## Space, Time, Dimensions, and Filter

.

### How can we express the above mathematically?

We may say that the location (origin) used to refer to the locations of all other objects is not absolute. That origin may be selected arbitrarily. We may say that the duration (eternity) against which to measure the duration of all other objects is not absolute. That eternity may be selected arbitrarily. And then we select an arbitrary unit of measure, and fix it.  Now we have a consistent dimension on which all things relative may be placed.

This is what gives us three dimensions of space; and the dimension of time. These are the primary dimensions. Beyond these we have derived dimensions of mass, velocity, temperature, etc.

When we try to think beyond physical space-time, we run into mental speculation. We then find ourselves in a mental space-time. This is real to the degree that all associations have been kept consistent. We have simply shifted from concreteness to abstraction. This provides us with a super-dimension of abstraction that runs across the primary dimensions of space-time.

Thus, it is the relative nature of this universe which is perceived as space and time.

.

#### FromReality & Mindfulness

Space and time exist because manifestations are perceived as being relative to each other, both in their position as well as in their duration. If manifestations were absolute, or non-existent, there would be no space and time.

The location of an object is always relative to another location. As a minimum, the location of an object is referenced by the location of the observer. Similarly, the duration of an object is always relative to duration of another object, and, as a minimum, it is referenced by the duration of the observer. The absolute “location-in-itself” or “duration-in-itself” does not exist

Space and time depend on manifestation being perceived as relative.

A closer look, or overview, provides us with new information about objects. For example, the close-ups of insects, images through electron microscope, and views through Hubble Telescope are so striking that we are taken aback. Similarly, when we dilate or compress duration, we get new information about how phenomena transpire. This applies not only to physical but also to mental objects.

By controlling space and time we can obtain new insights into manifestations.

The answer is yes. People who are smart really know what they are looking at. They have a much finer sense of differentiation because they observe carefully. This gives them the ability to operate efficiently. Whether they are managing a company, or researching into a theoretical subject like mathematics, they perceive a lot more.

What does controlling space and time really means? It means positioning oneself to get a better look, or breaking down, or combining, sequences to see what is there. The idea is to scrutinize with mindfulness.

Anything that influences perception is part of filter by definition. Space and time influence our perception.

Space and time seems to be aspects of the filter that we all carry.

Even when objects are manifested in complete detail, space and time keep us from perceiving them for what they are. Knowing this we can start to get an idea of the nature of the elusive filter.

.

A wonderful example of consistency is mathematical associations. It is the consistency of space-time dimensions that comes across as reality.

This consistency breaks down as we observe life. Here we have an unknown filter that influences our perception of reality. Any inconsistency then appears as unreality.

This blog entry is offered as a place to discuss our observations and speculations about space, time, dimensions and filter. Have a go at it.

.

• vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Hubbard says, “A static has no motion; it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wavelengths; it has no situation in time or space.”

.

Static is situated in mental space. To the degree it can be stipulated mentally, it has dimensions. Hubbard stipulated certain qualities as its dimensions.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 10:02 PM

Hubbard says, “Thus it could be considered that theta producing energy, condenses the space in which the energy is contained, which then becomes matter.”

.

This is a great idea. We just have to replace “theta” by spontaneity. We just don’t know how “theta” or spontaneity comes about. A form of spontaneity is intuition.

Energy would be a disturbance, which propagates through the fabric of space. In physical space, this disturbance appears as an electromagnetic wave. In mental space, the disturbance may appear in the form of intuition that propagates through ones awareness.

I am not sure how space would condense! But mentally the ideas may become more structured and fixed. Physically, mass and particles will be generated.

One way space may condense is when there are very rapid disturbances, but, for my life, I can’t imagine how that may happen.

Things do not just happen by simply wishing. There is always some mechanics involved. There must be some mechanics underlying “wishing” too.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM

There must be some mechanics underlying “wishing” too.

. . . and intention.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 12:06 AM

Questions that arise are: (1) How could the speed of light be exceeded?

Chris: We need a definition for the speed of light and not a measurement. We have to leap to some type of hypothesis of the underlying nature of Nature. For fun and in the spirit of this question, I would propose that the universe has a basic oscillation mechanic. The universe is vibrating. We may use the ubiquitous Planck unit as a measure of that basic vibration.

Therefore we could define light as that disturbance in space which vibrates every Planck time. This is why the speed of light is constant. Not only can it not go faster, but cannot go slower relative to similar mediums of space. To exceed the speed of light, one would logically need to quantum leap every Planck time, but jump around, skip around the next Planck lengths, possibly jumping throuigh the following waves and touching only the crests of existence as it oscillates into and out of existence. Fair enough, but would; what could energize such leaps? There maybe more to learn about the fabric of space to find a currently unintuitive way to do this. Simply impelling something by adding energy to it is not the way to quantum leap Plancks of space.

