistent side of the dimension of consistency.
So, how can we build a consistent
sub world without the dimension of existence? Simple. It is a world
that does not persist. It doesn't even get to be nullified, since that
would imply that it persisted in the past. As far as the dimension of existence
is concerned, this sub world which is spanned without it is
nothing more than a definition to a proposal for what it could sustain. This sub
world says to the dimension of existence "if you sustain me,
then you will be able to sustain me", and the dimension of existence
chooses not to reply or relate to this proposal. This sub world
changes consistently, and again it offers itself to the dimension of
existence, and again the snobbish dimension of existence does not
reply. Therefore, the sub world which is spanned without the dimension
of existence is a definition for a consistent change pattern of
the world. If this definition will indeed be spanned
from the dimension of existence, then we will have our world. If
we think about it, this sub world is what we would normally call
physics, or alternatively, what the logical physic tries to
describe.
So again, let's sum up our conclusions and move on to the next dimension:
(3) For the dimension of existence, existence demands the persistence of the existence of regularities, or alternatively the existence of only the present.
(4) Because the world is bound by consistency, the world demands that only the present exists, otherwise the world will contradict itself and will have to be nullified.
Now let's move to the dimension of dimensions. The regularity sustained by the dimension of dimensions asserts that the whole world will be made of nothing but the existence of regularities consistent to each other. It is easy to see just how limiting this condition is. But it is not the regularities themselves, but rather the consistency of the system as a whole which is so limiting. In order to prevent the world from being nullified, the dimension of dimensions demands the inexistence of contradiction within it, and so it asserts one simple principle: No regularity will be dependent on any other regularity. And what does it actually mean? It means that it is impossible to change the world. The world must only sustain the consistent flows. If we will find contradictions in physics, then the contradiction will be in our physical theory, and not in the world. Do you remember that we said only the existences of regularities exist? Well, now this means that matter can truly not be elementary. The same goes for energy, mass, speed, distance, force, etc. These are all definitions for types or perspectives over regularities in action. But these definitions are dependant on the world, and therefore, these are not dimensions. For example, energy cannot nullify a dimension, as energy is not a dimension in itself. For the same reason, generalizations do not exist in the world. I can't think of anything more dependent on the world than a generalization. The dimension of dimensions makes it clear that no generalization can manipulate its existence in our consciousness to force the existence of a regularity on the world outside the scope of our consciousness. None of our generalizations can become a dimension in the world. At best, it could accurately describe a dimension in the world. Worst case, is it is simply wrong.
If we try now to think how a sub world would exist without the dimension of dimensions, then it is quite simple. All the dimensions of this sub world flow in a total chaos within the real of the dimension of consistency. Each chaotic dimension may span its own world with its own dimension of existence, then nullify it then repeat the process again and again. The best definition we can find for this is the biblical "tohuvavohu". The dimension of dimensions sees this mess and says to itself: "I can't see a single consistent world here. I just can't understand what these dimensions want. They are not even definitions. I can't relate to this. It's not that this mess contradicts me. This dimensional rubble is impotent of even trying to contradict me. It is simply irrelevant to me."
So how will the spanning of
this chaotic sub world
will produce the world from the dimension of dimensions?
Simple. The dimension of dimensions will
separate the dimensions out of this rubble. Existence, space,
motion, and matter, each will be placed in their own hermetic dimensional
isolation. Regularity will form within them directly out of their existence as dimensions.
They will not generate inconsistencies, because they will not be able
to. Each dimension will sit within its dimensional cage shouting: "I exist
because I exist". Oh yeah? Well, choke on it.
Ok. Let us add our conclusions from the dimension of dimensions to the list:
(5) For the dimension of dimensions, existence demands independence between the dimensions of the world.
(6) For the world, the dimension of dimensions forbids it from adding regularities which are dependant on the already existing dimensions.
Next stop: The dimension of space. What does the regularity sustained by the dimension of space demand? Well, when you get down to it, the dimension of space does not deal with the existence of regularities in it. The dimension of space "is not about" contradictions between regularities. The dimension of space deals with the existence of matter in it. The dimension of space will not accept the existence of matter, if this matter will not expand in a spatial manner. It simply wouldn't be matter without spatial expansion. It would only be a regularity. As far as the dimension of space is concerned, a regularity can exist or not exist. To keep its consistency, the dimension of space will only care that regularities will no poke "holes" in it. Only if a regularity pokes such "holes" will space become inconsistent, and will have to be nullified.
But what are such spatial
"holes"? Well, a spatial "hole" can be created in
two ways:
[a] There is a point in space
in which the dimension of space cannot expand.
[b] There is a point in space
in which the dimension of space expanded twice or more, and therefore space
contradicted itself, and has to be nullified from this point.
Why are these "holes" so critical? What's the big deal? I have holes in my socks. I am not going to be nullified for that. Why is it so important for space to be continuous? Well, again, we are thinking about this the wrong way. It's not like the dimension of space has a problem being crispy. The thing is that every area in space already exists. If we are saying there is a "hole" in space, what we are actually saying is that there is an area in which space both exists and does not exist. We are contradicting the regularity sustained by the dimension of space, and therefore the dimension of space must be nullified in its entirety. But why? Why be so melodramatic? Why won't the world just spit out these problematic areas?
With this thought in mind, I would like to go back now to the issue of time travel. The dimension of space had expanded. It expanded along with the persistence of time, as soon as the dimension of motion was spanned in the world. If we now seek to poke "holes" in space, what we are actually asking the dimension of space to do is to "cancel a job" it already did. And this is the critical point. In this area we are asking the dimension of space to be and not to be. It's not the problem of the points in the "hole", and it is not the points which will be nullified by this "hole". It is the dimension of space which will be nullified. Nullified by whom? By all the other dimensions! In the area of the "hole" the dimension of motion will ask it: "Are you going to expand there, or are you not going to expand there?" Immediately the dimension of consistency will recognize it as inconsistency, as a definition for a regularity which does not exist. The dimension of existence will hear that and spit it out for venturing into time travels. Eventually the dimension of dimensions will throw it back into the "tohuvavoho", where the dimension of space will be free to play its nonsensical games. To sum it up, there can be no "holes" in space.
What does it mean? It means that everything we call space is a network of causality exactly like matter. This way, empty distance is an accumulation of causality, just like matter is an accumulation of causality. We will see that there are differences between matter and empty distance, but it is important to understand that as far as the dimension of space is concerned, there is no difference between matter and empty distance. As far as the dimension of space is concerned, matter and empty distance are equally irrelevant.
Now we need to find out how a consistent
sub world can be created, if we leave out the dimension of space.
What would be left of the world without the spatial dimensions?
Well, we are left with only the consistency of flow in matter
and empty distance, which we do not yet have. And what is that other than the
laws of physics? We have a prescription of how the world of matter would
be built, how matter will interact with space and matter.
But this sub world is nothing but a proposal for the dimension of
space. This proposal changes nothing for the dimension of space, so
it does not care if it exists or not. The dimension of space does not
care if it will hold matter or empty distance. They are both irrelevant
to the regularity of spatial expansion. However, if we will give the
laws of physics a space to exist in, we will get back our world.
Nice. Let's sum up our conclusion fro the dimension of space:
(7) For the dimension of space, every consistent regularity can exist in it, as long as it does not contradict the regularity of it: Consistent spatial expansion.
(8) For the world, the dimension of space determines that empty distance and matter are both expansions of spatial causality.
Now we've reached the dimension of motion. What does motion and consistent change demand from the world? What is consistent change, anyway? On the most basic level, we can say that consistent change is change that does no create contradiction. Ok, fine. But the real issue is understanding where these contradictions could appear. If you remember, the dimension of dimensions "forbids" the dimensions from being dependent on one another. For example, the dimension of motion should not "care" if it creates contradictions in the dimension of space. It's none of its business. However, if contradictions will turn up within it, then it would be nullified, and that must not be allowed to happen. So how can a contradiction be created within the dimension of motion?
Let's think. If we could describe the regularity of the dimension of motion, we would probably say something like "if I sustain change I exist, and if I exist, I sustain change." Therefore, the dimension of motion should look out for the following types of contradictions:
[a] Sustaining change
without existence.
[b] Existence without sustaining change.
[c] Sustaining change without existence of change.
What do these variations mean? Let's start with sustaining change without existence, or alternatively change which does not exist. We already learned that if something does not exist it can be found only in the dimension of consistency, as a definition which does not exit. And that's fine. The thing is that change which does not exist can't come back to the world as a spirit coming to haunt us. What I mean is that change can't derive from nothing because the dimension of motion prevents such possibility. I want to remind you that the consistent physical logic is a consistent metaphysical theory. We are exploring the consistent physical logic in an attempt to build a model for the world which will leave nothing for faith. So what I said regarding haunting ghosts applies to parallel magical worlds. They all cannot exist, and they cannot exist not because we don't want them, but because of the fundamental manner in which our theory is built. So I'm sorry if I am giving a bad vibes to all those believing in reincarnations etc.
Anyway, we know that inconsistent elements cannot affect consistent elements, or alternatively, elements in the world. Therefore, only elements in the world can affect elements in the world. So if we combine this notion with the notion that the dimension of motion blocks the possibility of existence that does not sustain change, then we can conclude that only change in the world can cause change in the world. And what does that mean? It means that all change is a product of previous change. If we had a still capture of the complete way the world has changed just now, then we can be sure that the change which exists in the world in the present time is all a consistent product of that previous change. No change in the present time can be a product of anything but previous change in the world.
Wait a minute. What does it mean "a product of the previous change"? What does it mean "a still capture"? If the world stood still it could no longer exist! Isn't this what the dimension of motion so explicitly demands? If we could say that at a certain moment the world is in a certain state, and at the next moment the world is in a different state, then it means that between these two states the world was frozen, and therefore it had to have been nullified! Such a "freeze" would be an explicit "hole" in the dimension of motion, just like the "holes" we talked about before in the dimension of space. If it would have been possible to divide time into frozen units and change between them, then the dimension of motion would have had to nullify this world. Therefore, we can conclude that the dimension of motion demands the continuality of change in the world. This way, whatever was, will change or perish. The world does not get keep copies of its past. The world changes.
That's all very nice, but in the end we find that it is the dimension of motion which maintains the change of our tautological "loops". It is the dimension of motion which determines for regularities such as "if A then A", that if A did exist, then A will continue to exist. But that's relevant only if we had just the single regularity A. What about cases where we have a different regularity? What happens if we have a regularity "if A and C then A and C", and C was nullified? The "loop" this regularity describes could no longer persist. But what then? Will the dimension of motion nullify A as well? It can't! The dimension of motion is change in itself. The dimension of motion must not be affected by the dismantling of a "loop", since a "loop" is irrelevant to it. So what will the dimension of motion do? Well, it will do the only consistent thing it can do. The dimension of motion will find a new "loop" for A.
What does all this got to do with our world? Simple. We cannot expect to matter to get nullified and disappear without a trace. The dimension of motion will find ways to preserve the accumulation of kinetic causality it sustain through other patterns of causality. Humanity has witnessed these "loop transformations" in action through the atomic bomb. It's simply that it's either these "loop transformations" occur, or the world would have had to be nullified. There is no other option.
So the dimension of motion is the one responsible for finding a consistent "loops" for causality stuck within an inconsistent "loops" of causality. But it would be a mistake to think that it is the dimension of motion which maintains the consistency of these "loops". The dimension of dimensions already made sure all the dimensions remain irrelevant to each other. The specific manner in which these "loops" take place do not interest the dimension of motion. The dimension of motion tells the other dimensions: "just tell me how you want to change, and I will make it happen. Just don't expect me to sort out the mess you make. If you tell me to do something inconsistent, to make a "hole", or some other prank, I will nullify it and throw you down the first flow I'd find, GOT IT?!"
Now we can conclude what is the sub world we get if we remove the dimension of motion from our world. This sub world is a consistent blueprint for a material world. This sub world exists like a program stored on a computer, while the power is switched off. The electricity (meaning the dimension of motion) does not care if it passes through a computer or a toaster oven. The computer however, must not short circuit. If the computer does short circuit, then either a fuse will burn, or the computer will burn, but it will not run the program, and it won't black out the entire network. This is the work of the dimension of motion.
Now we can understand another issue. If we recall what we learned with the dimension of space, where we needed at least three dimensions in order to define any sort of ratio between regularity (including a spatial ratio), we can see a similar limitation in this computer program metaphor. When I said that the dimension of motion will find a way to preserve A after C has been nullified, you might have imagined that it would simply be kept A as the hermetic regularity: "If A then A". The problem is that this kind of regularity is reserved only for dimensions. Matter cannot be an atomic regularity.
But why? Ok, let's unwind this mess. We started from saying that the dimension of matter "slices" flows from the infinite flow. Therefore, whatever the dimension of matter provides us, it is nothing more than divisions over the previous dimensions we had. If we say that after dismantling a "loop" we get a regularity in the form of "if A then A", then this regularity cannot be dismantled any further. This means that the dimension of matter spans new dimensions in the world. But that is not what it is doing. That is not the regularity the dimension of matter sustains. Therefore we could think that if the dimension of motion dismantles a "loop", and then reach an atomic regularity of the "if A then A" type, then it probably reached one of the world's dimensions.
But this is impossible. A "loop" which flows only in one dimension does not exist in the world! Think what are we asking the dimension of motion to do? We ask the dimension of motion to separate one "loop" from all the other "loops", and put it in the world. We want it to put a sub world within its parent world. If a "loop" will exist only in one dimension, we will create a "hole" in the world. We will force the world to be nullified.
Actually, any "loop" we find in the world which does not exist within at least one of the world's dimensions creates a "hole" in the world. And why? Simply because if the "loop" changes, then there will be two elements in the same point. It could be existence and inexistence; it could be past and present, change and no change, matter and empty distance. Such a thing would damage the consistency of this dimension causing it to be nullified. There is no other consistent option.
So what does all this tell us? It tells us that the dimension of motion deals only with causality which happens together in all of the world's dimensions. Matter is not built dimension after dimension. There is no order to the formation of matter. It is not like first we have matter, and the regularity of matter's expands into space, and then it starts "moving". The flow that matter sustains is like "an angle change" between all the dimensions together. Dismantling a "loop", or alternatively dismantling of matter, causes a different existence in space, a different "angle of change" for all the dimensions together. However, such dismantling would not remove the very existence of a ratio between the dimensions. Nothing can truly vanish; just change its format, its causality pattern. The "computer program" of this motionless sub world is like a great big "loop", which nothing can enter or leave. Once the "electricity flows in the computer", the world exists.
