The Fundamental Dimension

5th-dimension

The whole theory of relativity is based on the premise that there is an upper limit ‘c’ to the speed of light. At this limit the relativity of space and time becomes quite evident. The Newtonian model of absolute space and absolute time no longer works as this speed is approached.

The question that has been there in my mind for some time is ‘What makes the upper limit of the speed of light such an absolute quantity?’ The answer seems to be ‘the physicality of this universe.’

What is ‘physicality’? How does one define it? Physicality would be defined by perception through our physical senses. All physical perceptions are consistent with each other. They are consistent with the measurements made through the use of physical instruments, such as, those used to measure the speed of light.

What is not physicality? The abstraction that we perceive through the mind would be a departure from physicality. This mental perception is different from the physical perception through eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. Mind is first and foremost a sense organ. It perceives mental objects and the interactions among them. The mental objects are the abstractions that underlie physical objects. For example, three cups, three plates and three spoons are physical objects. But the underlying pattern of three is a mental object.

Such abstraction may go deeper in the form of patterns underlying patterns. We see that in mathematics. The whole subject of mathematics is abstract. There are numbers, but underlying those numbers is the number theory. Thus, we may say that there is a basic dimension of abstraction. The deeper one goes in this dimension, the more abstract things are.

The upper limit of the dimension of abstraction is the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. This is the physicality defined by space-time of Einstein. Space-time has four components: three of space and one of time. The concrete forms are conjectured to be derived from space-time as follows

(1)  Energy is a ripple that travels through the fabric of space.

(2)  Matter is the condensation of energy.

This physicality is simply the upper limit of abstraction. Underlying this physicality are layers of subtle to subtler forms generating the dimension of abstraction. This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. We know that the physical perception soon converts into experience, and then to information, hypothesis, theory, principles, axioms, etc. These subtler layers are then perceived by the mind.

The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension of abstraction. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this fundamental dimension scientifically.

Science recognizes the physicality consisting of three components of SPACE, and the one component of TIME. SPACE can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. TIME can be felt as concrete as well as abstract. This makes the dimension of abstraction as the most basic dimension that underlies even space-time.

Science has not delved into the abstraction of space-time even when these subtler forms exist.

Science should recognize and investigate ABSTRACTION as a fundamental dimension underlying even space and time.

Physicality of space-time is just a surface phenomenon. There is a whole ocean of abstraction that underlies it. It seems that there are general laws yet to be discovered that connect physicality to underlying abstraction.

.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 6:25 AM

    Psychedelic experiences move into this dimension in an uncontrolled manner.

    The scientific method explores this dimension in a controlled manner.

    Science has, so far, limited its application of scientific method to physicality. It is time to use the scientific method to explore the dimension of abstraction.

    .

  • 2ndxmr  On June 25, 2013 at 1:46 PM

    You’ve managed to figure time as a 4th dimension, yet you can’t “see” it. Your ability to “see” stops at 3 dimensions. But you are in agreement with a 4th as time.

    Calling the 5th dimension “abstraction” would be as incorrect as calling the 4th dimension, time, an “abstraction.”

    Consider if you were physically disabled in a manner that left you with no sensory perceptions to judge space or even gravity. You would not know the normal space dimensions existed but you might still be aware a self, of your own consciousness. It would depend a lot on whether you had experienced normal senses prior to losing them and whether you’d gone mad from sensory deprivation.

    That is the whole problem with this sort of speculation in ending up saying something is an abstraction because we can’t sense it. Perhaps something else could sense a 5th dimension and it would be as real to that something as 3 or 4 are to us.

    I think it is more productive to simply look at the dimensions above 3 from the mathematical approach originated by David Hilbert, of “Hilbert space” fame. The simplicity is that things resolve consistently when you apply that approach. This approach implies that there are additional dimensions “at right angles” to our existing, visible, 3 dimensions.

    Consider, for instance, if our universe was bounded and had a cubic shape. Like a child’s toy block. If you lived within that block you would have perceptions of space defined by (relative to) that block. But that block is defined by a boundary and something else outside that boundary could pick up that block and move it around in another set of 3 spaces. And that set of 3 spaces could be manipulated by forces or vectors from yet another external frame of reference.

    All those external frames of reference could be operating on their own set of laws that individually or collectively could add something to each inner defined “block”. The residents of that inner “block” would not see, or possibly even be able measure the external hand that was moving their block, but they might nevertheless “expect” there were external “dimensions” because of other things they can measure and see to be influenced.

    • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 3:44 PM

      We can definitely sense abstraction otherwise we won’t be talking about it. Physical sense should not be used as the criterion for sensing as you are doing. Mental sense is itself a sense, but of a different kind altogether. I do understand that people are not used to looking the mind’s function as a sense organ. It may take some getting used to.

