SPACE, TIME, DIMENSIONS, and FILTER

unreality

“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

.

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.

.

From Reality & 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.

Was this “new” information always there as part of manifestation?

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.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Chris Thompson  On June 3, 2013 at 2:57 PM

    Some physical associations are well documented such as gravitational forces. I have a “gut feeling” (hopefully not indigestion) that tells me that gravitational forces are equivalent to spatial elasticity. I come up with malarkey like this by taking a big view of superclusters.

    I believe that extant mathematics that help us associate known forces can help us begin to crack this unseen thing called space. (unseen – hahaha, abstract of objects in space are seen everywhere but the space seems to be unseen)

    • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 3:31 PM

      A particle seems to be space condensed around a disturbance in the fabric of space. When a lot of such particles condense to make a star or a planet, we have a lot of space condensed.

      (1) What is a disturbance in the fabric of space, when that fabric is associations representing relativity?

      (2) What happens to associations representing relativity when space is “condensed”?

      (3) How should a region of condensed space be responding to another condensed space in its vicinity?

      (4) Is the above consistent with gravitational attraction that is observed.

      (5) That disturbance in the fabric of space is represented by propagating electromagnetic fields. Is that a disturbance in the sense of relativity?

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 12:43 AM

        Vinaire: When a lot of such particles condense to make a star or a planet, we have a lot of space condensed.

        Chris: And conversely, a lot of space has thinned out or “dehydrated” so to speak, becoming transparent for our practical purposes. If the objects within the universe have changed and evolved through time, it seems logical to assume that space has been altered and continues to change as well. I use naive language but I am embracing it since I am not trained in more precise and proper technical language. When I am being unclear, it will have to fall on others to mention it or ask for clarification.

        • vinaire  On June 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM

          Space is an abstraction of relativity at this point.
          How does it become condensed or rarefied?
          What keeps the two ends of an oscillation separate?
          What keeps the oscillation going?
          So, there may be oscillation going between heavy association and hardly any association. Of course time is what keeps the oscillation going.
          Is Space and time oscillating between each other?
          Space to time and then back to space?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 7, 2013 at 12:18 AM

          VIn: Space is an abstraction of relativity at this point.

          CHris: Then is relativity represented by the wave function? Or I missed?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 7, 2013 at 12:21 AM

          Vin: “Space to time and then back to space?”

          Chris: That looks like an exciting conjecture! I like it. Why do you say that?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 7, 2013 at 1:13 AM

          VIn ask: “What keeps the two ends of an oscillation separate?”

          Chris: I don’t think that our normal sense of dimensions are laid out very well and that leads us to ask sort of 2 dimensional questions or 3 dim, anyways, take a look at this video and lets meditate and let our minds wander freely.

          Many processes seem to be at work and laying out something quite complicated. When we look with shallow minds, we see 3 dimensions and think of time as some other linear dimension. I don’t believe this is right.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 7, 2013 at 1:14 AM

          VIn: Of course time is what keeps the oscillation going.

          Chris: Keeps? How so?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 7, 2013 at 1:16 AM

          Vin: So, there may be oscillation going between heavy association and hardly any association.

          Chris: Your donut of considerations is at 3:15 in the Fibonacci video.

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    What is “spontaneous action”? How does it come about?

    If we know that then we will also know the nature of ‘will’, because execution of will is simply a series of spontaneous actions. The freedom of will lies in its spontaneity

    How does a disturbance in space start? How does an electromagnetic wave originate. If there are reactants involved then they are unknown. Can there be a spontaneous action without any reactants?

    How did the Big Bang start?

    .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 3:56 PM

    How does anything start?

    Something appears that was not there before. What proceeds from that something must have been there already as a seed.

    How does the seed start?

    What comes from the seed is simply the expansion of that seed. So if we just view the seed it would appear tautological.

    What brings about the seed?

    This is the same problem as chasing “cause” backwards. There is no end to it. It is two mirrors reflecting each other. Only the mirrors are not visible.

    Are manifestation and perception the two mirrors?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 1:10 AM

      Pushing the envelope now.

      Nothing in our experience would tend to show us physically how there ever was a start. That is a logical conjecture but it is laid out anthropomorphically or more accurately as a part of the self. So the ultimate sense of “start” is not laid out very well.

      Even the sense or mirroring or other dichotomies may not be laid out correctly. Possibly we should be looking for some type of singularity. How do you feel about that?