So is the logical field deterministic? Is there any choice or chance, or is everything a computable product of this totally consistent cosmic mechanism? Well, the answer is yes, and no. Yes, because the dimension of dimensions determines that the world is built solely on the base of a consistent set of consistent regularities. Consistency demands that anything must either exist or not exist. There are no in-betweens. So if we are just considering the mechanism which sustains the world, then there isn't any room for choice in the world.
However in the sense of everything being pre decided, then the world is not really deterministic. The lack of meaning which is the negative aspect of determinism is in fact a request to rely on something else, something transcendental, to sustain meaning. For example, there has to be a "first cause". But there is no "first cause", just like there is no point of infinity. And it's not because only the present exists. The "first cause" never existed, because there was always a past.
And why is that? Well, the dimension of space says so. In order to preserve its consistency, the dimension of space defines the dimension of existence as expansion in time. So even if there was something that "kicked started" the world, the dimension of space "expanded time backwards", just as it "expanded back" all the other dimensions. The point of origin and end point, were both flushed away with the infinity of consistency.
But how could this be? Well, when the dimension of space expanded, the dimension of existence allowed it to expand through time as well. What does it mean? Let's say that space had expanded to the volume of ten liters. As far as the dimension of existence is concerned, only the present exists, and therefore this volume had always existed. Therefore, the dimension of space could have expanded from that volume even before the dimension of space "officially" created it. And so it did. Another piece of land was added to space even before space expanded to it. It is not that it really was there before. That would be a contradiction. It's simply that without it being "eternal", a contradiction is imminent.
We tend to think of the past in terms of something we experienced, and therefore we cannot accept the idea of the past being "custom made" to fit the present. But this is not a customization of the past, so much as it is the only possible option. If we think there is a point in space which was not in space a second before, it means that it was available for other worlds to occupy a second before. So, if it was possible for another world to occupy that point a second before, then according to the physical logic, it really did occupy it a second before. But if so, then what happened when our world tried to expand into that point a second later? It couldn't occupy it as it was already "taken". So what happened?
Well, the source of our confusion is our tendency to rely on physical evidence as atomic, instead of the product of something else. The expanding nature of space is not the same process as we see when we fill a balloon with air or explode a bomb. Space is and had forever expanded from infinitely big to infinitely big. This is the nature of space'. This nature is the results of what space is. It is an existence of regularity independent on other regularities. All these regularities dwell in the dimension of consistency. Therefore the expansion from infinity to infinity does not spore inconsistencies, as the dimension of consistency is not subjectable to consistency. So to avoid our confusion, we should revise the way we think of the world, and think of it as being complete from its very beginning, and not an ongoing process of world building. Every point in time was a different arrangement in which the world conducted changed in, according to the laws of physics. But the expansion of space was not a physical event. It was a metaphysical event. This expansion of course left its mark on the physical world, but it still happened outside the scope of what we call "physical phenomena". And the same rule applies to causality. Searching for the "first cause" is like searching for inconsistencies in the dimension of consistency. There is an infinite amount of inconsistencies in the dimension of consistency, and all of them never exited, don't exist, and never will exist. Scientist believe that the universe started around some trillion years ago, but that is based on the evidence they have, and the concept they have that there should be a starting point, that there should be a "first cause". But it is a mistake which derives from the fact that science does not wish to deal with metaphysics. But we do.
So anyway, what does all this have to do with
determinism? Well, since there is no "first cause" and the world progresses
from infinity to infinity, the amount of "details" we need to
calculate in order to really determine the "destiny" of the world
is infinite as well. We can start calling the world a deterministic
machine only once we have a starting point, but without it, we can safely say
that anything is possible. Furthermore, we have the dimension of consistency.
The dimension of consistency is so chaotic and limitless, that we can
never know if it is going to keep silent, or will it "decide" to change
our world. If we did know, then we would have in fact limited inconsistency
by consistency, and that my dear friends, is totally inconsistent.
But, and this is a big "but", we decided to investigate the
possibility of build a consistent metaphysical theory. We decided not to
investigate anything that asks us to rely on faith, and so methodologically we
cannot investigate this option. As far as the consistent physical logic
is concerned, the dimension of consistency does not exist, and that is
all we need to know. The question of determinism should be answered like this:
"it is possible that we can change our fate, but it is
impossible to know our fate".
Phew…Ok…Let's sum up our conclusions regarding the dimension of motion:
(9) For the dimension of motion, existence in the world has to be continuous.
(10) For the world, existence must sustain constant change together in all of the world's dimensions.
At last we reached the dimension of matter. What does the dimension of matter demand from the world? Well, actually, we should reverse this question. We should ask, what do the dimensions demand from the dimension of matter, if the dimension of matter is supposed to "slice" flows from the world? What is the consistent way to "slice" these flow "loops"?
So, what do they demand? Let's gather up all our conclusions and then try to answer this question:
(1) For the dimension of consistency, existence demands the transformations from definitions of regularities into existence of regularities.
(2) For the world, the existence of regularities is obvious and self evident, because definitions derive from the world.
(3) For the dimension of existence, existence demands the persistence of the existence of regularities, or alternatively that only the present exists.
(4) Because the world is bound by consistency, the world demands that only the present would exist, otherwise the world will contradict itself and will have to be nullified.
(5) For the dimension of dimensions, existence demands independence between the dimensions of the world.
(6) For the world, the dimension of dimensions forbids it from adding regularities which are dependant on the already existing dimensions.
(7) For the dimension of space, every consistent regularity can exist in it, as long as it does not contradict the regularity of its consistent spatial expansion.
(8) For the world, the dimension of space determines that empty distance and matter are both expansions of spatial causality.
(9) For the dimension of motion, existence in the world has to be continuous.
(10) For the world, existence must sustain change together in all of the world's dimensions.
So what? What does this list imply? How are we supposed to unite all these conclusions? Well, I think we should start from understand the concept behind the dimension of matter. We said that the regularity which the dimension of matter sustains is the consistent existence of flows. That's the general idea. But what it means is that these flows actually exist! Not on paper, not as definitions, but within matter, here, in front of us. Up until now we dealt only with general rules and regularities, which never came down to materialistic phenomena. But now we are already supposed to understand the actual regularity which makes the material world "tick". The combination and unification of our conclusions should give us the tools with which we can understand matter, distance, energy, force, speed, and so on. We are supposed to be able to show how the world can possibly be filled with all the things it holds, strictly from the spanning of the dimensions of consistency, existence, dimensions, space, motion, and matter. The reason is that everything the world holds matches the specification of these dimensions. Any element that has a physical relation with the world must satisfy the demands of all the dimensions. There can't be an existing physical element that does not exhibit spatial expansion, motion, or does not display any relation with matter. There can be no physical element which does not perform a regularity, or exists without existence.
So again, what can we conclude from all this? Let's start with our "loops". Before we asked ourselves how can we build them without some kind of atomic distance to serve as edges. How can we make a hexagon without straight lines? Well, indeed we do not have straight lines in matter, but still we see that matter maintains spatial expansion. How is this possible?
The solution for this problem can be found with the help of the dimension of motion. Because the dimension of motion demands constant change, then it is impossible for flow to not constantly change its direction. Therefore, whatever distance or length we might find in matter it will only be in the form of curves! A curve does not have a single point where its spatial expansion persists in the same direction. So it doesn't matter how deep we go down the tautology, down the regresus ad infinitum, we will not find a straight unit of length. No lines or strings. Just curves.
So what does this imply regarding our "loops"? Well, quite simply, that they are in fact loops! We can use curves to build whatever types of circles, balls, ellipses, sine lines, you name it. And we do all this without having to manufacture a single spatial atomic distance. On one hand, we avoided creating a minimal length for existence, because we just didn't need it. On the other hand, we preserved the consistency between the dimension of space and the dimension of motion by preserving the continuity of space. We managed to avoid the "pixelization" of space. Furthermore, by maintaining independence between the dimension of motion and the dimension of space, we managed to preserve the consistency between the existence of matter and the dimension of dimensions.
Ok. So we have loops. Cool….Erm…Can you remind me why did we want loops? What's the connection between loops and the material world? We need much more than curves. So how will we make all the "other stuff"? Let's see. With the dimension of space and the dimension of motion, we saw earlier how the dimension of dimensions "sneaks in from the back." Is it just coincidence? Not really. The dimension of dimensions is tightly connected with the dimension of matter. Every flow which creates matter expresses some sort of regularity. Therefore, as far as the dimension of dimensions is concerned, it must verify that all these flows do not damage the consistency of the world, by creating dependencies between the dimensions. The dimension of dimensions must verify that these flows are a product of dimensional independence and not of a new hosting dimension for the same dimensions it separates. In a lot of ways, the dimension of dimension and the dimension of matter are opposite dimensions. The dimension of dimensions disconnects the dimensions, while the dimension of matter wraps them together into physical elements. Therefore, to better understand the dimension of matter, we must put it face to face with the dimension of dimensions, and check how we preserve the conclusions we came to earlier.
Now, if we consider the "sterility" in which the regularity of each dimension acts, we can understand a basic attribute of all consistent flows in the dimension of matter. These flows can change in various ways according to various regularities, but they do not change the dimensions. The dimensions are "unaware" of the existence of these flows. Therefore, the regularities of the dimensions themselves are not included in the "vocabulary" of the flows' regularities. To simplify this idea, think of the dimensions as providing five dimensional building blocks. The flows are structures made of these building blocks. The flows do not need to deal with keeping the dimensions moving. They only deal with their own loops. Still, the flows will never contradict their own building blocks. Flows will never contradict the existence of a dimension within them. They just can't. If such a flow did exist, it would have nullified the dimension it contradicted.
Therefore, all flows flow through all the dimensions together. The difference between matter and no matter will be decided according to this predicate: "Does this flow sustain a ratio of change between all of the dimensions, or do several dimensions remain unchanged (or 'in the same direction')?" If the change ratio is sustained with all the dimensions, it will produce matter, meaning existence according to the dimension of matter. If the change ratio is sustained on only part of the dimensions, it will produce regularity which acts on matter.
Where's the logic in that? Well, if a regualrity does not sustain change in all the dimensions, it could either not exist in the world, or be a dimension. Those which do not exist in the world do not interest us, and those which are dimensions we already filtered out of the world. However, if a regularity does not change anything materialistic, then it is irrelevant to the world, and again it does not interest us. Only a flow which affects matter can interest us.
So we have matter, and flows which affect matter, and a new problem as well. Matter does indeed sustain change in all dimensions, and flows which affect matter do not, but still, both elements share the same dimensions. Therefore, a situation might come up where matter and flows which affect matter would create a contradiction! What then? Will the world be nullified as a result of such contradiction? Can the world do anything but nullify itself in such a case? Will the world remain consistent?
I will not yet give you examples where such contradictions could happen. Instead, let's think which of these two types of flows are more "robust". What does it mean, "More robust"? We saw that there is a difference between matter and flows which affect matter. The difference is that while matter sustains change between all the dimensions, flows which affect matter do not sustain change at least with one dimension. This means that a flow which affects matter is "parallel" or identical to at least one dimension's regularity. This means that contradicting a flow which affects matter must nullify at least one dimension! However, contradicting matter does not nullify any dimension. The dimension of matter makes sure that the flows which create matter remain consistent, meaning they do not contradict the regularities sustained by the dimensions. Therefore, the dimension of matter will itself nullify such contradictive matter, since this is what the dimension of matter does. The dimension of matter is like a "filter" which clears out such "outlaws". Therefore, flows which affect matter are "more robust" than matter, and in case of contradiction, it is matter which will be nullified.
So what does it mean? It means matter is consistent with all the flows which affect matter. Whatever other kinds of flows matter may sustains, they are irrelevant to the world. Therefore, we can understand the behavior of matter simply by understanding the flows which affect matter. There is no need to understand matter directly, as there is nothing physically interesting existing in matter, which does not physically affect it.
So let's try and see what we can generally say about flows in matter. We did not go over the dimensions before for nothing. As we went over the sub worlds which were created by the removal of the various dimensions, we saw various analogies with physics, and so we can expect this sub world tactic will help us build the physical models for the physical logic. We just have to know what we are looking for. For example, if we want to know how particles keep their structure, there's no sense in searching for it in the dimension of motion. Particles retain their structure, and therefore, the persistent structure of particles does exist in the world as matter. This structure simply obeys the demands of the dimension of motion. It is a fixed scheme for change.
And this is the "trick" to understanding all the other characteristics of matter. Because there is no single order for the spanning of the dimensions, we can always span only part of the dimensions. We will still remember that before we reach the full restrictions of the world, we will have to conform this sub world to the demands of the missing dimensions. However we will still be able to better understand the flows which affect matter, since we will be thinking in the terms of the sub world which defines the flows which affect matter. It's more than possible that you do not understand what I am saying, right now, but hold on. You will soon.
Take for example the possibility to span all the dimensions apart from the dimension of space. What can we learn from this sub world? In this sub world there are no spatial flows. There's only one flow, the flow that makes the world persist. Therefore, once we span the dimension of space, all of the spatial flows will share this single flow of persistence, as there are no "partitions" to this basic non spatial flow. And what does it mean? It means that the "speed" of all the flows is the same. All the flows share a single non spatial component. Therefore, in terms of "speed of causality", a flow cannot "speed up" and bypass another flow. The "speed" of causality must remain constant, otherwise it would mean that the dimension of space was spanned before the dimension of motion, and we already know that we cannot make such an exclusive claim. The metaphysical element that handles the "speed of causality" (meaning the dimension of motion) cannot be affected by another dimension's regularity.
We can pull the same "trick" with the dimension of matter. The sub world created by removing the dimension of matter again provides us with a single element shared by all flows. Of course the infinite flow is inconsistent and therefore does not exist. But the consistent subset of the infinite flow which provides us with matter is a consistent flow, and it is a single flow, since no regularity has yet divided it. This is the flow which unites all the flows in matter and the flows which affect matter. We said earlier that when the existence of matter becomes inconsistent it is nullified, and it is the dimension of motion which is responsible for preserving the amount of change which was stored in the flow within this matter. The flow which we get by removing the dimension of matter is the flow by which consistency is preserved during this transformation. This is what I will from now on call, the inter matter flow, which is very much an equivalent to Aristotle's ether. The dimension of matter "slices" sub flows from the inter matter flow, and treats them as material existence. Whatever is left over from the inter matter flow after the dimension of matter does its "slicing", we know as force. But in fact, force is simply flow which affects matter. Now, because we are dealing with the same raw material (meaning the inter mater flow), then if we "slice" a piece from the flow which affects matter, we will have a "slice" of the inter matter flow, just like matter is a "slice" of the inter matter flow. These "slices" of the inter matter flow we usually refer to as energy. This is in fact the core concept which allows the interchangeability between matter and energy (although I am not talking about equality in physical units, just the ability to transform matter into energy and vice versa.) So, when we nullify a particle, dome part of it is may be transformed into matter, and some other part is left as flow which affects matter.