      There is a gradient of abstraction. Space and time vary on this gradient. There is physical space and there is mental space. There is physical time and then there is mental time. Now that the dimension of abstraction has been identified, many things have to be worked out.

      .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 7:01 PM

      Time can be seen as motion. This has been extant for hundreds of years, at least.

      • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM

        I am trying to see time as an apect of spacetime and not just as itself.

        As an aspect of spacetime it seems to appear as a sequence of states of space. It is something like the code.of a program.

        .

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 12:21 PM

      2ndxmr: “That is the whole problem with this sort of speculation in ending up saying something is an abstraction because we can’t sense it.”

      The above is not true. Any abstraction can be sensed by the mind.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On August 23, 2013 at 2:09 AM

        Vinaire: “The above is not true. Any abstraction can be sensed by the mind.”

        Chris: I like this concept a lot and it seems to be the way Hawking operates without his body.

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 12:27 PM

      2ndxmr: “This approach implies that there are additional dimensions “at right angles” to our existing, visible, 3 dimensions.”

      “At right angles” is a limited interpretation of concrete space geometry variety. The accurate mathematical interpretation would be that no basic dimension would have a component along another basic dimension. This won’t be limited to a geometric interpretation.

      .

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 12:32 PM

      2ndxmr: “Consider, for instance, if our universe was bounded and had a cubic shape. Like a child’s toy block. If you lived within that block you would have perceptions of space defined by (relative to) that block. But that block is defined by a boundary and something else outside that boundary could pick up that block and move it around in another set of 3 spaces. And that set of 3 spaces could be manipulated by forces or vectors from yet another external frame of reference.”

      These are speculations of mathematical variety. Assumptions can exist in mathematics also. Such assumption would lead to unreality. Such is the case with String Theory, which has not been shown to be consistent with reality.

      Any abstraction that is not consistent with reality would have the character of assumption, or unproven conjecture at best.

  • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    The parameter which seems to trace a path in the fifth dimension is that of CONSISTENCY. No matter the degree to which abstraction is carried out, but if the mental perception is consistent with physical perception it is considered to be reality.

    There seems to be an inherent sense of consistency in us. Extraordinary examples of consistency are honored by such things as the Nobel Prize.

    .

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 8:29 PM

      Abstraction is real when consistent with physical reality.

      .

  • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 8:51 PM

    I look at ‘spooky action at a distance’ as follows:

    1. An observation is made in the layer of physicality.
    2. A conjecture is created in the layer of abstraction.
    3. That conjecture is operated on with mathematics in the layer of abstraction.
    4. Mathematics helps make certain consistent associations from that conjecture, which may lead to conclusion that certain phenomenon might exist in the layer of physicality.
    5. We look for that phenonenon in the layer of physicality and find it to be there.
    6. Thus, we have a path from some observation in physicality to an apparently disrelated phenomenon in physicality through a path of consistency that travels through a layer of mathematical abstraction.
    7. Wouldn’t this be a form of ‘spooky action at a distance’? This is a spooky description of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 5:04 PM

      I’ve saved this for days re-reading when I want busy to get the meaning. But I don’t understand the points you’re making.

      • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:24 PM

        An example would be
        (1) Starting with the observation that speed of light is ‘c’
        (2) Concluding that light would bend near massive heavenly bodies.

        There is no connection between these two observations, except through abstraction.
        I fancied that as ‘spooky sction at a distance’ if the abstract connection is not known. 🙂

        .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 5:16 PM

      I would characterize the “whole” theory of relativity differently. Rather than saying it sets an upper limit for the speed of light, I would emphasize that relativity sets a constant for EMR light-speed.

      This is a wonderful clue that sounds like a clock ticking to me.

      • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:29 PM

        (1) The actual observation provides the upper limit to the speed of light in the vaccum of space (no medium) because the speed of light is lower in any other medium.

        (2) The special theory of relativity assumes this to be the ultimate constant that cannot be exceeded.

        I don’t understand how you see it otherwise.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 5:40 PM

          maybe a better way to express my fascination with the constant speed of light is to say I’m fascinated with its constancy. It doesn’t vary. It’s speed is constant and if it slows when padding through glass, then it speeds back up after passing through the glass. You don’t seem to understand what I am emphasizing about this phenomena. It isn’t is rate of travel which is the salient point. It’s its constancy. This is the earmark of an iteration driven by a clock.

        • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:50 PM

          The constancy comes from the constancy of the medium, as I see it. There is no mystery in that regard.