      • vinaire  On June 20, 2013 at 1:15 PM

        Any start would be relative to something that is persisting.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 7:17 AM

          Then each start is a start but there is no reason to think there is a basic start. For sure there is no beginning start for any kind of human experience.

        • vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 7:25 AM

          So “start” is also part of consideration. It does not exist as something absolute.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 8:10 AM

          This type of start can better be defined as a particular point in time during process. Now enters in the uncertainty.

        • vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 12:27 PM

          Is there any other type of “start”?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 5:58 PM

          yes there is another type the type of start which is the first start which is not relevant to any previous start.there seems to be no supporting evidence for this initial start.

          what seems more feasible is that there is a previous relative conditions to the start of the universe.

        • vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 6:56 PM

          However back you might go, you will probably find some earlier harmonic of the universe.

          .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM

    Whatever is in the beginning must be extremely unstable.

    Does the spontaneous action come from some kind of instability?

    Once the process starts it would gradually become stable like a spinning top. It would sustain itself.

    But how does it start?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 1:15 AM

      Vinaire: “Whatever is in the beginning must be extremely unstable.”

      Chris: A momentous tipping point, but why? Everything we know of explosions are preceded by a large build up of energy which is tipped over by a quantum event. But if we use our theories regarding that big bang, we immediately have physics which may not be very similar to modern physics.

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 1:23 AM

      Vinaire: Does the spontaneous action come from some kind of instability?

      Chris: It seems to come from an activity of space. For instance, the quality of space to gather itself together demonstrates a potential or stored energy, but this elasticity (gravity) seems to only gather strength as it gathers itself together. What could that be about?

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Infinite possibilities would be an unstable condition.

    The more possibilities are there the greater would be the instability. Infinity would tend toward becoming finite. Where is the equilibrium point?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 1:24 AM

      Vinaire: Where is the equilibrium point?

      Chris: We don’t seem to be seeing an equilibrium achievable when discussing space. The opposite in fact. The more space gathers itself together, the more it gathers itself together.

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    Does something rigid starts loosening up by itself?

    Yes, there is the increasing size of the atom until it reaches a critical size beyond which it breaks up spontaneously. There are other spontaneous actions in nature. How do they come about?

    .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:17 PM

    What is relativity really? In some ways, each thing is defined by all other things. This is a kind of tautological scenario. Any little change anywhere shall propagate throughout the whole system, no matter how minute.

    I can understand the spontaneous action within a tautological system. It would be like a very complex non-dampening oscillation. So, will can exist within this universe.

    But how did the universe come about in the first place?

    .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:19 PM

    If there were anything absolute it would be absolutely unstable.

    .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:22 PM

    How would something absolute come about?

    Could there be a cosmic oscillation from absolute to relative and then back to absolute?

    But then how did that oscillation come about?

    I better give up at this point. I am going around in circles.

    .

    .

    But I seem to have defined something like spatial elasticity. Haha!

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 6:53 AM

      VIn: I better give up at this point. I am going around in circles.

      Chris: Well, we can revisit anytime. For me, this process runs all the time in my background. You’ve enumerated; gotten the key questions closer to key.

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:29 PM

    What would describe disturbance in relativity of objects?

    Is this the cosmic dance of Shiva?

    The eternal oscillation…

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 7:02 AM

      Vin: The eternal oscillation…?

      Chris: The big bang might be 1/2 cycle of a super-oscillation. Not a new idea, but there it is. The universe is big — and small. New ride at Disneyland, “It’s a big world after all.”

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    But this does explain that all life is interrelated.

    There is nothing in this universe that is absolutely independent.

    There is no thetan that can be be completely self-willed.

    There is no absolute individuality.

    All life, individualities, self, etc. are relative to each other.

    There is no absolute static as postulated by Hubbard.

    .

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:41 PM

    There is no totally spontaneous action, even when it appears to be so.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 7:04 AM

      Yes, no reason to think so. Yet, if we say this over and over we can create a liturgy and another ideology!

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    So, disturbances in the fabric of space are part of nature. This is the basis of energy and not some undefined dimension point as postulated by Hubbard.

    Similarly, condensation of space around the disturbance to create mass would also be part of nature. But the mechanics here needs to be understood better.

    MASS = condensed space ???

    The more the space is condensed, the more mass there is ???

    It could be the doubling, tripling, etc. of electromagnetic wave on itself to produce a photon. Could photons then be doubling tripling over themselves to produce other fundamental particles?