Like

• vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 5:22 AM

Space and time seem to depict the RELATIVITY of this universe made of physical and mental (abstract) elements.

Relativity appears to be the fundamental principle of this universe. Buddha was spot on when he said:

“The Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in the world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Ātman within or without.” ~ Buddha

This universe is like a well structured “bubble” floating in “unknowable.”

“Unknowable” is the bottomless “unknown”. One may keep digging and discovering this unknown for ever. It is the ultimate game.

Nirvana is to know the futility of this obsessive digging, and simply see things for what they are. 🙂

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:23 PM

“It is the ultimate game. :)”

. . . ultimate perpetual game of hide and go seek. Having noticed that, what should we do with that observation? How should that observation affect our lives? Some make this observation and go into a sort of funk about merry-go-rounds and how they want to get off. Some of the positive thinking crowd take the opposite spin and exclaim “What a game!” There would be other responses to this observation as well.

Like

• vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 7:07 AM

(1) The mental dimension is an abstraction of the physical dimension.

(2) The process of abstraction must maintain consistency.

(3) SELF lies in the mental dimension, while BODY lies in the physical dimension.

(4) SELF is a configuration of mental elements, while BODY is a configuration of physical elements.

(5) Problem occurs when a SELF (though consistent within itself) is inconsistent with another SELF (also consistent within itself).

(6) The ultimate solution is to be able to step out of the SELF and look at the inconsistency, and then reconfigure the “selves” as necessary.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Vin: (1) The mental dimension is an abstraction of the physical dimension.

Chris: That’s a good model. Providing a metaphor for thinking about the processes going on around the manifestation.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM

VIn: (2) The process of abstraction is there to maintain consistency.

Chris: “to maintain consistency” I see what you mean but to give the abstraction purpose . . . hmmm. As you say, I got to think about that one. Or you could embellish . . .

Like

• vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Maybe abstraction implies consistency. Without consistency there cannot be abstraction.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 5:53 AM

Vin: Maybe abstraction implies consistency. Without consistency there cannot be abstraction.

Chris: I’m trying to follow this. So one cannot abstract inconsistency?

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:55 PM

VIn: (3) SELF lies in the mental dimension, while BODY lies in the physical dimension.

Chris: This model makes sense to me. I wonder how these dimensions associate with one another and whether the one can exist without the other. If the body dissolves, does the self also dissolve? If the self dissolves, does the body continue to function?

“The Matrix” movie used a similar device by describing a physical dimension of body and a mental dimension of computer generated reality.

Like

• vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 4:58 PM

Physical and Mental seems to lie on the same dimension of abstraction.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 5:55 AM

Physical and Mental seems to lie on the same dimension of abstraction. Chris: I cannot demo this. How do you mean it?

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 6:00 AM

ABSTRACTION:
the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.

.

“Hebraism contains no eternal realm of essence, which Greek philosophy was to fabricate, through Plato, as affording the intellectual deliverance from the evil of time. Such a realm of eternal essences is possible only for a detached intellect, one who, in Plato’s phrase, becomes a “spectator of all time and all existence.” This ideal of the philosopher as the highest human type—the theoretical intellect who from the vantage point of eternity can survey all time and existence—is altogether foreign to the Hebraic concept of the man of faith who is passionately committed to his own mortal being. Detachment was for the Hebrew an impermissible state of mind, a vice rather than a virtue; or rather it was something that Biblical man was not yet even able to conceive, since he had not reached the level of rational abstraction of the Greek. His existence was too earth-bound, too laden with oppressive images of mortality, to permit him to experience the philosopher’s detachment.” ~ William Barrett

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:16 PM

One way to begin talking about the singularity is to give it properties. What properties would “the singularity” have?

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 5:41 AM

Would states such as solid, liquid, gas, plasma have relevance when describing the singularity?

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM

sin·gu·lar·i·ty

1. the state, fact, or quality of being singular.
2. a singular, unusual, or unique quality; peculiarity.
3. Mathematics , singular point.
4. Astronomy . (in general relativity) the mathematical representation of a black hole.
Origin:
1300–50; Middle English singularite < Late Latin singulāritās. See singular, -ity

.

sin·gu·lar

1. extraordinary; remarkable; exceptional: a singular success.
2. unusual or strange; odd; different: singular behavior.
3. being the only one of its kind; distinctive; unique: a singular example.
4. separate; individual.
5. Grammar . noting or pertaining to a member of the category of number found in many languages that indicates that a word form has one referent or denotes one person, place, thing, or instance, as English boy and thing, which are singular nouns, or goes, a singular form of the verb go. Compare dual ( def 4 ) , plural ( def 4 ) .
6. Logic.
a. of or pertaining to something individual, specific, or not general.
b. (of a proposition) containing no quantifiers, as “Socrates was mortal.”
7. Mathematics .
a. of or pertaining to a linear transformation from a vector space to itself that is not one-to-one.
b. of or pertaining to a matrix having a determinant equal to zero.
Origin:
1275–1325; late Middle English (adj.), Middle English sengle < Old French < Latin singulus individual, single, (plural) one apiece, derivative of *sem- one (see simplex)
.

Is there such a thing as singularity? Or, it just appears to be so.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 8:53 AM

This notion of singularity is counterintuitive to anything with which I am familiar. That can be a clue where to look and it can be a clue of a dead end.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Physical seems to be all about singularities, such as, particles, locations, units, Planck time, etc.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 6:43 AM

Abstraction seems to lie in the direction toward spirituality.

Singularity seems to lie in the direction toward physicality.

These seems to be two opposite directions on the same scale. Individuality is a singularity that manifests itself as one moves in the direction of physicality. Such singularities seems to vanish in the general background of abstraction as one moves in the direction of spirituality.

That general background of abstraction is the dilution of everything. The ultimate dilution is unknowable.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 8:46 AM

That’s some good looking!

Such singularities seems to vanish in the general background of abstraction as one moves in the direction of spirituality.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 8:49 AM

“That general background of abstraction is the dilution of everything. The ultimate dilution is unknowable”

I’m quite taken with this idea of a “Scale of Abstraction.”

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM

🙂

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Hubbard says, “The physicist has adequately demonstrated that matter seems to be composed of energy which has become condensed in certain patterns.

It can also be demonstrated adequately in Scientology that energy seems to be produced by and to emanate from theta. Thus it could be considered that theta producing energy, condenses the space in which the energy is contained, which then becomes matter.

This theory of condensation is borne out by an examination of a state of aberration of many preclears who have been found to have descended down the tone-scale to the degree that their own space was contracted and who were found to be surrounded by ridges and who are thus “solid” to the degree that they are aberrated. Further, they can be found to be an effect in the ratio that they are so solidified. Further, a psychotic treats words and other symbols, including his own thoughts, as though they were objects.”

.

Space starts out with free associations of relativity. Perception pervades the whole manifestation. This is being in the spiritual dimension.

As one moves toward greater physicality, one starts to acquire singularity of individuality. Perception starts shrinking toward becoming a point. Separation starts to occur between manifestation and perception.

In the physical state, space is reduced to locations, manifestations are reduced to particles, and perception is reduced to viewpoints.

Hubbard had no idea of spirituality. He was basically describing the physicality of existence.

Aberration seems to be a by-product of the singular nature of physicality. Here we have set locations, duration, quanta of energy and particles. Associations are no longer fluid that merge into each other, but they hold separate identities.

So condensation of space occurs not because locations come closer to each other, but because locations start to come into being into a sort of a rigid network.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Individuality is an aberration being physical rather than spiritual.

OT is a physical version of spiritual abilities.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On June 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Aberration is a judgemental way of looking at something very natural. I don’t think individuality is a mistake, I think it is a condensation, or a collaboration of iterations, the weighted center of considerations; but I don’t view it as an aberration. Aberration implies another type of consideration.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Aberration to me is made up of inconsistencies. Selfishness is an aberration as it focuses in “individuality” as a singularity.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Great Pool of Joined Consciousness is again a physicality like individuality. It looks at many individuality stuck to each other like particles forming a mass. It is not spirituality. Such people who look at the notions of individuality or great pool of consciousness as the only options are stuck in physicality. They cannot think in terms of the abstraction of warmth, compassion and aliveness.

I do not see warmth, compassion and aliveness in the Scientology concept of OT. One only sees a vague and dry concept of pan-determinism, whatever that means.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 9:51 PM

Hubbard says, “A further investigation and inspection of time has demonstrated it to be the action of energy in space…”

.

Time seems to be manifested as energy spreads out as a ripple in the fabric of space.

For energy to exist, both time and space must be there. Energy is the movement itself. Movement involves space and time.

But how does space originate and spread out?

Looks like space, time and energy appear in unison. And they give birth to the manifestation.

Mass appears as manifestation develops from abstraction in the direction of singularity. Hubbard called it becoming “more solid”, but he did not see space, time and energy themselves becoming “more solid.” He saw them as “condensing”.

For Kant too, space, time and energy were monotonic. But space, time and energy themselves seem to move in the dimension from abstraction to singularity.

There seem to be no mass really expect space, time and energy becoming “more solid” in unison.

“More solid” means developing from abstraction in the direction of singularity. It is like coming into focus.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 10:15 PM

Hubbard stated: “The workable definition of space is “viewpoint of dimension”… Space is creatable by a thetan…”The basic unit of energy is the dimension point… Dimension points are created, controlled or uncreated by the thetan…” “…time… [is] the action of energy in space…” “Matter is a condensation of energy.”

.

Hubbard seems to be saying that “thetan” extends dimension points (points to view), which bring about space and energy. Action of energy brings about time. Condensation of energy brings about matter.

Thus, Hubbard is trying to put forth a linear progression of creation starting from the mysterious “thetan.” He says,

“The workable definition of space is ‘viewpoint of dimension’: there is no space without viewpoint, there is no space without points to view. This definition of space remedies a very great lack in the field of physics, which defines space simply as that thing in which energy acts. Physics has defined space as change of motion or in terms of time and energy. Time has been defined in terms of space and energy; energy has been defined in terms of space and time only. These definitions, thus interdependent, made a circle out of which there was no exit unless one had a better definition for one of those items: time, space or energy. In such a way was the science of physics limited.”

.

The truth seems to be that there is no mysterious “thetan”. There is only spontaneous action. And space, energy, time and matter are not “things” independent of each other. They are simply different aspects of manifestation. That is what Physics says.

Hubbard simply introduces an arbitrary concept of “static” or “thetan” to make linearity out of something he sees as circular. It is the same obsession that lies behind the search of ultimate cause, which gives birth to the idea of God.

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 14, 2013 at 10:53 PM

“We are the outcome and manifestation of an absolute condition, back of our present relative condition, and are going forward, to return to that absolute.” ~ Vivekananda

It is a great circle after all. 🙂

.

Like

• vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 4:22 AM

The golden mean may be written as 2/(√5-1) or (√5+1)/2.

.

Like

• freebeeing  On July 1, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Vinarie: All that seems to be happening is that manifestation and perception are extending from physical into mental space.

So long as you hold to such a concept you will forever be stuck.

For it is spirit (mental space if you like) that creates the “physical” which is nothing more than consciousness. What you perceive is a projection from a zero dimensional somethingness. I say it is a somethingness because it has qualities. But that somethingness is not a part of this universe, it creates his universe. All cause lies outside the universe, the universe is nothing but effects. You are that cause. Same as dreaming really, there are no “real” photons bouncing off the objects you perceive in your dream, it is only consciousness that you are witnessing. It is no different in the “waking” state. It is still only consciousness that you experience. The wall doesn’t cause the ball to bounce from it, you make that happen by your consideration that that is what will happen. These considerations are well hidden from ourselves.

I hope you guys are having solo sessions as well as pondering these matters endlessly.

Namaste

Like

• vinaire  On July 1, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Thank you, for your communication, freebeing.

This is to let you know that I do not subscribe to the idea of some ultimate Cause as covered by Hubbard’s FACTOR # 1. Pleasee see

Scientology Factor # 1

You seem to be subscribing to the idea of ultimate cause, which, in my view, is an unsupported assumption.

I am simply looking at what is there without making any assumptions, per the following approach.

MINDFULNESS

Namaste

.

Like

• freebeeing  On July 3, 2013 at 1:20 PM

What exactly is it that you are looking at? Are you assuming there is an actual physical universe “out there”?

Like

• vinaire  On July 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM

What is… IS. No assumptions are necessary. Just be mindful as explained in KHTK Looking.

.

Like

• freebeeing  On July 3, 2013 at 2:18 PM

LOL, you seem to have no problem writing at length about what is, but you do not wish to engage in discussion with me, but just tell me to just be mindful.

You make me chuckle deeply.

Like

• vinaire  On July 3, 2013 at 3:27 PM

I already told you that I do not subscribe to the idea of ultimate cause because I have never seen one.

As far as a being or “I” goes, it is a construct. There is no everlasting, permanent being or “I”.

.

Like

• freebeeing  On July 3, 2013 at 6:22 PM

Strange. I’ve seen the construct of “I”. Now what was seeing that do you suppose? Another construct of a construct?

Are you saying that there is no cause?

Vnaire: Looks like space, time and energy appear in unison. And they give birth to the manifestation.

What makes time space and energy just appear from nowhere?

It just happens?

Like

• vinaire  On July 3, 2013 at 7:03 PM

That’s right.

Any cause and effect are part of the universe. There is no cause beyond this universe that i know of. God is only an assumption or unverified conjecture.

Or, it is unknowable.

.

Like

• Chris Thompson  On July 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM

freebeing: Do you doubt your existence?

Chris: Kidding right?

Like

• freebeeing  On July 5, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Kidding — no not at all

Like