But this interchangeability does not have to be matter-reductive. For example, in chemistry, when we combine several atoms together into a single molecule, we are not losing matter in the process. The same happens when we ionize matter. However, while it is relatively easy to nullify a particle and interchange it with energy, the transformation of pure energy, pure flow which affects matter, into matter is a much more complicated task. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it is really not simple. In effect, what we are trying to do is to convince the dimension of matter that it should accept a new "offspring" into its lap. Not simple at all.
There are other important things to learn from the inter matter flow. When we described the inter matter flow, we said that the dimension of matter is not spanned in it. But if the inter matter flow exists, then there is also the option to produce it by spanning the dimension of existence, the dimension of dimensions, and the dimension of space, as a sub world, and only then span the dimension of motion. So what is this sub world on which we span the dimension of motion to produce the infinite flow, and from which the inter matter flow is a part? Well, it is obviously not flow, since the dimension of motion isn't spanned yet. At best it is inter matterism. It is the regularity of persistent existence in space. It is a regularity which determines where eventually matter is located. And when we add the dimension of motion, this regularity is supposed to somehow transform into flow.
But how? Let's try to think. We begin with a "chunk" of matter which for now we will define as stationary in space. How can this immobility be transformed into motion? Isn't this a contradiction in terms? Of course it is. This "chunk" of matter must move if we don't want it to contradict the dimension of motion. Therefore, we can claim that this "chunk" of matter is in a state of equilibrium of flows of opposite direction, which somehow nullify each other. But this is absurd. If the flows nullify each other, then they do not exist, and therefore, these opposing flows cannot affect matter. This means this "chunk" of matter does not move, and so, it must be nullified.
The solution for this problem is simple but a bit hard to intuitively understand. Matter simply moves in all directions: forward, backwards, upwards, downwards, to the left, to the right, and all the in betweens. In each direction, the flows are different. The thing is that all the matter in the world flows along these multi directional flows, and for that reason it can appear to us as stationary. When we see in front of us a "chunk" of matter which we define as stationary, then both we and this "chunk" of matter are like two passengers sharing a room on an infinite amount of trains. Each train goes in a different direction. However, these trains do not tear us apart as none of these trains are matter. They are all flows which affect matter, and therefore, according to the dimension of matter, these trains don't really exist. In order for matter to change its speed, it must accelerate "the trains" in one direction, and slow down "the trains" in the opposite direction. It must accumulate kinetic energy of flow in one direction, and decrease kinetic energy of flow in the other direction.
But wait a minute. What am I talking about? Accumulation of energy? Decrease of energy? What is that? Is energy a sort of atomic unit which we can accumulate like dollars in the bank? Why can there be an atomic energy unit, while we worked so hard to avoid atomic spatial units?
Well, the truth is, there are no energy
units. The use of the term accumulation and such is misleading. This
accumulation of kinetic energy is not a quantal accumulation process. The
accumulation of energy is defined by the curve angle of the flow.
What da...? What does it mean "curve
angle of the flow"? Well, first of all, if we recall the edges of
our "loops", then we should to remember that we have no straight
lines in the logical field. Look at the sketch above (the circles
represent "chunks" of matter). We have only curves. We have
only curves in matter, and only curves in flows which affect matter.
All these curves have curve angles, which are the curves' angles of change.
These curve angles determine how fast the curve changes its direction. The
smaller the curve angle, the more the curve resembles a straight line. The more
the curve resembles a straight line, the more focused the corresponding flow
is in that direction. The more focused the corresponding flow is, the
more we regard it as energetic in that direction. The same principle we
will apply to all forms of energy.
With this new model we can now give a
new explanation to the principles behind Newton's
third law of physic. I am referring to the law which describes what happens
when two "chunks" of matter collide.
"Chunks" of matter
which have different amounts of kinetic causality or kinetic energy,
collide. For a short moment, both "chunks" of matter share the
same kinetic flow. Each "chunk" of matter adds its own flow
which affects matter (or alternatively, its kinetic flow) to this
temporal union of "chunks". This is a union of the kinetic flows
in all directions. However, since the causality which binds the two "chunks"
of matter does not persist, each "chunk" of matter
moves in the direction which is consistent to it.
How does this happen? Well, it is best to consider an example. Let's say we have a wall, and a tennis ball hits it (We define the wall as relatively immobile). The tennis ball had a relative accumulation of kinetic energy in the direction of the wall, and so it appears to us as being in motion. Then the tennis ball had hit the wall. Once contact has been established between the ball and the wall, the kinetic energy can no longer mobilize the ball. If it will continue on moving, then it would mean that at a certain point after the surface of the wall, both the wall and the ball exist. This contradicts the dimension of space and the dimension of matter, and therefore, the dimension of dimensions cannot allow it. Therefore, the kinetic flow which affected the ball flows onwards into the wall. But what about the wall's movement? If we were to observe this event from the perspective of the ball, then it would be the wall which has so violently collided into the ball! Therefore, once the collision does happen, in order to prevent the matter of the wall from existing inside the matter of the ball, the kinetic energy of the wall flows into the ball.
At this instant, the constant "speed" of causality plays a part. Whatever interaction happens between the ball and the wall, it happens only on their surface. So although the wall is by far bigger than the ball, the amount of kinetic flow which can flow from the wall to the ball is identical to the amount of kinetic flow which can flow from the ball to the wall. And so it happens, that once the ball finished "injecting" its kinetic energy to the wall, it also finishes "refueling" with the same amount of kinetic energy from the opposite direction (i.e. from the wall).
This is kind of a tricky process to understand though. The idea is that less energetic flow is more curved. When considering the "injection" of kinetic flows, not all of the kinetic flow in the ball actually ends up at contact area between the wall and the ball. The kinetic flows which do not end up at the contact surface do take part in the interchange of kinetic energies between the ball and the wall. When considering the "refueling" of kinetic "flows", the shorter the contact time, the more straight the curve of the kinetic flow can become as it means less chance for kinetic flow vortexes to appear and twirl the curves. And so the ball bounces back in "about" the same speed (there are many other elements involved here, like the structure of the ball and the wall, elastics, friction, materials from which the ball and wall are made of. So it is "about" the same speed).
Whatever. Let's get back to the dimension of motion. We said that without the dimension of motion, what we have is a static scheme for flow which exists in matter. We also understood that this flow must be able to provoke a constant change in the ratio between all the dimensions. Now, because we found no spatial existence in space before we had matter, then it means that this change in the ratio between the dimensions must be simple.
What does it mean "simple"? It means a constant ratio, a ratio which does not change over time. If we want to refer to a geometrical analogy, a simple ratio is analogous to a constant angle of change, or with analogy to mathematics, we are talking about a second derivative of the value zero. There is change, but there is no change in how things change. And why? Well, in order to change the way in which things change, there has to be something to do that. There has to be something to change the angle of change. There has to be something. But there isn't anything yet, so there is nothing to provoke this change.
Now we need to think. If we have
a curve with a constant angle of change, that starts from the "up
side". Its angle of change determines that it should go "down,
forward, and to the right". Maybe it's best I add a sketch here:
So our curve progresses according to its
angle of change. But when it does that, what was once for
"downward" changes as well. I mean, as the curve progresses,
its direction relative to everything else changes. Therefore, the same
way it now goes down, it will eventually go up again. This way a circular shape
will be formed. This is the basic idea by which particles are built from flows.
That's nice, but there is a "trick" to it. What happens when the curve tries to progress into a point in space where it already passed through? To answer this question we have to understand something about flows. In the sketches I made so far I added small arrows to show the direction of the flows. But do not be fooled by this to think that a flow is like a moving point which has a direction. No. The entire path of the flow is takes part in the flow at any given moment. So if the flow returns to cover the same path again, like for example, in a ring, it creates quite a bit of a problem. The flow tries to exist more than one time in the same point in space and at the same time. This causes a contradiction within the dimension of space according to the "filter" of the dimension of dimensions. Therefore, only angles of change that create a flow which can never return to the same path it already flowed through are angles of change which can sustain the existence of matter.
Look, I know this all may seem vague to you now, but it is important that you understand that all these physical explanations are essential. We are trying to build a consistent metaphysical theory, and so far such theories have been dismissed for being too arrogant. It's very easy for people to dismiss it, as it is more convenient to believe that there are things which cannot be fully understood by "mortals". But if we are going to leave this metaphysical theory with unanswered questions such as "how is matter created?" well, then we didn't really achieve that much. We leave too much for faith, too much for voodoo. On the other hand, then yeah. If you do not care that much for physics, then this section is boring. So if you truly don't care for physics, then give yourself some slack. If you do not understand something here, it's not that important. As for myself, I have to write this chapter, even if I do not find it that interesting. Sorry.
Ok. I want to go back now to the issue regarding the difference between matter and flows which affect matter. We saw that the basic difference between matter and flows which affect matter is the lack of change the flow sustains with some of the world's dimensions. The difference is a result of the number of dimensions which are not involved in the flow.
If all the dimensions are involved, we are dealing with matter. If we remove the dimension of matter, but leave the dimensions of motion, space, dimensions, and existence, we are dealing with momentum. If we remove the motion of momentum by removing the dimension of motion, then we are dealing with energy. If we now remove the dimension of dimensions, we remove the regularity which this energy defines, then we are left with just distance. Each time we removed a dimension, we removed another layer of causality. Now, since we learned that the "speed" of causality is constant, then we can find a simple ratio between matter, momentum, energy, and distance.
But before I will describe this ratio, it is important to understand that while the names I used here like momentum, energy, and distance are quite intuitive to understand, the principle behind this is really not intuitive. We are used to address distance as a kind of "frozen" scale. Distance is used to describe a situation that does not include spatial motion. But that is not the case with the physical logic. Because any kind of existence in space must include being consistent with the dimension of motion, then it is impossible for us to use the standard units for distance such as meter, cm, km, inch, foot, mile, etc. Well, actually we can use these units, but we have to make it clear what exactly they mean. Distance is the quantization of the amount of causality needed to change the position of a matter.
What does that mean? Think of an ant. To move an ant one meter forward, all we need is to take a big breath and blow it one meter forwards. However, to move an elephant we need a tractor. It is simply that an elephant accumulates much more materialistic causality. Therefore, even if we define distance using standard units, we still have to understand that the idea behind these units is not what we are accustomed to think. It is not blind to what passes through it. For example, one meter is a multiplier. Given a specific amount of matter and the conditions in which the matter exists, one meter will be used to calculate the amount of energy we need to move that "chunk" of matter one meter. There is no meaning to distance without matter. if we do not have two "chunks" of matter which are distant from each other, we can't have distances. For example, if we ask "what is the distance between the earth and the point of infinity", well then the answer would be that there is no such distance. Because the point of infinity does not exist, an infinite distance does not exist as well.
If we insist on preserving our original intuitive meaning of the term distance, the "objective" meaning of distance, then we must also understand that by doing that we are removing a dimension – the dimension of existence. "Objective" distance does not "really" exist. Furthermore, if we chose to begin our calculations from the basic unit of objective distance, we also imply that we are choosing a specific sub set of the possible orders for spanning the world's dimensions. These are the orders where the dimension of space was spanned before all other existing dimensions. So it turns out that in fact, choosing to use objective distances makes our world more subjective in a way.
Another thing that we must pay attention to
is that distance is not that unique. We need unit multiplyers for
switching from distance and energy as well. This I will define
as potential, although the name is of no importance. What is important
is to understand that the same thing happens with mass. When we remove
the motion matter sustains, the regularity it sustains, its
position in space, we also remove its very existence, and therefore the dimension
of existence is removed as well. This way we can see that the quantization
of mass is equivalent to the quantization of distance, from the
perspective of the amount of dimensions of causality they both
try to accumulate. While matter includes all the dimensions, mass
includes only one.
We can make a list of ratios:
1. potential = distance * causality = mass * causality
2. energy = potential * causality = distance * causality2 = mass * causality2
3. momentum = energy * causality = potential * causality2 = distance * causality3 = mass * causality3
4. matter = momentum * causality = energy * causality2 = potential * causality3 = distance * causality4 = mass * causality4
And because mass and distance,
both express causality in a three dimensional space, we can also
say that:
5. matter = causality7
On the other hand, since when considering matter
we do not separate its existence as depth, width, or length, it would be
intuitively more accurate to our concept of matter to say: matter
= causality5
Maybe you noticed that in line 2, we got the equation "energy = mass * causality2." Now it is possible to consider speed to be a multiplier of motion, and therefore a multiplier for a dimension of causality. If so, then when we try to think what could be the equivalent value for the "speed" of causality, what we can be sure of is that there cannot be a greater speed. On the other hand, modern science has taught us that nothing can move faster than light. So without having substantial knowledge in physics, I can predict that the speed of causality is equal to the speed of light. Therefore, we can translate our equation to say "energy = (the speed of light) 2", which is strikingly similar to "E = MC²". However this comparison is also strikingly unsubstantiated, so I think it is best to just smile and move on.
I would like now to clarify a bit the equivalence between mass and distance. Because we created particles without creating any spatial quanta, without defining an atomic spatial size, then whatever distance we will measure, it will be just multiplications of previous sizes. I am not talking about integer multiplications. The point is that the choice to define a unit which does not exist, is in effect the choice to define a unit directly from the dimension of consistency. This kind of unit does not express causality, and therefore it is a meaningless multiplier. We can't divide mass or distance to sub units. Such sub units can have absolutely nothing to do with existence. Therefore, the equivalence in units between mass and distance does not derive from equivalence between mass and matter. Distance and mass are simply equally inexistent in the world.
However, there is a different union between mass and distance. After adding the causality of existence, they both create the same unit: potential. This union takes effect when generating electrical forces. How? Well, it is important to remember that the mass and distance we are talking about here do not include their spatial existence. They only represent an accumulation of causality, which is nothing but what we defined them to be. Only when we span the dimension of existence over these "accumulations", can we get any form of existence.
What does this come down to? Let's consider a particle. Because the dimension of existence is not involved, then on a spatial level, we can take out an amount of mass from it, without tampering with its existence. Taking this mass out will of course reduce the mass left where the particle is located in space, but because the dimension of existence is not involved, it will not tamper with the particle's very existence as matter. This removal of mass will however change the amount of causality this particle wraps within itself. This difference is equivalent to potential, and this action of removal is analogous to ionization. However, don't make a mistake and assume from this, that the amounts of positive and negative electrical charges are equal in the world. It could be that as a result of some process, electrically charged matter will be nullified whilst keeping its electrical orphan in existence. This is possible exactly because the dimension of existence is not involved in this removal. The connection between positive and negative charges is a connection based solely on regularity.
Matter compensates for this loss of mass by changing its angle of change within the dimension of matter. That is, if such a change of angle is possible. Remember that not all angles are good. Matter can only exist if the angle of change sustains a flow which never repeats its own path. So the spectrum of angles of change is not a continuous scale, which is expressed by the lack of continuity in ionization energy levels. And here we can see the spatial nature of potential. It represents the spatial difference or distance between the possible angles of change caused by ionization. The amount of causality which is needed to change this angle, is equivalent to the amount of causality (or mass) taken out of the particle and turned into an electron, or the amount of causality inserted to the particle by charging it with a positive electrical polarity.
I know the last section was quite hard to fully understand. Well, generally speaking, whenever we remove the dimension of existence from the equations, weird things start to happen. Without the dimension of existence everything becomes instantaneous, as time is left out of the picture. This for example goes to explain super positions in quantum physics. When existence is out of the picture, consistency does not have to relay itself through space. it is instantaneous.
And it might also be that this last section is incorrect. Still, it is really important to understand that electricity allows particles to share masses. The way it happens is not really that important now. What is important is that it does happen. By sharing masses particles can also share other forms of causality which may be stored within them. We shall see how important that is later, with the appearance of life in the logical field.
We just talked about removing an electron from a particle. Never mind how exactly this is done, but there is another issue which needs to be addressed. What is the thing in which this electron finds itself, once removed from the particle. Actually, we have not yet really understood what it is that holds the particles themselves. We talked about distances as accumulation of causality which does not form matter. We said that from the perspective of the inter matter flow, matter is equivalent to distance. This means that distance, or what we mistakenly call vacuum, is in fact, flow.
So, if vacuum is flow, then it also sustains regularities. Furthermore, if vacuum is flow, then it is also curved. What does that mean? Well, it means exactly what it says. When we pass through vacuum, we are passing through a curved terrain. And so, when matter passes through vacuum it displays curvy ripple-like behavior. This is however not an attribute of matter, but rather an attribute of the ripply landscape which vacuum creates. So the dual nature of matter as wave and as particle might not be an attribute of matter, but rather of vacuum, as a result of vacuum being actually flow.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but there's more to it. Forget about the ripply fabric of vacuum. The fact that vacuum is flow means that it is flow. It is flow just like matter is flow. The flows in vacuum can collide and recoil just like the collisions in matter.
Well, not exactly like the collisions in matter. When a vacuum flows collide, there is no surface of collision, as there is no matter involved. This means that such collisions usually do not provoke any change on matter, and so they are quite meaningless to the material world. But not all of these vacuum flows are meaningless to matter. When a vacuum flow collides with matter, a dual effect is created. The first effect is that they push matter just like in any physical collision. The second effect is that this collision provokes an opposite flow, released from the "chunk" of matter which the vacuum flow collided with. This happens exactly like it happens in collisions between two "chunks" of matter.
But there are two basic differences. One is that each one of these collisions has very low energy, so it really is hard to notice them. Furthermore, these collisions happen in all directions surrounding matter, so the effect of these random vacuum flows is rather balanced in direction. But the second difference is that flows which collide with matter are absorbed by the flow which sustains this "chunk" of matter. However, the opposite kinetic flow which is released from this collision is released into space. This makes each "chunk" of matter radiate kinetic vacuum flows from it, in all directions. Indeed each vacuum flow is quite "weak", but it still exists, and in a large amount, they form a measurable force. And so when these radiated vacuum flows accumulate, they create a repelling effect between "chunks" of matter in space.
Surprisingly, this repelling effect between
"chunks" of matter is the driving force behind gravity. We are
used to think of gravity as a field that pulls matter toward matter.
But of course, anything which is being pulled can also be described as being
pushed. With gravity, the element that pushes is invisible, as it is not matter,
so it is not intuitive to think there is something pushing us into the
ground. But this is exactly what the repelling force between "chunks"
of matter does. Vacuum flows originating from matter
all over the world pushes matter away. However, once such a
radiated vacuum flow collides with matter, then it is absorbed by
it. This absorbing "chunk" of matter "shades" this vacuum
flow from reaching a "chunk" of matter behind it. These
two neighboring "chunks" of matter also repel each other, but
in comparison to a universe filled with vacuum flows, this
repelling force is not as strong. And so the two "chunks" of matter
are being pushed together. The closer the "chunks" of matter
are to each other, the more they shade each other from the repelling vacuum
flows. The end product of this process is a clusterization of neighboring
"chunks" of matter. I will add a sketch to help you understand
what I mean:
In total this effect breaks down to a simple
idea: The closer "chunks" of matter are to each other, the
more they are pushed together. The further apart "chunks" of matter
are from each other, the more they get pushed further away from each other. The
same principle can be found on the grand scale of planets and stars, galaxies,
and so on.
There is however an exception to this rule. As shown in the sketch, within the cluster of matter, there is a weak vacuum flow. It is indeed weak, but only relatively weak. The closer these "chunks" of matter get, the more the vacuum flows within the cluster ricochet inside the cluster. As the cluster becomes denser, eventually this internal ricocheting effect overcomes the vacuum flows originating from outside the cluster. And so in the center of the cluster, there are no "chunks" of matter, but there is a strong force. This effect can be seen in the earth's core, just as in the black holes at the center of galaxies.
Again, maybe and maybe not. I don't really know if this is true, or if it is consistent with empirical findings. Truth be told, I am not sure I have not contradicted myself when describing the logical physics. There might still be many holes, but it is important to understand that the logical physics is just one step in our voyage. I am not interested in developing new physical theories; I just try to adjust physics to the physical logic. In fact, I am not even going to try to sum up my conclusions regarding the logical physics. I'm tired of this pedantic shit. What matters is that we now have matter, momentum, energy, distance, mass, speed, and so on. What we do not have yet is life, and this will be the subject of the next chapter.
But before I end this tediously long and boring chapter, I would like to give an example that will show you how to generally explain things according to the logical physics. And the example is:
Suppose we have a particle which we accelerate more and more in the spatial direction X, until it reaches the speed of light. What happens then?
When thinking about particles according to
the logical physics, it is important to remember that it cannot be
anything other than a pattern of causality in "loop". Best way to
imagine it is like a roller coaster, doing all sort of vertical, horizontal,
and frontal loops (excuse my drawing skills):
Even before we finished accelerating this
particle to the speed of causality, there will be a condition where the
direction within the inter matter flow which the particle sustains
within its matter, will be parallel to the direction of the inter
matter flow which affects its matter, meaning direction X, the
direction of the particle's movement. I add a small circle around that point in
the sketch I made.
Now, on the one hand, the causality in that point cannot accelerate to a speed greater than the speed of causality. On the other hand, every particle in motion can "feel" causality "overwhelming" it, in the position where the particle's internal flow is roughly parallel to the direction in which the entire particle is moving. Thirdly, particles are always in some sort of motion.
So? What does this sum up to? Remember when we discussed the issue of speed; we saw that we could to define speed, as an accumulation of causality in a specific direction. It has nothing to do with time. Time is not a factor here. Time can be flexible. I mean, if we defined distance as an accumulation of the causality needed to move from one point in space to another point in space, then it is not time alone which can determine the speed of this movement. No. Time considers the speed to determine how fast the causality will flow for every flow separately and while taking into account that there is a limit to the speed of this causality.
Maybe it is best to give an example in first and second person: I am standing still. I watch you accelerate in your spaceship to a very high speed. The faster you are the slower flows in your particles can do their loops. If your speed is X, and my speed is Y, and the speed of causality is C, then the speed the flow in your particles will flow is C – (X + Y). If you are at half the speed of causality, your time will be half as fast as me. Each second which passes for you, is two seconds for me. Your high speed creates a congestion of causality which slows down whatever you are doing, including your sense of time.
And what happens once you reach the speed of causality? Woo hoo. What a mess. The section of the flow within the particles that make you, which is parallel to the direction you move in, will not be able to flow anymore. Therefore, the flow in your particles will not be able to persist. Therefore, the dimension of motion will nullify the particles of which you are made! And what will become of you? You will still be in motion, so you will transform into matterless momentum. You will transform into a vacuum flow. Will you be able to transform back to matter? Maybe. I don't have a clue how you could do it, but maybe.
Well, I hope you understood something here, and
found it interesting in the scientific sense. But if you haven't, then you
haven't. I really don't care. I don't care if there are profound empirical
defects in the logical physics. What I do care for is the following
statement:
"It is possible to build a physical model based only the five existing dimension, which will be empirically consistent with all the findings and observations known to science."
And what do I mean by this statement? I want to keep on building a model that will reach the levels where it could explain the essence of consciousness. The logical physic is only a step which helps me reach that goal. It is not perfect, but I do not wish to end our journey trying to perfect a theory in a field which does not really interest me. So instead of trying to prove a specific version of the logical physics, I claim there is a complete family of physical theories which all share the same founding assumptions. As long as I refrain from relying on some conclusion shared by only a fraction of these theories, it is enough that one of these logical physics will be empirically consistent. One good logical physic will be enough for me to step over this obstacle and reach what is on the other side.
So in fact, to contradict the consistency of our journey, one will have to formally prove that such a model is impossible to create. So if someone feels he or she is up for the challenge, then be my guest. The only thing which is important for us to rely on from the logical physic is the part about ionization and electricity. These are the things which enable "communication" between particles, and for that reason they will be a fundamentally important for us in the future.
Therefore, the only conclusion I take from the logical physic, is that an atom is an organic unit, or alternatively, a single flow. It doesn’t matter how electrically charged it can be, and in what polarity. I only require its organic unity as flow of the protons, neutrons, and electrons, quarks or whatever when they exist as atoms. The fact that they can potentially be produced from an atom is not a problem. It is like a single chunk of clay, of which we can tear a piece if we want, but the unity of the original piece of clay is not damaged by this. And if someone wants to contradict this, then there is no problem finding a detour around it. But currently I find no reason to do that.
So anyway, we are now leaving the logical physic and moving to a more interesting terrain: life. So tell the guys in the back of the bus to wake up. Time to carry on.
Life in the Logical Field
Ever since Charles Darwin discovered evolution, science has been in a state of amok, with the intention to give explanations as to how things have come to be as they are. While Darwin found an evolutionary connection between humans and apes, astronomers started talking about the big bang, nebulas turning into matter, and so on. And I want you all to know I have a problem with all these theories, as they all consider the present as inexistent a-priori.
!?!? Hello?! Why do I say that? Simple. The present is perceived as directly continuing the past, as an inexistent point in time between time and present. There is no point in time which is considered the present, since the existence of such a point will make time "quantic", like the ticks of a clock, like grains of sand in a hourglass. The present is like these grains of sand while still in mid air. But what is this air? Science hardly addresses this issue. And so, the result is that as far as scientific equations and theories go, the present does not exist.
But if the present doesn't really exist, and the future hasn't yet come to exist, then what is the past made of? No no no. There is a methodological flaw here. The physical logic avoids this. This kind of obscurity in the most basic of concepts stinks of inconsistency. Therefore, in the physical logic there is only the present. The past is nothing but a tool to keep the present consistent. The present is a tautology, a "loop". The past is a regresus ad infinitum, since if it ever stops, the "loop" will break, making the world inconsistent. If the "loop" breaks, it is no longer self sufficient, and so it demands the existence of a "higher" level to operate it. And what will that "higher" level? God? Which god?...To sum it up, we really must change our concept regarding time.
Instead of wondering helplessly around issues such as how the universe was created, how did we come to be as a result of evolution, we should only ask, "Is it possible? Is it consistent with the logical field?" Forget about probability. If it a fluke which put as here, then it was a possible fluke, and that's good enough. We exist, and therefore, the only thing the logical field has to do is to render our existence possible.
Actually there's more to it. Because science is based on skepticism, there is a tendency in science to consider statistically positive results as scientifically interesting only if they are extremely positive. If a hypothesis come to explain something, then scientist will chose it only if it is the most resistant to criticism, and most ?"consistent?" with statistical findings. Even if there is a simple hypothesis to solve a problem, the lack of probability that it is actually true, makes it unattractive for science. It's not a question of finding the truth, but rather a question of its argumentative strength. It is scientific formality overpowering any objective essence.
This attitude is in line with the notion that the present is a product of the past. Scientists maintain a kind of silent agreement that they don't only need to just find out how things came to be. they also need to prove it must have happened this way. Therefore, when scientists stumble across unreasonable findings, they will not settle with an overly simple explanation that has close to zero probability of being true. Instead, scientist will strive to find the solution with the highest probability of being true.
However, the real question is whether high probability is always the right way. Its obvious that if an event is a result of a previous event, then it imperative to these circumstances. But the question is not just whether the events consistently form up with one another. We also need to question the order by which time has been created. And what do I mean? Let's go back now to the logical physic. We saw how time might have begun its existence from a specific point in time, and was spanned backwards indefinitely. So, while in mechanics, causality is spanned from the past into the present (and since the present does not actually exist, then it is actually spanned into the future), in the physical logic, causality is spanned from the present back into the past.
And what does THAT mean? There is a philosophical principle which is called Occam's Razor. It determines that if something can be explained with a small amount of axioms, then there's no need for more axioms to explain it. Because the physical logic tries to avoid the need to embrace any axioms, the physical logic indeed uses this principle, but from the opposite direction. The physical logic prefers coincidence over imperative rules. And why? Simply because coincidence does not require the definition of new regularities or axioms. If something can happen within a minute, but must happen within two days, then the physical logic will not insist on waiting these two days. And why? Because all the consistent explanations for an event are as good. As long as new regularities were not spanned over the world, it's not that important to be exact. However, spanning new regularities does have major side effects, so the physical logic tries to refrain from doing that. So if something can happen sometime between two minutes and two days, then it usually can also happen after four minutes, an hour, twelve hours, ando so on. There are plenty of options how to time events when investigating the past of the world.
I am not talking about any sort of mystical intent behind the creation of the world. According to the physical logic, the world doesn't exist because it was created in the past. It exists because it persists in the present. The reason why the present exists is that there is no reason why it shouldn't. It is simply consistent for the world to "remain". Then why is the world made the way it is made? BZZZZZZ! Wrong question! It is quite possible that there are other worlds, which are unlike this world, and they also persist simply because there is no reason why they shouldn't persist. Our world is nothing but a version of what could be regarded as a consistent world. There's nothing impossible in our world. On the contrary. We intuitively know that it is imperative that the present exists. What is not so obvious or imperative is what exactly happened in the past. In fact, all we can be sure of is what possibly happened in the past. And that's enough for us. Each of the "possible pasts" is a legitimate past for us. So why does the physical logic prefer coincidental explanations for the past? Well, its not that the physical logic prefers coincidence. It just so happens that coincidence is shorter and less limiting when explaining the past.
What do I mean? If we determine that an event in the past was the result of some sort of law of physics which we have just discovered, then what does that mean? It means that from now on all the other physical events we will try to understand will have to comply with this new physical rule. So in effect, choosing to explain something according to a newly defined physical rule diminishes the amount of possible pasts for the present. In fact, we could end up in a situation where the past which was possible to explain before this new law of physics was discovered, now will become utterly impossible to explain. This is the way in which scientific paradigms fall. But because only the present exists for sure, then we just can't rule out the possibility that discovering a physical rule does not actually change the "possible pasts". Because the past does not exist, then the past's true identity might be so fluid, that it can be adjusted to fit the new laws of physics we will find. It just might be that if we don't discover a physical rule, then the past would actually be different. This is unlike what I said regarding generalizations. Because the past does not exist in the logical field, changing the past using our thoughts regarding the world is incapable of actually manifesting inconsistencies in the logical field. If someone thinks this is absurd, then maybe he or she should check modern physics. What is the Uncertainty Principle, if not a manifistation of what I have just described? However, we can be certain that the less the amount of physical laws we discover, the greater the amount of "possible pasts" we have. Therefore, the less we rely general laws of physics the better we are from the point of view of the physical logic, because what does not rely on anything, does not require anything to remain valid. It simply is more robust.
There is a fundamental issue to understand here. A person might read what I just wrote and say "Cool. Then why not also say i am just dreaming this life? That would be the shortest and simplest explanation to the formation of the world, no?" Well, no. it might seem plausible, but this kind of thought misses the point. All it proves is that this person did not understand anything. The formation of the world has nothing to do with finding "what was the first cause". It really doesn't matter if the world is a result of a dream you dream. Even if it is a dream, the consistency of the world which you dream, determines that this dream world also has to have a cause before every cause. This is an imperative characteristic of any consistent world that has a dimension of existence. Because the illusion of having a consciousness must exist, then the existence of the world which surrounds this consciousness must exist, and so this world must have an infinite past. A disposition in any kind of present demands an infinite back-explanation toward the past. I will sum it up like this: The existence of a consistent world demands its past to be infinite.
Therefore I offer a different perspective on this. On one hand most physical events have much more coincidental explanations than explanations according to laws of physics or regularities. On the other hand, each regularity spanned in the world limits the amount of accidental or coincidental explanations for the formation of the world. On the other hand, each regularity spanned over the world limits the amount and type of events which can happen in it accidentally. This limitation might even turn the present impossible, and by that it makes the past produced according to this regularity irrelevant. But don't misunderstand me. It would be inconsistent if the past was to really change. That is not what I am talking about. To change the past, the past must exist in the present, and it does not. For the physical logic, the past is but a loose explanation as to why the present exists. Nothing more.
So what am I getting at? The position the physical logic takes when considering causality which happened in the past is not to negate the existence of a single truth regarding the formation of the world. Instead, the physical logic understands that this single truth did not necessarily leave any "evidence" behind it. Therefore, the physical logic must stand against such ideas as determinism or fate, because these ideas wish to undermine the relevance of the present. By undermining the relevance of the present, the very metaphysical basis of the physical logic is undermined as well: the existence of consistent regularity. According to determinism, the only time which exists is the past, right up untill the present, still keeping the present excluded. By skipping over the present the future becomes a single fixed possibility. If we borrow the term from mathematics, then in determinism, the present is a point of discontinuity of the first kind.
Therefore, the physical logic bases its argument on the existence of the present. Every argument that might undermine the existence of the present is an irrelevant argument. This way we do not need to answer the question "How is it possible that the human body of all its complexity is a result of mere evolution?" Instead the physical logic only asks if it is consistent and possible, that the human body will be created within X years of evolution. If it is possible, then that's good enough. The same rule applies to the formation of the earth. The physical logic only asks whether it is possible that after X amount of years from some cosmic event, it will be consistent and possible that the earth will sustain carbon based life forms. There's no point in searching for an imperative reason why it happened. It is imperative that it did happen, and it is imperative that it happened for a reason, but it is not imperative that this reason is single or unique. There could be various equally consistent reasons why the present is as it is. This line of thought is kind of like the opposite of the "butterfly effect". Because the world is infinite, we do not know the complexity of the present. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the present is the result of a single past, a single path of causality, or if there are numerous paths of possible pasts, which are all equally possible. There could have been cosmic events in the past of universal magnitude, which did not leave a single mark in the present. I call this phenomenon J.D.S, short for "John Doe Supernova". What it mean is that exactly like we don't know what a slight change may bring on a complex system (the butterfly effect), we don't know if a big change done on a big system, will provoke a long lasting effect, or even leave any trace that it ever happened.
So where am I going with this? Well, so far I have been reviewing models for the world, metaphysics, cosmology, and physics. I kept everything within general definitions. Even when I said far fetched ideas, it didn't really bother anybody not coming from a background in physics. It's quite possible that you simply don't really have a better solution. Actually, it is more likely you never considered the things which I tried to solve, as problems you should solve. However, from now on we will be dealing with issues which scientists believe they can solve using only their knowledge regarding matter. So what? What should scientist use other than that knowledge? Well, science today tries to explain the events happening in the world under the dimension of matter. Ok. What's wrong with that? It's not like the physical logic can contradict the dimension of matter. That would contradict the existence of the world. No. That's not it. The point is that the flexibility of the physical logic is by far greater than the flexibility of mechanics. While mechanistic determinism sends us to look for the "first cause" to find our god, the physical logic sends us toward the dimension of consistency, to solve the big questions. Like an inexistent god, the dimension of consistency roars: "If the definition you present here before me is consistent with the rest of existence, the land is yours!"
How does this come into effect? Let's remember how the dimensions were spanned. For each dimension, the rest of the dimensions coiled around it like in a "loop". It is not necessarily a spatial "loop". It could be an abstract logical "loop." So this raises a question: "Does a "loop" revolve around only one dimension? The answer is explicitly no! For example the "loop" of persistent existence is spanned around all the dimensions, both together, and separated. This is what preserves the independence of the dimensions. But if so, then there is a bigger question we have to solve: is it possible that from each "loop" more dimensions are spanned than those which define the world?
It depends. If a regularity comes to change regularities already sustained by the world, then the dimension of matter must filter it out. A new regularity in the world cannot contradict the five existing dimensions. We saw this principle before, when we compared which are more robust, flows in matter or flows which affect matter. However, if the regularity does not contradict matter in itself, and does not contradict the inter matter flow in itself, then there is no problem with it.
But what does it mean, not to contradict the inter matter flow in itself? Let's recall what we understood regarding consistent systems. In consistent systems, the axioms are logically independent of each other. So regularities can be spanned from the "loops" we know as the flows in matter, and by that span new dimensions. In fact, we can span entire worlds which will be irrelevant to the world we discussed so far. Such an irrelevant world is a worlds which is spanned from a single flow of causality. The existence of that flow relays the flow of existence to this irrelevant world. Apart from that, an irrelevant world is totally independent. If this world gets nullified by accident, then the flow will remain as is. It won't cause a "hole" in the world. The logic behind it is this: Each particle is a "loop", a tautology that recognizes only itself as existing, but for the world it is nothing but flow. Therefore, every particle can facilitate a dimension. Therefore, every particle can also serve as a "hook" on which we can "hang" entire worlds, as long as they leave the world consistent.
Ok, now this sounds really crazy. Yes. I know. But the thing is it is consistent according to the physical logic, and therefore, it is totally "Kosher". And this weird logic will be the building block that will bridge the gap between dead matter and living matter, and eventually lead us into our own consciousness. Still, it is important to understand and remember that the worlds we talk about now are all transcendent to our world. Unless there is a good reason why it is possible, there is no access between the world and the worlds which span from these flows in matter. We are not talking about parallel worlds.
It is best to think of these transcendent worlds as computer discs. If the disc holds files in it, or if it is formatted, it looks the same and weighs the same. Only if we have a computer which knows how to read the files from this specific kind of discs, is there a chance that the files on the disc will affect the computer. Only if there is a way to "read" these transcendent worlds, could these transcendent worlds change something in the world.
But there are limitations. First of all, the disc must be inserted into the computer. Secondly, the computer must be connected to the power grid (meaning it has to be "on"). Thirdly, even if the files have been transferred from the disc into the computer's memory, the effect will not be physical. File transfer does not change the materialistic composition of the computer. At most it can provoke the computer to make physical changes. The file can cause the computer to burn out, but it wouldn't be the file that actually did it. It would be the computer which ordered its components to do the things which ended up with it going down in flames. It is the physical manifestation of the computer that enabled it to end up in ashes. The physical properties of the disc only made it possible to write regularities on it in a way these regularities could later be read by the computer. The disc does not have greater physical abilities than a pebble.
Still, how can the disc both affect the computer and not affect the computer? Isn't that a contradiction? Well, it should be, but it isn't. There is something else going on here. Quantum physics has discovered that the observer has a physical effect on matter. Science has not yet been able to explain this phenomenon, and the reason for that is the same reason I explained before, but from a different angle. Science assumes that the world is perfectly defined under the dimension of matter. But the truth is that the dimension of matter does not provide us with a deterministic sealed world. It provides us with a world in which there are logical gaps. The inter matter flow leaves the possibility for tiny logical variations to take effect. It leaves room for regularities which are not spanned in the world, to make slight "harmless" changes as long as these changes don't contradict the inter matter flow. So the effect of the observer and the effect a transcendent world are basically the same. They both can change things in the world, but they cannot contradict the dimensions of the world.
These transcendent world, the worlds which are spanned from "loop" flows in matter, I will from now on call nano worlds. But don't misunderstand me. It's not that these nano worlds are "very very small". They are infinitely small. They do not really have any spatial size. The particle from which they span is just a metaphysical "hook" on which a nano world "hangs". The size of the particle has nothing to do with size of a nano world which "hangs" from it.
To better understand this, let's go back to the computer metaphor. We have matter and flows which affect matter. We have mechanics, gravitation, electrical forces, magnetism, and nuclear power. We have all that. But these are just "simple" forces. Why do I say "simple"? These are all forces, which are an imperative result according to the physical dispositions. And what is the connection between that and a computer? A machine? Well, a machine is a structure which is made of matter. A machine's behavior is programmed in advance. In that sense, all the physical universe is like one great machine, with the laws of physics as its program. But that is not what we mean when we chose to use the word machine, and surely not when we think of computers. Our concept of a machine is that it shares its universe with other objects in space. Furthermore, when we think of a machine, we are thinking of something which interacts with matter within the space of this machine. A computer uses the electricity it receives from the outside world. A computer receives input from the keyboard, the mouse, a computer disc. A computer responds in a physical manner, by showing us images on the monitor, making sounds, printing, and so on. It is not enough for the computer to internally interact with data. Such a computer is equivalent to a non working computer. If we press the "on" button, it will do absolutely nothing we can sense. It is a "dead" computer. In that sense, thinking of the universe as a great big machine will make it a useless machine, a "dead" machine, according to the consistent physical logic. We are the universe's internal chips, and no one outside this machine is receiving any output.
Therefore, by the term machine, we mean a finite amount of matter, which interacts with matter according to predefined regularities. It does not have to react to all matter. For example, a blender doesn't have to know what to do with a hard drive. At best the hard drive will break the blades of the blender, as it fails to make the hard drive milkshake we so desired.
Ok. But why exactly should this interest this us? Well, it won't interest us if all we care about is the creation of the solar system, the stars, or matter. But if we will by chance be interested in understanding how a minor forgettable thing came to be which we call "ourselves", then we have to broaden our perspective. It's obvious that the existence of life (which further translates to the existence of our consciousness) is not simply the result of physical laws being put into action. There isn’t enough substance in laws of physics to give any sort of explanation to the sensation we all know as having a consciousness. However, because we insist on developing a complete and consistent metaphysical theory, we must seek structures and patterns which will sustain this sensation, while still working within our physical and metaphysical systems. And because right at the beginning of this text I declared that this was my intention, and that I am not interested in just finding the essence of the world in itself, then that it exactly what I will do. I know that for someone who is into physics, a new fresh way to think of physics could seem so terribly important. But seriously, what does it matter how the physical world is built? How will that knowledge change our daily lives? We can keep on living perfectly fine without ever thinking about these things. Only once these physical theories and explanations start messing with our consciousness, that we have a reason to care.
But as I already hinted that before we have consciousnesses, we must have live. Now, you could claim that life and having a consciousness are basically the same thing. You could. But then again, on what do you base this assumption? Does it just seem related? I admit that intuitively it appears related, but that does mean that life and consciousness are the same thing. Nope. We must define our terms in a way which will be consistent with the terms we defined so far. Give me a break from all the romantic pathos bullshit about the sanctity of life, the soul of mother earth. That's not good enough. We need to start talking business.
I would like to go back to the issue of these nano worlds. Nano worlds pose a problem, even if it is only a matter of definitions: If we say that these nano worlds exist, then doesn't that mean we span more dimension in the world? If so, what is the difference between these nano worlds and the material world? Is there a difference? If there isn't a difference, then every particle in the world spans a new dimension in the world. Therefore, the question we should ask is: What is the difference between the nullification of a dimension and the nullification of matter? I already explained how the nullification of a dimension will cause the world to be nullified, while the nullification of matter converts the flow in matter to other flows in matter and/or flow which affect matter. This is what the dimension of matter does to preserve the consistency of the world. However, all these flows are part of the inter matter flow, and nullifying the inter matter flow would cause the world to be nullified as well. So what's the big difference?