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 7:10 AM

      Vin: MASS = condensed space ???

      Chris: So it seems to me. I just have to remember that it is a conjecture without any backup – yet.

    • Chris Thompson  On June 4, 2013 at 7:14 AM

      Vin: It could be the doubling, tripling, etc. of electromagnetic wave on itself to produce a photon. Could photons then be doubling tripling over themselves to produce other fundamental particles?

      Chris: I like this a lot. It backs up my conjecture while sounding technical! hahaha

      But really, this is actually a shot at describing a mechanic basis for the phenomena. Then our abstraction of what process is going on can be on the one hand an observation and on the other can be a bias. “There is a disk; there is no disk.” Ouch.

  • vinaire  On June 3, 2013 at 4:54 PM

    How does electromagnetism relate to nuclear forces? Are nuclear forces the result of extremely condensed electromagnetism?

    Now I am freewheeling here… no consistency! Haha!!!

    .

  • vinaire  On June 11, 2013 at 8:49 PM

    Hubbard expresses in THE FACTORS of Scientology that space is created when beingness (cause) extends dimension points (points to view) from viewpoint (an assumed point). Thus, space is “viewpoint of dimension.”

    .

    This is how I see it:

    Here we have description of a spontaneous action – There is spontaneous perception of a manifestation.

    The idea of CAUSE or BEINGNESS is simply there to describe spontaneity; otherwise it is unnecessary.

    The idea of VIEWPOINT is there to describe a location from which perception is taking place. This is not necessarily the case as perception can pervade the whole manifestation.

    The idea of DIMENSION POINT is there to describe that manifestation has a location relative to the viewpoint.

    In truth, space is simply the relativity of what is perceived and how it is perceived. It seems to involve arbitrary separation and distance.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 12:47 AM

      VIn: It seems to involve separation and distance.

      Chris: To me, to pierce the “who” and to resolve the “cause v. effect” cycle is just huge. And it helps me understand how very poorly that was laid out and taught to me by my upbringing. Yet my new understanding is another model, one that I am fascinated with but clinging to lightly. I’m ready for more.

      But now to move on to “separation” and “distance.” This needs a calm and focused look at as well.

      • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 5:33 AM

        Hubbard termed time as arbitrary. How about space (separation or distance)?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM

          I had not a thought of either one of these to be arbitrary.do you feel that is one of these are very and if so how so? I get that one’s personal sense of space and time can be arbitrary.

        • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 3:58 PM

          If a system is not pinned down by absolute set of rules, then it would be arbitrary as a whole.

          Within the system, each element may be conditional on another element, and so we may have a structure. A bubble has a structure.

          But if the bubble itself is not pinned down by anything, then its location and duration are arbitrary.

          This seems to be the case with this universe. It is very structured itself, but I do not think that this universe as a whole system is pinned down by anything absolute.

          This is just another form of Godel’s theorem.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 11:47 PM

          Agreed. However, space may have a type of surface tension providing a type of bubble. We do not need to make any assumptions about this yet.

  • vinaire  On June 11, 2013 at 9:18 PM

    In Factors, Hubbard makes space conditional on viewpoint – implying there is no space if there is no awareness.

    .

    Things can be hidden. The things that are hidden can have relativity (space) among them. This is evident from the fact that we are not aware of bacteria and virus unless we see them under a microscope. Yet bacteria and virus are there.

    There can be a filter between manifestation and perception. Manifestation can be there while not being perceived.

    This shows that space can be there even when things are not being viewed, but can be viewed potentially.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 12:53 AM

      Illusion is a process whereby one infers a view that they intend for another to abstract.

      Our view of ourselves is somewhat like this. The individual might as well be called an abstraction of itself, for the individual is more accurately described as ongoing processes rather than a hard and fast individual, thetan, soul, etc.

      • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 5:46 AM

        Now you are looking without a viewpoint. Haha… Simply expressing what is there…

        Life is the honesty of looking. 🙂

        .

  • vinaire  On June 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM

    Hubbard says in Factor 24:

    And the viewpoints are never seen. And the viewpoints consider more and more that the dimension points are valuable. And the viewpoints try to become the anchor points and forget that they can create more points and space and forms. Thus comes about scarcity. And the dimension points can perish and so the viewpoints assume that they, too, can perish.

    .

    The mystery seems to be “who” or “what” perceives? There is perception, but is there anything behind this perception?

