“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.
.
Comments
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)
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?
.
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.
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?
.
VIn: Space is an abstraction of relativity at this point.
CHris: Then is relativity represented by the wave function? Or I missed?
Vin: “Space to time and then back to space?”
Chris: That looks like an exciting conjecture! I like it. Why do you say that?
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.
VIn: Of course time is what keeps the oscillation going.
Chris: Keeps? How so?
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.
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?
.
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?
.
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?
Any start would be relative to something that is persisting.
.
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.
So “start” is also part of consideration. It does not exist as something absolute.
.
This type of start can better be defined as a particular point in time during process. Now enters in the uncertainty.
Is there any other type of “start”?
.
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.
However back you might go, you will probably find some earlier harmonic of the universe.
.
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?
.
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.
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?
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?
.
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.
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?
.
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?
.
If there were anything absolute it would be absolutely unstable.
.
Ah, nice verbage.
Showing us there may be no static either.
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!
.
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.
What would describe disturbance in relativity of objects?
Is this the cosmic dance of Shiva?
The eternal oscillation…
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.”
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.
.
There is the seen; the unseen; and tautology.
There is no totally spontaneous action, even when it appears to be so.
.
Yes, no reason to think so. Yet, if we say this over and over we can create a liturgy and another ideology!
We are reverse engineering here. Haha!
.
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?
.
Vin: MASS = condensed space ???
Chris: So it seems to me. I just have to remember that it is a conjecture without any backup – yet.
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.
How does electromagnetism relate to nuclear forces? Are nuclear forces the result of extremely condensed electromagnetism?
Now I am freewheeling here… no consistency! Haha!!!
.
Hubbard warned you not to do this. One finds things out.
LOL!
.
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.
.
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.
Hubbard termed time as arbitrary. How about space (separation or distance)?
.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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.
Now you are looking without a viewpoint. Haha… Simply expressing what is there…
Life is the honesty of looking. 🙂
.
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.
.
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.
I think that you are moving into nirvana!
Congratulations. 🙂
.
Thank you. It seems to have no level, grade, certification nor validation.
A definition of nirvana (nih + varna) is “no identity.”
.
I see, that is a good one.
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.
.
Vinaire: The idea of cause or beingness is simply an added arbitrary.
Chris . . . that is the root of all evil.
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.
.
I see that. As does unknowable, etc.,.
That is correct. It acts as a reference point for knowable.
.
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.
Cause and effect are the result of associations we make. They are relative like action-reaction.
There is no absolute Cause, or absolute effect.
.
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?
Mental concepts!
.
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.
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.
Very interesting. I need to look at that more closely.
,