Well, the question should not be "what is the difference." The question is who or what are we asking. For a scientist working in a secret atomic lab in the Nevada desert, splitting atoms, there is a big difference. If there was no difference, then this scientist could have nullified the world with his first "successful" experiment. However, for the poor particle getting zapped by the particle accelerator, there isn't any difference! Once the particle gets nullified, all the causality which it maintained with the world becomes irrelevant to it. As far as this particle is concerned, it's not just itself which has been nullified. Its entire world was nullified as well. And that's the thing. The difference between the five dimensions we found so far, and the dimension which spores out of a loop in matter, is a difference of perspective. Our consciousness resides in the world, and so flows in matter, which do not take part in the formation of our consciousness, are simply irrelevant to us.
So yes. We can call the regularities that spore from the "loop" flows in matter dimensions as well. However, from now on we should separate two types of dimensions. There are the dimensions which are essential to the existence consciousness and the reflection of the world within consciousness, be it my consciousness or someone else's consciousness. These are the imminent dimensions, the imperative dimensions. The nullification of an imminent dimension can mean only one thing for all of us: THE END OF THE WORLD!!! However, there are dimensions which can be spanned without changing the world we all share. Thes dimensions can be nullified without bringing an apocalypse upon us. These are the contingent dimensions. These dimensions are not directly responsible for the formation of consciousness, and neither to the reflection of the world in our consciousness. As long as a contingent dimension does not affect you specifically, as a specific living organism, or as a specific consciousness, then it can be nullified without you even knowing it.
So what are contingent dimensions? If there is one thing that is obvious regarding the contingent dimensions, is that they are not imminent dimensions. A contingent dimension does not perform spatial expansion in the world, does not provoke motion in the world, and does not produce loop flows directly from the inter matter flow (i.e. matter). Also, it does not span a persistent regularity over the material world. Still, a contingent dimension flows alongside matter in space, and sustains a regularity. So how exactly is it supposed to provoke change in matter?
Well, I just explained that the material world has undefined gaps of consistency. These are cases where the inter matter flow does not define a specific behavior. The choice what actually should happen is left for the contingent dimensions to determine. It is a small gap though. it cannot contradict matter or flow which affects matter. However, when only a single particle is involved, this gap is quite insignificant. And that's exactly the point. Contingent dimension become relevant thanks to interactions between particles, and as it relay itself between different matter particles.
But how? How can these contingent dimensions move? Well, a contingent dimension cannot move or relay itself on its own. But matter can. And it is not just any kind of matter. I am talking about a specific kind of matter, a kind of matter which can disconnect a part of itself, and remain the same matter. can you guess what it is?
That's right! I am talking about electrons. Electrons can relay contingent dimensions between particles. I am not talking just about the ability of electrical charges to build chemical connections between atoms. Each particle in a molecule can span a nano world. All these nano worlds come in contact with each other and unite. Electrons don't just connect atoms together. They serve as dimensional highways, which bind and unite nano worlds together. And just as in a molecule, the same goes for electrical charges between molecules, and between living cells.
Hold on a minute. What did I just say? Living cells? What am I talking about? There's still some way to go before we have life. So far all we have is communication between contingent dimensions. Ok. So let's carry on from this point. What can we say about communication between contingent dimensions? Well, it's simple. It is contingent as well. But what does it mean? It means that it is not imperative for the world's existence. But wait. Contingent dimensions are still existing regularities. It's true that the nullification of these contingent dimensions will not change that much when it comes to the flows in matter, but contingent dimensions must still be bound to the limitations of consistency. A contingent dimension cannot tolerate a contradiction. Furthermore, if we remember that the communication between contingent dimensions is done by materialistic relays, then we can understand that the mechanism which initiates this motion must also be materialistic. It cannot only be the result of things happening within these nano worlds. The nano worlds are rather impotent of ability to perform physical change in the world. They are limited to these gaps of super positions, which are by far less potent than the mechanics working between chunks of matter.
And what does it mean? It means that if there is no materialistic way to relay the nano worlds, then there is no communication. Matter precedes the contingent dimensions. A contingent dimension can determine something to be imperative according to its regularity, but matter can "veto" this regularity. If there is no physical contact between physical particles, there can be no communication. But because contingent dimensions are internal (meaning they exist within particles), then if these contingent dimensions cannot realize their regularity in the world, then we have no way to determine if they are indeed spanned from a specific particle.
And why? Let us consider a single particle. We look at it from above, from below, check its color, its weight. Great. We know all its physical properties. But there is one thing which we just can't know. These physical properties can never tell us if a nano world is spanned from it, and even if we do know that a nano world is spanned from it, we will never truly know what that nano world is. Therefore, if within a living organism we find matter which causes other matter to do a specific action, even if we manage to chemically imitate this action, we may never know if this imitation is exact. There can always be interaction between contingent dimensions which we simply could not identify. This is kind of like what i was talking about in the introduction chapter - the hidden dormant essence of the world. We can have a situation in which a chemical reaction will happen according to our knowledge in chemistry, but the effect on the living organism will be different from what we can "calculate" (there is a hint here as to how to define living organisms, but let's wait with that for now). Therefore, while a physical reaction between materials must always happen, communication between contingent dimensions does not ahve to always happen the same way, or even happen at all. In fact, even if we know that at certain point in time, a certain nano world was spanned from a certain particle, we cannot know if that nano world remained the same as it was. This nano world can span new contingent dimensions from it or nullify old contingent dimensions which were once spanned in it. A nano world can change even more than our world can change. It can change on the dimensional level.
This inability to predict interaction between contingent dimensions, prevents any attempt to explain evolution from being "tight". There simply are too many factors which we cannot calculate. Therefore, the physical logic satisfies with a "loose" explanation for evolution. The only things which are critical for the physical logic are:
a. During the course of evolution, there were no contradictions with laws of physics (meaning the laws of the logical physics).
b. During the course of evolution, no imminent dimensions were spanned within the world (well...sort of. You will soon understand).
The two principles are basically saying the same thing: There was no magic or miracles involved during the course of evolution. Physically evolution was a simple but long process. Metaphysically, evolution was a consistent chain of events.
Another aspect of this lack of "imperativity" is that there is no claim made by the physical logic, that there is only one world. What we call our world is indeed single, but it also personal. Every consciousness knows a world which is unique to it (we will explain this later). So almost othing must have evoloved in a specific manner. For all we know, the whole world could have been spanned yesterday. Everything we know as our memories, and everything we see as evidence of evolution, is nothing but the logical field showing to us that it is infinitely consistent towards the past. So when thinking about evolution, everything could have happened the way we think it did, or it could have happened differently. However if evolutionary did not progress at all, then it would have been inconsistent for us to exist as consciousnesses. And so again, because our illusion of having a consciousness must exist, then at least one consistent path of evolutionary progress must have happened. It doesn't matter what that process is. There could be an infinite amount of worlds which are different from our world and do not have life. You know what? These worlds don't even have to have matter. I don't care for these worlds. I don't care for claims that god did this and god did that. I don't care for the chariots of the gods. I don't care for excuses that take the basic question of "how life came to be", and relay it to fantastic mythological beings. All I care about here are logical structures which exist according to the physical logic. So drop it. Exactly like the dimensions don't have to exist, but they do, the same applies for life. Life just "is".
But wait. What do we call life according to the physical logic? Let's see. We said that the regularities sustained by the imminent dimensions can facilitate life, but they don't define it. As far as the imminent dimensions are concerned, the whole world can be dead. There is nothing within the regularities of the imminent dimensions which implies that without life the world will have to be nullified (this does not apply to us as consciousnesses. We will discuss this later on). Therefore, life must base its regularity within the world of matter. So life can indeed use the inter matter flow. Still, can the inter matter flow supply life with all its basic requirements?
What does the existence of life require, anyway? What are the minimal conditions by which we could say that something is alive? Good question. I don't know. Let's try it the other way around. Let's start with dead matter, a particle for example. What can a particle do? Not much. A particle mainly exists. We can push it around, but as far as it is concerned, it remains the same. It's dead.
What else can we do with it? We can split it! DIE particle DIE!!! Ok. We split the particle. No more particle. Maybe we have some smaller particles now, and some energy, but that's it. Well, I guess this did not teach us much. Let's take another particle. What shall we do with it now? I know! Let's electrify it!!! BZZZ BZZZ you disgusting particle! Great. Now the particle is ionized. The particle now bares the mass of excessive more electrons. But if we remember the logical physic, the particle remains the same matter. It is just a bit heavier, that's all. If it will have a way to discharge its excessive electrons, it will indeed discharge them. But wait? Will it be the particle which will discharge its excessive electrons, or will it be done by the inter matter flow? It will be the inter matter flow, of course. No particle can keep its excessive electrons because it feels like it. It's not up to the particle to decide. It is the work of the imminent dimensions. So what can a particle do? It can exist, nothing more. It does not have a different state, in which it does "something different". A particle can either exist or be nullified.
We could say that the particle is alive, but we'd be missing the point. We expect life to be more than spatial expansion. A living thing must "do" more. Now, in order for life to "do" more, to provoke motion, it needs energy. To get its energy it must interact with other things in space, as having energy is crucial if life is to provoke any kind of spatial motion. If the living organism does not provoke movement at all, not inside or outside its skin, well, then it is simply dead by definition.
And another thing. We already saw that according to the physical logic, anything that exists in the world is a type of regularity. Therefore, a regularity cannot exist if it is not in existence, meaning the definition of a regularity does not exist (even if it appears like some other regularity is storing its definition). We already understood that an imminent regularity will not be responsible for preserving the life of a life form. But if the regularity is contingent, then it is not imminent. It will not persist unless a different contingent regularity will preserve its existence.
Therefore, life must also be a "loop" of causality. And why? Well, we saw that a living thing must have more than one state of existence. It must maintain some sort of regularity that will provoke change, which is not summoned by the imminent dimensions and the inter matter flow. To do that a living thing must be able to absorb and use energy from its environment. That's the most minimal requirement. Without energy it would be inconsistent for life to provoke any form of physical change in matter or on matter. However, if there is no "loop" surrounding the life form's contingent regularities, then after one repetition of this regularity, the regularities will simply be nullified. A regularity cannot exist in any other way other than performing the thing it "does". If it does not form a "loop", then after performing one instance of its contingent regularities, the life form will simply die.
This teaches us two things. First of all, it teaches us that the regularities of life must be defined using contingent dimensions. These are the only dimensions which are "kind enough" to even consider doing anything other than sustaining the world. Secondly, the regularity of life is structured as a "loop". This means that a part of the regularity of life works to preserve its persistence. Therefore, the regularity of life is composed of three basic elements:
1. Harvesting energy from the inter matter flow
2. Sustaining physical change
3. Persisting the existence of the regularity of life
Now, while harvesting energy and sustaining physical change diversifies the amount of different states a life form can find itself in, the element of persistence gives it a more recognizable model. In computer sciences, this model is called a deterministic automata which always inevitably returns to the same zero state. For those of you who had the pleasure not to study computer sciences, I will explain what that is. An automata describes the way by which a memory-less machine functions.
What does that mean exactly? I will explain. An automata is in a specific state. If the proper input is given to the automata, then the automata shifts to a different state. If the automata cannot return to a state or states in which it can handle specific inputs, then it simply won't handle them anymore. At worst, the automata can no longer handle any input. If we consider a life form to be a kind of automata, then when it can no longer handle any input, the automata is "dead".
There is an acceptable way how to describe
automatas visually, and I will use it to help you understand this concept. I
will start with a sketch that describes a "dead" particle:
Using this scheme, we can more clearly understand a
"dead" particle's inability to change its state. A particle
simply has only one state. All the changes which it experiences are the
result of elements external to it, or alternatively the result of the causality
sustained by the inter matter flow. This is unanimated matter,
dead matter. Ok. Now let's compare the automata of dead matter,
with the most minimal automata for living matter:
Let's consider this scheme. We can see that
living matter always sustains internal change. It can be change
with the goal to harvest energy, or with the goal to simply create change,
but either way, living matter always exhibits change. Now, while energy
originating from the inter matter flow enables life to exist, the fact
that life persists is dependent on life's internal regularities. This must be a
contingent regularity.
And this is the fundamental difference between dead matter and living matter. It's not that dead matter "is of lesser existence" than living matter. The imminent dimensions make sure that the existence of dead matter and living matter equally persist. No. Living matter is different from dead matter, by the persistent preservation of its contingent dimensions.
And how does it achieve that? Well, the only
way to make this possible is if the contingent dimensions define a
regularity which in itself preserves its own existence. So if we now ask how life
first appeared, then the answer is simple: A contingent regularity which
utilizes the imminent dimensions to preserve its own existence was spanned
from matter.
Great. But how did this regularity come to be? Well, there are two answers to that question:
a. To preserve consistency with the past – This regularity had to be created because the existence of the illusion of having consciousness implies that we are alive in the present.
b. Because it could – Like the imminent dimensions, this regularity was possible (because nothing contradicted it), and therefore it came to be.
I would like to elaborate more regarding these automatas. What's good about a "machine" like an automata, is that it can be dismantled into a consistent axiomatic system, which can be translated into dimensional division. What do I mean? Let's try to understand this using the primitive life form for which we drew its automata. These are its "axioms":
1. If there is energy I can be alive (or alternatively, exist)
2. If there is sufficient energy waste it by performing motion
3. If energy is running low, harvest energy from the inter matter flow
This is an abstracted scheme of its dimensions:
The logical rigidness which results with the changing
of state in an automata, allows it to be translated into a world. There
is no ambivalence for an automata, just as there is no ambivalence for life.
Don't be confused by the ambivalence we know from our lives. This is not a
biological ambivalence, just a cognitive ambivalence, and we have not yet
reached that stage. Back to the subject, the first axiom "if there is energy
I can be alive", is the equivalence of the dimension of existence
for living organisms. This axiom sponsors life, as it connects the automata
with the imminent dimensions, and satisfies the basic requirements which
keep life consistent with the logical field. Pay notice, that as
long as the energy keeps flowing, the contingent dimensions
can retain their consistency with the dimension of motion.