    The idea of CAUSE is for convenience only – to explain spontaneity. Otherwise, there is only manifestation, filter, and perception. There doesn’t have to be anything behind the perception. Any value is just abstraction.

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

    Here we are seeing Hubbard’s speculation.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 12:58 AM

      Vinaire: The mystery seems to be “who” or “what” perceives? There is perception, but is there anything behind this perception?

      Chris: When I began down this road I used to visualize what I was seeing in my mind, becoming mindful of it, then create distance by creating a viewpoint and backing it away and declaring that was where I was located and that was me.

      I no longer have use this concept. Now I simply manifest thought which materializes as abstractions (not illusions). I no longer put space and time between and simply allow myself to experience thought as it emerges. Conversely, as it winks out, so goes some sense of self along with it.

      • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 5:50 AM

        I think that you are moving into nirvana!

        Congratulations. 🙂

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 10:54 PM

          Thank you. It seems to have no level, grade, certification nor validation.

      • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 7:01 AM

        A definition of nirvana (nih + varna) is “no identity.”

        .

  • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 6:04 AM

    Hubbard says: “Survival might be defined as an impulse to persist through time, in space, as matter and energy.”

    .

    This is what manifestation is. There is relativity to it in terms of location and duration. There is spontaneity in its appearance and disappearance.

    The idea of cause or beingness is simply an added arbitrary.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 10:55 PM

      Vinaire: The idea of cause or beingness is simply an added arbitrary.

      Chris . . . that is the root of all evil.

  • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 12:41 PM

    Hubbard says, “A true static would contain no motion, no time, no space and no wavelength.”

    .

    There is no “true” static except in mental space. The assessment of “true” is in mental space too. Here we have associations.

    Just like zero, we may use static as a reference point, but it will exist only through mental associations.

    The Static exists in mental space.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 11:31 PM

      I see that. As does unknowable, etc.,.

      • vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 4:46 AM

        That is correct. It acts as a reference point for knowable.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 13, 2013 at 4:09 PM

          We have to take a look at that. After working over the cause-effect dichotomy and coming up with a watered down idea of cause effect compared to the previously firm idea of this dichotomy, I want to take a harder look at all dichotomies for consistency.

        • vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 5:29 AM

          Cause and effect are the result of associations we make. They are relative like action-reaction.

          There is no absolute Cause, or absolute effect.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 21, 2013 at 8:05 AM

          The idea of absolutes is in itself some type of wishful abstraction, just as is certainty. Both of these are, what could we call them?

        • vinaire  On June 21, 2013 at 1:43 PM

          Mental concepts!

          .

  • vinaire  On June 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Hubbard says, “The thetan…has the impulse of theta itself and can exist in matter, energy, space and time, but derives its impulse from the potential of theta itself and has certain definite goals and behaviour characteristics of its own.”

    .

    Any potential exists in mental space. It is not independent, but is subject to space.

    Impulse is spontaneity of action. Impulse cannot exist as potential. Impulse cannot be predetermined.

    • Chris Thompson  On June 12, 2013 at 11:40 PM

      Impulse is kinetic and seems to be the spontaneous activity of releasing the accumulated or residual tension in space. Impulse may retain that portion of energy potential once the impulse has reached an equilibrium but which is still in excess of true entropy.

      • vinaire  On June 13, 2013 at 4:48 AM

        Very interesting. I need to look at that more closely.

        ,

  • 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.

    .

  • 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.

    .

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

      There must be some mechanics underlying “wishing” too.

      . . . and intention.

  • 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.

  • 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. 🙂

    • 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.

  • 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.

    .

    • 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.

    • 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 . . .

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

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

        .

        • 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?

    • 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.

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

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

        .

        • 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?

        • 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

          .

  • 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?

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

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

    • 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.

      .

    • 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.

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

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

        .

  • 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.

    .

    • 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.

    • 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.”

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

      🙂

  • 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.

    .

  • 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.

    .

  • 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.

    • 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.

      .

  • 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.

    .

  • 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.

    .

  • 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.

    .

  • 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. 🙂

    .

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

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

    .

  • 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

    • 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

      .

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

        Do you doubt your existence?

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

        • vinaire  On July 3, 2013 at 1:35 PM

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

          .

        • 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.

        • 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”.

          .

        • 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?

        • 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.

          .

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

          freebeing: Do you doubt your existence?

          Chris: Kidding right?

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

          Kidding — no not at all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: