Philosophy 101 - Chapter 6

Philosophy 101

Chapter 6

Mind In Dimensionality:
This gets complicated. We're getting to the place where you must hold almost all of reality in your mind at once in order to fully understand.  But!  Mind, as we know it, can only hold four dimensions at once.  Not one, not two, maybe three, and definitely not five or more.  This is why the Big Bang Theory is so useful as a starting point for thinking about dimensionality,  and some of the true paradoxes that come up are really cool!

Imagine  -------  Reality is one dimensional - the singularity.  An infinitely small, (actually infinity has no size, or more accurately the word 'size' is meaningless when speaking of infinity), reality composed of an infinite number of relons, (again the meaningless word 'number' is used for convenience).  Can't see it, no mass, no nothing as far as the three dimensional mind is concerned.  But, as we have previously seen, there aint no such thing as nothin'.  Presto , chango - faster than the mind can see - reality goes to two dimensions, then to three dimensions - and COOL! - Now mind can SEE something!  And then mind can realize that it SAW something because the fourth dimension, time can be perceived!

Reality, as four dimensional mind sees it, begins because there is 'time', to spread out into three dimensional space.  This expansion, of relons, forms an infinitely expansive sphere with four dimensionality on the inside - But remember, there ain't no nothin' on the  outside.  What you are visualizing here is the FOR of mind as we know it.

I find it fascinating to think of how these four dimensions interrelate to form such intricate and sometimes paradoxical effects, and I wonder what other effects we might see as we add more dimensions, with their intricate logarithmic complexities.  I'll bet they create more paradoxes than they resolve.  (Obviously, I'm being facetious.)

One thing I would like you to think about, I would like your opinion, we will talk about it later; how do I say this?  Does time really exist?  Does it exist by itself, or does it exist only in relation to other dimensions?  What is duration in relation to time?  If you stand anywhere in 3 dimensional space you can see the future way up there, and the past way back there, and the present right where you are.  You can't say there is no time because we can stand right here and see both ends of it.  And I guess we can't say there is no duration because I'm still standing here.  So if mind is perceiving this in three dimensions does that mean that mind just created the fourth dimension?  No - that's just way to egotistical!  Is there movement through time?  Is there movemont through duration?  Remember, I'm standing in space - with a strong enough telescope I can see the past in the far distance, so I'm guessing I must have moved through space to get to the present.  And I know when I can go faster than light I can move through space and get to the future.  Hmmmm --- too bad we can't just take away the three space dimensions -- then we could  prowl around in  the resulting time singularity and  pop back into three dimensional space whenever we want to be.  Think about this - I'll want to talk more about it later!


Grand Theory of Everything:

Science - In particular physics, has been searching for a grand theory of everything.  A theory which would incorporate all scientific laws, the laws of nature, into one cohesive whole.  A theory which explains everything at the same time.  It seems to me that science is falling way short of its goal in one area.  Failure to incorporate one important thing, which we all agree is real, into the theory.  The thing I call mind.  Some physicists have been trying to find the basis of mind - electrical impulses, interaction of molecules in the brain, electrons moving down microtubules.  Describing the interrelationships which go to make up self-awareness, perception, thought, various words used to describe the relationships which go to make up mind as a whole. But that doesn't actually get to a description of mind itself.  We need a description which takes us from mind to the products of mind; such as thoughts, language, concepts, ideas, and theories.  (Yes everything is circular - Really!)

Physics postulates many things, or should I say outcomes, with mind as an intermediary, but still hasn't adequately described mind.  Schrodinger's Cat, The Two Slit Experiment, The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal, Action at a Distance, etc., etc....  Is mind discovering these outcomes or creating them?  If mind is discovering them, HOW is mind discovering them?  If mind is creating them what are the tools of creation?  I say these unknown things are infinite interrelationships of relons, and relons may have already been discovered by physics.  The Higg's Field may actually be the accumulation of relons.  I just adore mind experiments.  Einstein's and Hawking's in particular.  Relons - the components of everything - the components of reality - of mind and matter - of cause and effect and all the 'stuff' on both sides.  Infinite relativity.

A Grand Theory of Everything must take EVERYTHING into account - Even universes where mind does not exist!  Hawking postulates that there can be an infinite number of these.  Think about it!


Cause And Effect:

Everything we see involves 'Cause and Effect', but that's just a way of looking at things that can lead you astray, or down the wrong road, or to the beat of the wrong drummer, or down a crooked path.  For me a better way of looking at things is to see that everything is interrelated.  An interrelationship includes  cause and effect, but it also gives you oh so much more.

Most folks see Chaos Theory as the ultimate in cause and effect.  When a butterfly flaps her wings the effects are felt in the Amazon Basin even when she's in Alaska, and this is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. You are seeing 'an' effect of an infinite number of causes, or, you can say, you're experiencing an infinite number of 'things', (causes) and turning them into what you are calling an effect, or many effects that you're calling a syndrome, or a myriad of other possibilities.  In other words you can do whatever you want with C & E, I don't care.  I just call it experiencing reality.  It's very hard for me to use C & E for anything practical in real life; because I find it impossible to separate an infinite number of causes from an infinite number of effects and come up with anything that makes much sense; but I'm sure that's just me.  I think this has something to do with the way I feel about the 'Scientific Method'.  I prefer the term 'Controlled Serendipity', (because I made it up myself, unless I heard it somewhere else and forgot about it), over 'Scientific Method'.  I think of things in 'Frames of Reference' which are like balls of reality.  Little balls, like the fewest causes you can visualize and the fewest effects, all the way up to the universe as a whole, if you can hold that much in a FOR at one time.

I believe I said somewhere that the more you know, the more you understand; the larger your FOR, the more you understand; the smarter you are, the more you understand; the more educated you are, the more you understand; the more perceptive you are, the more you understand; the more intuitive you are, the more you understand - Whew! - I could go on and on.  I'm trying to force you to see that the best way to put it is:  The greatest number of relons which can be incorporated into the FOR which also contains what you call 'I', will create the FOR which gives that 'I' the greatest understanding.

And before I stop for now, I want to say that cause and effect is one of the most misleading things in reality.  In human life we see closed systems and we can usually spot a cause for the system.  We have seen that Reality is NOT a closed system, it's EVERYTHING.  THERE IS NO CAUSE!!