And why is that? When I said before that the contingent dimensions share only the dimension of existence, I did not mean that they are consistent only with the dimension of existence. They are consistent with all the imminent dimensions. We already know the contingent dimensions are regularities, and we know they are spanned only from matter. We can even know exactly where they would be found in space. But they also need to be consistent with the dimension of motion. And so they do. As the causality keeps flowing from the inter matter flow, the gaps which contingent dimensions "feed on" also keep flowing, bringing about contingent change within the nano worlds. So in the end, the same energy which feeds these automatas, is the element which enables the automatas to return to their initial state. The dimension of energy is constantly fed, making sure that the automata can return to its zero state, and by that closing the loop which enables life to persist.
Still, this model for life has its problems. It's nice that a particle spans a regularity that can sustain its own persistence. The problem is we are still talking about one particle, or a molecule at best. We already saw what a single particle can do: Not much. A particle can be move or be charged with electrons, both of which are not really the particle's call. It's not the call of the nano world which is spanned from it. The inter matter flow is calling the shots. So? How can such an automata truly bring dead matter to life?
This is where the electrons ability to share nano worlds between atoms comes to play. If an atom contains a nano world, every electron which will be released from it will carry this nano world with it, until the electron will be absorbed by another atom, and relay its nano world to this other atom. This way the "program" of the automata gets relayed between atoms, and so many particles can take part in the automata's program. This obviously means that the automatas need to be more complex, but it doesn't end there. While every particle within the life form absorbs the "master program", not every particle must be in the same state in the automata.
If for example the automata needs energy, a particle which is in the position to harvest energy from the inter matter flow will indeed harvest it. But other particles sharing this automata might not be in the position to do that. If the automata was based on working with only a single particle, then the rest of the particles would continue on "searching" for energy, and would probably die of "hunger". Therefore, an automata which works with a set of particles must take into account the possibility that some particles are in a better position to harvest energy than others. Therefore, the regularity this automata will sustain will demand that the particles will not only search for energy. The particles will also have to inform the other particles in the automata of their condition. If some particles have harvested enough energy, then the "hungry" particles will suck this energy from them, and continue on wasting it uselessly. I'm saying "uselessly" because this is all these stupid automatas know at the moment. A pure waste.
In order for the first automata to be created, it must have been created with a regularity which sustains itself. This may sound problematic, a bit like the question which came first – the egg or the chicken, but it isn't really. It was not necessarily one particle which spanned all the contingent dimensions needed for the existence of living matter out of nothing. On the contrary. It is more plausible that it was created as a result of combination of contingent dimensions originating from various particles. Electrical forces originating from the inter matter flow caused contingent dimensions to leak between these particles. After nullifying contradictive contingent dimensions, the sum of all these contingent dimensions finally managed to create a nano world which designed the first automata to sustain life as we described life to be. Why did it happen? Well, simply because it was possible. The beauty of it is that once a single living automata was created, all it needed were electrical zaps to "infect" the rest of the particles with this life sustaining nano world. And so, more and more living matter was created. Life reproduced itself without a reproduction system, and the world was filled with stupid energy consuming automatas.
But this form of life has problems. It's very hard to preserve it over time, as there is nothing preventing these life forms from devouring one another. What do I mean by that? Let's assume we have a particle which takes part in a living automata like we just described. A nano world is spanned from this particle defining the regularity of the automata. Also, the particle is in a specific state of this automata. Now, as long as all the particles which share this automata continue working according to the "program", everything's cool. But what happens if the particle receives an electrical buzz from a particle which is in a different state? It could be a particles within the same automata, and it could be a neighboring automata. That's not the point. The thing is that the nano world spanned by the particle which is in a different state might be different than the nano world which is spanned from our particle. It could be the result of being in a different state, it could be dimensional leftovers from before the automata was spanned from the particle. It could also be a slightly different automata which is in the neighborhood. Whatever is the case, this electrical zap could potentially nullify at least some of the contingent dimensions spanned from our particles. If that happens, our particle no longer has a valid copy of the original automata. But that's not all. The original automata might no longer function properly as it is missing some of its parts. Therefore, the automata might "die". The particles' union will be broken, and they will be thrown away into space to be devoured by other automatas perhaps. Whatever their fate is, it's easy to see this is not a robust form of life.
However, while this form of life was not so
robust, it was also totally without competition. This was the first variation
life took. Dead matter had no objection taking part in these automatas,
and everything flowed with serenity. Still, a condition where every automata
can be so easily altered by outside interference, does not only poses risks of nullification.
It also poses opportunities. New contingent dimensions could be spanned
from these nano worlds, further enriching the variety of life. Actually,
there was one specific and rather simple regularity which could enable an
automata to absorb contingent dimensions without damaging the original automata:
If a new nano world arrives as into the nano world already spanned form the particle, it will be spanned within a hosting dimension.
This way, even if dangerous "dimensional
communication" arrives, it will not nullify dimensions
within the nano world already spanned from the particle. Now, while
this regularity does provide some sort of protection to the automata, it doesn't
protect it from being changed. Spanning this new nano
world in a hosting dimension might cause side effects. The only
thing a hosting dimension protects from is from a contradiction between
two contradictive nano worlds. This is all very nice while there is no
conflict between these two nano worlds. However, this kind of conflict
is inevitable. If two different behaviors are defined for the same state in the
automata, and the automata stumbles into this problematic state, then the dimension
of dimensions will nullify both of them.
Therefore, some of the automatas were more susceptible to changes than others. But that in itself is not an evolutionary advantage. What is better? An altered nano world which exists or a stable automata which can easily be destroyed? It's hard to say which will survive better. There is a problem with such chronic annexation. What happens if an "annexing" automata tries to annex a particle from another "annexing" automata? Their mutual tolerance will not cause inconsistencies between the nano worlds, but the dimension of dimensions will have to nullify them both.
And why? Well, it all comes down to the independence of dimensions. If one dimension serves as a hosting dimension for another dimension, and that other dimension serves as a hosting dimension for the first dimension, then while this loving pair might be ok with that, but for the imminent dimensions, this creates a contradiction. It is impossible to know which regularity will determine the behavior of the automata. To resolve this condition a new hosting dimension must be spanned. But there is no "third party" which is designed to do that. Therefore, this "mutual annexing" must be nullified.
It really is hard to determine which
regularity is evolutionary better. The best option would be to
"intelligently" integrate these two. However, as hinted by the word
"intelligent", this integration requires a more complex automata, one
that would incorporate spatial complexity as well. The part of the
automata which annexes contingent dimensions must be spatially separated
from the part which does not annex them. In order for such spatial
division to be possible, first another regularity must have appeared, a
regularity which will enable some sort of protection to the automata, even if
it does intend to annex new external contingent dimensions. This
regularity is quite simple to understand physically:
a. If new particles arrive at the automata, they will be inserted into it.
b. At the center of the automata, the automata will span the automata's nano world, from the new particles.
c. Particles which were already spanned with the automata's nano world will be pushed from the center of the automata outwards.
Newly arriving particles are
"programmed" with a copy of the nano world. The nano world
which is being "copied" into these particles is a rather reliable
copy, as it is situated at the center of the automata. This copy is shielded by
the rest of the particles which build the automata, and so there's a relatively low chance to
get zapped by another nano world. Once the new
particles are "programmed", they are ready to take part in the
automata, and so they will. Now, as soon as soon a the particles begin
"working for" the automata, they are systematically being pushed from
the automatas center outwards, while the center is being provided with fresh
new particles to span the automata on.
Ok, so now we have a more detailed explanation of this regularity. But what good is it? Simple. If a particle will indeed be zapped and its nano world will be damaged or utterly nullified, it does not pose a problem. The particle is already on its way out. At the center of the automata there are enough new particles which are ready to take its place. And so, the automata persists. This is by far a more robust automata. But we don't need a regularity to explain us that, do we? I mean, what have we just described? We have particles which do not serve the automata anymore, and are serving to protect the center of the automata. This is in fact. A scheme for the creation of a skin around the automata. And once we have a skin (or membrane) then we are dealing with something which we know by far better. We are beginning to speak about living cells.
Once cells were created, it is easy to see how they achieved domination over the world of life. As particles were being ejected out of the center of the automatas, not all of them had "damaged" nano worlds. Some of these particles were thrown out while still keeping their nano world intact, with its skin upgraded "program" for life. This "program" became widespread, and soon enough, most of the automatas were wrapped with skin. An automata wrapped in skin will not be easily devoured by another automata, but the ones who did not adopt the skin "program" were easy prey. So great. The world got filled with automatas all happy within their skin bunker.
The addition of skin around the automatas had many implications. First of all, once the automata was wrapped in skin, all the interaction the automata had with the world and with the inter matter flow, had to be done in one place – the automata's skin. Secondly, the reproduction of the automata, meaning the spanning of the nano world from new particles, had to be done underneath the skin, deep inside the cell. Therefore, although the manner by which the reproduction took place was not that important before the appearance of skins, now it brought new implications such as meiosis: The development of two distinct automatas under the same skin.
You don't really need anything more than common sense to understand the advantages of reproduction. If you have a cell which reproduces itself, it reproduces itself as much as it can, as long as there is enough energy around to do that. Of course, regardless if the cell reproduces itself or not, there could be an environmental condition where the cell won't have enough energy to exist. Still, the more cells there are of a specific type, the lesser the chance that all of them will die of hunger. Therefore, even if excessive reproduction might cause a lot of cells to die of hunger, it still will ensure that this type of cells will have greater chance to survive, over cells which do not reproduce so often. It's not that self reproducing cells are better than cells which do not practice self reproduction. They both waste energy for no purpose. Only thing is, that self reproducing cells were the ones to survive and "tell the tale".
A third matter, and undoubtedly the most important for evolution in the long run, is also tightly connected with this newly formed skin. Before the formation of skins, each particle in the automata was completely exposed to the world around it. Each particle could be updated with the condition of the inter matter flow and adjust its state in the automata accordingly. This all changed once skins were introduced. Only particles on the skin had actual access to the world outside. The skin became the only possible communication line between the cell's automata and the rest of the world. The cells are therefore dependent on their skin to get their raw materials and resources. So if an automata wished to consider the conditions outside the cell to determine its actions, it had to keep alive some of the particles on the skin, to keep the automata informed of the environmental conditions outside.
But how? I mean, all the contingent dimensions define are internal regularities which are hardly relevant for the world. They can work on the minor gaps left by the inter matter flow, but that is hardly enough to fully sense the world. So how was the connection made between a particle's contingent dimensions and the world's imminent dimensions? How can the physical condition of a particle be expresses in a non physical manner? Don't we have a guiding principle of independence between dimensions? All the dimensions are orthogonal to each other. All the dimensions are "blind" to each other. As a matter of fact, we should have asked this question long before, when we even considered the existence of these automatas. How do contingent dimensions relate to imminent dimensions?
We should check the point of view of whoever is asking this question. Contingent to whom? If we take the role of a particle from which a contingent regularity is spanned, then our world would include the contingent dimensions, just as much as the imminent dimensions. Furthermore, we have to remember the conclusion we made: There is no way to determine a single exclusive order by which the dimensions were spanned. All the orders must remain consistent and possible. Indeed we tend to think that the contingent dimensions were spanned form the imminent dimensions, but we must remember that the contingent dimensions of an "alien" particle are simply irrelevant to us. If these contingent dimensions were spanned form the imminent dimensions, or if the imminent dimensions were spanned from these contingent dimensions, these contingent dimensions simply cannot affect us. This is the result of the dimensional independence.
But the fact that imminent dimensions and contingent dimensions are equal in the eyes of a particle does not solve the problem. How can a living thing interact with another living thing? All of its contingent dimensions are relevant only to itself, no? So, according to everything we learned so far, if we let these living nano worlds interact with each other, we would be forcing dependence between these nano worlds. Therefore, we would be forcing the world to become inconsistent. We would force the world to nullify itself! The dimension of dimensions cannot allow this to happen. So what is the solution?
And what do you think? Yes yes. We need a new dimension. We need the dimension of life. The dimension of life is the earliest relic of life there is. Why do I say that? When I was explaining the difference between living matter and dead matter, I said that once the first living automata was created, it reproduced itself freely, because it had no competition, and the regularity of that automata remained till this day. Reality as we know it is like a filter, "selecting" from the dimension of matter the physical flows which are consistent with the dimension of life. Therefore, if we ask whether life exists in the worlds which are created by the imminent dimensions, well then the answer would be: "In some of them, yes".
What does it mean? Well, there are many variations for such worlds, and we happen to live within one of these variations. Our variation is the one which includes an additional so-called-imminent dimension, the dimension of life. This is kind of like the metaphor we had earlier with the square that turned into a cube. The world, which is the collection of imminent dimensions before we added the dimension of life, is like our initial square. The dimension of life is a position along the depth of the cube. Could there be other points along the depth of the cube? Could there be other contingent regularities which support life and exist in parallel to the dimension of life? Could there be another "type" of life in the world?
The answer is, absolutely not! But why? It's simple. Only elements which share the world in which the dimension of life was spanned can affect living things. If another dimension of life was spanned in parallel to our dimension of life, then these two dimensions of life would be irrelevant to each other. Such transcendent life would ask to make physical changes in matter which contradict the physical changes that our dimension of life would try to do. The result of such conflict can only be one: the nullification of all the dimensions of life. Therefore, there could be a transcendent world with transcendent life in it, but it has to exist with a "separate copy" of the imminent dimensions. Transcendent life can exist, but it must remain irrelevant to our world. Therefore, a far as we are concerned, the dimension of life is an imminent dimension. Although the nullification of the dimension of life would not nullify the physical world in which we live, it will cause the nullification of the world which sustains our lives. Another conclusion from this is that life can only be created by life. Dead matter cannot be brought to life, without life annexing it as raw materials. In comparison with the dimension of matter, dead matter is like distance, where life is matter. Dead matter simply lacks a dimension.
Ok. Let's get back to the communication between particles. When a particle transmits its contingent dimensions to another particle, it also transmits the imminent dimensions. How come? Because with nano worlds just like in any other worlds, all the orders of spanning the dimensions are equally consistent. The imminent dimensions could have been spanned from a particles contingent dimensions. Therefore, whenever contingent dimensions are transmitted from particle to particle, the imminent dimensions are also transmitted. In effect, a particle transmits its exclusive world view in its entirety.
Now let us consider the particle receiving
the transmission. This particle of course exists within the space
provided by the imminent dimensions. When it receives the nano world
transmitted to it, then the dimensions of the transmitted nano
world (which are basically "copies" of the imminent dimensions)
must now be turned contingent. If not, the duality of imminent dimensions
would cause a contradiction. Not that it is really a problem. If we remember
what we saw in the logical physic, this electric dimensional transmission
lacks the involvement of the dimension of existence. Therefore, this
transmission is irrelevant to the world by definition. Therefore,
in such communication between particles, the internal regularity of the receiving
particle serves as a hosting dimension for the "world
view" of the transmitting particle. The receiving particle ends up with
two copies of the imminent dimensions: one it receives directly from the
inter matter flow, and another copy is spanned from its internal contingent
regularities.
Best way to understand it is to make sketch:
This issue is important on several levels.
First of all, the formal level of the physical logic completeness. There
has to be a complete link between the way the world is built according
to the physical logic, and the fact that it really exists. Since nothing
exists in the physical logic which is not the existence of a consistent
regularity, then we can't talk about anything that happens according to the physical
logic unless we have a full and formal explanation how it really
happens. Everything in the world must derive from the metaphysical
theory. There can be no gaps filled by element which are not mapped by the physical
logic. The existence of dead matter must be as "spiritual"
as the existence of living matter (apart of course from the regularity
of the dimension of life). Everything must have a logical and consistent
explanation. Secondly, this teaches us a new thing about the physical logic.
Not only are all the orders for the spanning of the dimensions
possible. For interaction between contingent dimension and imminent
dimensions to take place, different orders must simultaneously exist.
But if so, then why don't these orders nullify each other? Haven't we said that a pair of contradictive dimensions nullifies each other? Indeed we did. So what's the score? Well, it's simple. An order for the spanning of dimensions is not a dimension. If such order was a dimension that would damage the consistency of the world, and the world would have had to be nullified. If you remember, we already understood that determining a single exclusive order for the spanning of the dimensions is impossible. So there's no problem. If such ordering was indeed a dimension, it would have been immediately nullified by the dimension of dimensions. Instead we have hosting dimensions, which allow contradictive world to exist in parallel. But only the world which is spanned by the imminent dimensions has its own dimension of existence. and so, everything checks out. There are no inconsistencies as the contingent copy of the imminent dimensions does not have its own dimension of existence, and therefore, this copy does not generate a world which could contradict our world.
And why is this so important? Well, it might seem unimportant now, but further on we will see that the fact these nano worlds do not exist has extensive moral implications. But for now, what's important is to understand that the existence of life (and our consciousness for that matter) according to the physical logic, determines that various orders of dimensional spanning exist in simultaneously in different points in space.
Now we can finally begin to unravel the goal of our metaphysical travel. We said that a cell which has a skin receives information regarding what happens outside through the inter matter flow, by means of contingent dimensions. What does that mean? When a cell senses its environment, it receives transmissions of nano worlds. Therefore, we see that for external stimulus of cells, sensory is the insertion of a nano world into a "cell's consciousness", and a nano world is a type of sensation. But wait. This kind of stimulations is external only. This does not include sensations that originate internally from our thoughts. Furthermore, these are still only single cells, not human organisms. We don't have consciousnesses just yet. But we are getting closer....Cool...
So we have a world filled with living skinned automatas, or single cell organism if you like. The interaction between the cells and the inter matter flow, as well as cells with other cells is conducted only by the cells' skin. The automatas appear to be quite protected, and so there's no real reason for them to continue to evolve. But are things really so great? Not really. The protection provided by these skins isn't always that effective. A skin is not an immune system. A skin is a primitive form of protection, a regularity that comes to prevent the automatas from failing under their own clumsiness. It prevent the automatas particles from "defecting" from the automata and destroying the automata in the process. Particles get flushed out no matter if they did their duty or not.
But this regularity is not perfect. First of all, because this regularity is so simple, it takes only a few contingent hosting dimensions to "hack" it. For example, if a particle which was just devoured by the cell would have spanned a regularity which resists the cell's attempts to push old particles from the center outwards, then the skin protection will be rendered useless. Problematic particles could remain inside the automata and possibly destroy it. Secondly, a skin does not really protect an annexing automata. On the contrary. While the skin does not allow entrance of nano worlds belonging to living cells (because living cells are too big to penetrate the skin), it does allow entrance for other particles, a lot of them still holding the remains of damaged automatas. These are "damaged goods" and annexing them could be potentially harmful. So the addition of skin around annexing automatas did not give them a strong evolutionary edge. However, the annexing automatas had no choice but to develop skins. Annexing automatas could not annex other annexing automatas, and of all the non annexing automatas, the skinned automatas had the evolutionary advantage. So the annexing automatas were forced to develop their own skin, because they had to annex what "nature" had to offer.
However, the addition of skin around the automatas brought about an interesting situation. Now we have two kinds of automatas: One is robust, but lacks the ability to evolve (the non annexing automatas), and the other is vulnerable, but is able to evolve (the annexing automatas). Not only that, the annexing automatas contained within them nano worlds of non annexing automatas. These nano worlds were the product of generations over generations of evolution, put together by a growing array of contingent hosting dimensions. This seems to provide a good potential for evolutionary improvements, but there's a problem. Even if an evolutionary good hybrid was created, the annexing automata could not pause the evolutionary process. So instead of evolutionary improvement, what actually took place was a relentless cancerous evolutionary decadence.
In order for evolution to actually be a
productive process, a new breed of automatas must have evolved. Until now we
defined the annexing process as a regularity, while not annexing was defined as
the lack of such regularity. However, for evolution to fulfill the
"survival of the fittest" principle, automatas need to be able to
preserve their automatas in a more persistent manner. And for that, a new
regularity was needed:
If a new nano world arrives, it cannot
change the current nano world.
But the problem with this regularity is that every nano world is different. No general rule can be defined to nullify the contingent dimensions of all the possible nano worlds. There can always be a regularity which will set itself as an exception. However, evolutionary progress is an empirically proved concept. So how is it possible?
Let's go back to the dimensional spanning order. We said that for every world (be it a the world, a nano world, or just a world), we cannot determine the spanning order of its dimensions. However, with the "dimensional communication" between particles, we saw that hosting dimensions can still create dimensional hierarchies. By hosting two contradictive worlds a hosting dimension can use the irrelevance between contradictive worlds to block some of the dimensional spanning orders. If two worlds are irrelevant to each other, the order by which they were spanned is irrelevant as well. Therefore, there is a way to mobilize the dimensional spanning order, and then "lock" this order using hosting dimensions.
And this dimensional "lock" is
the "trick" by which evolution was regulated. A non annexing automata
spanned the dimensions of an annexing automata according to the following
order:
This way, the annexing behavior becomes irrelevant
to the world. If a new nano world arrived, it trickled through a hosting
dimension down to the annexing automata. The internal annexing automata
would annex this nano world, but the hosting dimension would
block this new nano world from ever affecting the imminent
dimensions. So the new nano world was indeed received by the
automata, but it remained dormant and recessive. This kind of automata we will
from now on call an autistic automata. The regularity it sustains determines
that every other regularity it might absorb is irrelevant to it. Every
other regularity which it absorbs is cushioned by a hosting dimension
which protects it from changing its behavior as far as the imminent dimensions
are concerned.
But an annexing automata can also disguise itself as an autistic automata. Because every order for the spanning of the dimensions is possible, as soon as an automata spans the nano world belonging to another non annexing automata, it can also use the contingent hosting dimension model. However, for this automata it is imperative that the order of dimensional spanning remains unspecified. This means that an automata which imposes as an autistic automata can still annex new nano worlds. This kind of behavior happens only in cases of mutual annexation, done by two automatas of this type. In order to preserve the consistency of the automata with the imminent dimensions, a new regularity was added, determining that one of these automatas will become an autistic automata. However, it is important to understand that this behavior is not the result of intuition or great planning. It's simply that those automatas which have not adopted this "sex changing" regularity were nullified by the dimension of dimensions as soon as they tried to perform mutual annexation. The regularity was spanned simply because if it hadn't been spanned annexing automatas could not survive.
Now, as soon as evolution reached the level of autistic automatas, cells were finally able to perform actually progress via evolution. Still, we saw that the autistic behavior is only temporal. This is not a sufficient condition to stabilize and fix the autistic condition of an annexing automata. If an annexing automata behaves like an autistic automata only when under threat of being annexed by another annexing automata, then it has no means of preserving evolutionary change when coming in contact with non annexing automatas which are not autistic.
Actually there was another technical matter which forced the automatas to stay autistic. I mentioned before meiosis, meaning the reproduction of various cells within the same skin. Where would the cells go after they have multiplied themselves? We said that the regularity creating the skin causes new particles to be inserted to the center of the automata. At the center of the automata, these particles will be "programmed" with the automata, serve the automata, and then be ejected out of the automata. So when an automata divides itself and multiplies itself (as cells do when performing meiosis), its "children" will also try to suck outside particles and bring them to their center. So even if these offspring won't be able to penetrate one another, the offspring will still dwell near the same place as the place where they were "born".
Now this poses a problem. On the one hand, if
the offspring were all annexing automatas, then they would have had to nullify
one another. On the other hand, if the offspring were all autistic automatas,
then their evolution would come to a standstill. Understand that it's not that
evolution is by itself so important. However, as soon as there is competition
between the various breeds of automatas, then the breed which is the most
adapted to survive and proliferate will survive and proliferate, even if
at the price of damaging the lesser developed automatas. And to gain this
evolutionary edge, the following regularity was spanned:
In a colony of cell, all the automatas are annexing automatas which impersonate autistic automatas, apart from a separated and limited group of cells. These cells' function is just to annex new nano worlds into the colony.
This way automatas could both evolve and
preserve their evolutionary advantages. But this kind of behavior is a
privilege tangible only to colonies of cells. Ladies and
gentlemen, I am pleased to announce, that we have finally reached multi cellular
organisms.
But before we speak about multi cellular life forms, we should not forget other significant developments of evolution which appeared while still at the single cell stage. We said that with the development of skins, automatas could interact with the world around them and with the inter matter flow, through the skin. One such interaction was the annexation of new "technologies", but the story doesn't end there. The annexation of particles did not only bring an abundance of nano worlds, it also brought in quite a lot of energy, the energy taken from one automata, and used by another. This kind of "violent cannibalism" would be performed mostly by autistic automatas, since their contact with other automatas did not change their "program". These autistic automatas could devour other cells without suffering from side effects, as they suck the energy of their automata victims. So even in the time of single cell organism, the food chain began, and our stupid automatas became predators!
As soon as the automats started eating one another, their evolutionary advantage became much more crucial. For example, a predator automata should be able to tell what it is exactly that lies around its skin. Is it food, or is it a dangerous regularity, a "poison"? Furthermore, it would be a great advantage to be able to recognize particles which have just been ejected out of another automata. If the predator automata could develop means of transportation, it can follow the trail of particles, and devour the source of these ejected particles. And so on and so forth. Generally speaking, automatas became much more sophisticated.
However, it's not like the automatas "wanted" to evolve and become more sophisticated. All these cells are "machines". These cells can have an infinite level of complexity, but this complexity is still not enough to provoke a "will". All this complexity is a product of the fact that an automata which did not annex new technologies, did not survive. And it's not that the simple automatas had less lust for life than the more complex automatas. The simple automatas were simply not advanced enough to compete with the possibilities provided for the more complex automatas. The concept of "will" is not a product of complexity, but rather of abstraction. It is the abstraction of a complex and decentralized system into a single unit which is able to use its various abilities in order to survive. The "will" is a product of a "control system". But an automata does not need a "control system". An automata is the system. An automata is the existence of the regularities defined by its dimensions. An automata is "in control".
If we remember where we started on our trip, we said that generalization don't exist according to the physical logic. Therefore, to define a living automata as a regularity which does not actually exist, is to define a generalization for something this does not exist in any way other than in the dimension of consistency. Therefore, the "will" can only be the product of a regularity which is defined on the automatas. The "will" can only be a product of some sort of automata which controls the rest of the automatas. Now, although a control automata exists in living matter, it is not the same automata which is responsible for preserving the life of each automata in each cell. Therefore, although almost all life forms are based on the cell type living automatas, the existence of a "control automata" (or control system) has a dual nature: It exists thanks to the existence of the automatas of the cells, and exists as a complex of automatas (including itself) through an additional regularity which the control automata sustains over its group of cells.
So obviously, not every cell in the complex will be the "control unit". There's no point in that. Such a behavior is equal to a complex of automatas which don't have a "control unit", but the automatas are informing each other of their condition. It's not that it can't work this way too, but in a world filled with living predator cells, such a behavior would be too slow and clumsy to survive.
No. A "control unit" can be
produced by a number a cells. However, for the colony's survival,
it would be better if some of the cells would just follow the orders
given by the "control unit". However, if the "control unit"
will not be kept informed regarding the condition of the cells in the
rest of the colony, it will soon find itself devoured by murderous predator
automatas. It is important that the "control unit" will have a way to
monitor the condition all around the colony.
The bottom line is that life simply had to start thinking.
The Development of Thought
Ladies and gentlemen, I am pleased to announce that our long and tedious journey has finally reached and interesting point. You may have enjoyed the scenery so far, and you may be totally beat. Regardless, from now on things will finally become relevant for us as consciousnesses. So far we talked about life, but we did not yet have consciousnesses. We had predator automatas, sworn energy wasters. However, as soon as we start talking about multi cellular life forms, we finally meat the family to which we belong. We finally meet ourselves.
But before we start dealing with multi cellular life forms, we need to understand the process which made the cell colonies develop their "control units". It is important to understand that there is nothing "magical" about these "control units", which the rest of the cells in the colony do not or can not know how to do. In each and every cell of our body exists the same automata. The difference between the functionality of the various cells is the result of the part and the different states of the automata in which these cells find themselves in.
What do I mean? Well, I think it's best to simply review the development of the cell colonies. In the beginning the cells simply "sat" next to each other. At this stage, the cells did not really care for their neighboring brother cells. What made this formation last was the simplest principles of survival. When many cells of the same type sit close to each other, the chance that absolutely all of them will be annihilated is rather small. If we think about the survival of the cell's type, meaning the survival of the automata shared by all the cells in the colony, then its easy to see how it has better chances to survive, than an automata which is spanned only once in the world, within only one cell.
But when a lot of cells sit close together, it also brings new problems. A single cell had better chance to survive if it destroyed all the cells around it. However, with a colony it’s a different story. If the cells of a colony would turn cannibal and eat their brother cells, the colony could no longer exist. Therefore, the survival of the colony demanded that all of the cells belonging to the colony will be aware of the existence of the colony, and would act accordingly. I