          For ripples in water that constancy comes from the constancy of the surface tension.of the medium. I do not have good understanding of the ‘surface tension’ of space.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 6:49 PM

          Heat (long wave EMR) is said to be transmitted by 1. Conduction, 2. Convection, or 3. Radiation. To me this is a sloppy look at what is going as each seems poorly defined with respect to the other two. Even discussions of the forms of “energy” seem muddy. I learned these forms in the 8th grade and they have served my understanding very well so long as I stayed in the box of work a day living and mechanics. But take a closer look and these six or so “forms of energy” blur. This is not a criticism of the definers of these forms and transmissions but I’m just saying that when I look closely at these they sometimes read back to me like a poorly written history book.

        • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

          Conduction occurs in solids. Convection occurs in fluids. Radiation occurs in space. This seems fine to me.

          .

      • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 8:43 PM

        It seems to be a common misconception that the Theory of Relativity sets the upper limit of speed of light. The truth is that the speed of light is determined by experiments to have a certain value in the vacuum of space, and this value is found to be a universal constant.

        “It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant.” per this excellent article. Is The Speed of Light Constant?. So the conclusions of the theory of Relativity are arrived at from the postulate that the speed of light is constant.

        Light slows when passing through a transparent medium, such as glass, because it is absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the medium.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 4:31 PM

          That is not my misconception. That is the way you wrote it yourself. I have no such idea about the “speed” of light. My most poignant question is why the speed of light should measure constant for all frames of reference. So far, you have not addressed this but have likened it to water and sound waves. For me, this is likened to comparing electricity through a wire to water through a hose. It works at the most elementary simile of understanding but breaks down rapidly as we push for deeper understanding.

        • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM

          What did I write that you are referring to?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 4:49 PM

          Vin: What did I write that you are referring to?

          Chris: “It seems to be a common misconception that the Theory of Relativity sets the upper limit of speed of light.”

          I have not observed that to be a common misconception. On the other hand, and for real, that the “speed of light is constant for all frames of reference” is so counterintuitive that I rarely run into anyone even wondering about it.

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 4:38 PM

          Vin: Light slows when passing through a transparent medium, such as glass, because it is absorbed and reemitted by the atoms of the medium.

          Chris: Yes, so we have to go back to the models of waves vs particles and are stuck once more. If light is “particles” then they must surely have mass and if so their mass must increase geometrically as they accelerate toward the speed of light. On the other hand, if EM radiation is a disturbance in the “substance” of space, then that substance is different from the substances we are used to at the macro level. But light photons are said to have little or no mass, so what are they? Answer: Our current physics model is embryonic with a long way to develop before we worry about “spooky” effects. These will be understood in time was more rudimentary and extant questions are resolved.

        • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 5:40 PM

          From what I have studied,

          (1) The conclusion that speed of light is constant is arrived at by experimental results. It is also the product of two constants used in Maxwell’s equations. All these constants seem to relate to the properties of vacuum.

          (2) The theory of relativity uses the fact of speed of light being constant as its premise.

          (3) My conjecture is that the speed of light is not relative to any parts of the universe. But it is relative to the universe as a whole.

          This is just for the record.

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 6:45 PM

          It is not just constant. It is constant for all frames of reference. If this datum will not break the back of our confounded fixed ideas about rate, acceleration, mass, and energy, what will it take?

          The early thinkers on this subject pretty much covered the ground we’re covering. We have to look deeper. It will probably not turn out to be like we thought.

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM

      This ‘spooky action at a distance’ was really an abstract joke.

      .

  • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 8:52 PM

    One does thought experiements using the process of mindfulness. This is what Einstein did to come up with the theory of relativity. But mindfulness is fully understood in the context of the dimension of abstraction.

    Without the consideration of the abstract dimension, mindfulness reduces to the scientific method limited to the layer of physicality.

    .

  • vinaire  On June 25, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    In a thought experiment it is the inherent sense of consistency, which is pursued. No past learning is sacrosanct.

    All ideas, beliefs, assumptions, viewpoints, and feelings, associated with an observed inconsistency, are subject to critical examination for what they are.

    .

  • vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 8:32 PM

    Locality = no instantaneous (“spooky”) action at a distance
    Realism = the moon is there even when not being observed
    Local realism (local hidden variable) = distant events are assumed to have no instantaneous (or at least faster-than-light) effect on local ones
    Quantum entanglement = distant events may under some circumstances have instantaneous correlations with local ones
    Bell’s theorem = No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.

    .

    It seems that what we normally perceive is an ‘averaged’ phenomenon. We have to go to extreme limits of speed, size or differentiation to find ‘individual’ phenomenon, which is different from ‘averaged’ phenomenon.

    I don’t think non-locality would ever be observed in abstraction.

    .

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 8:50 PM

      According to Bell’s Theorem locality in itself does not account for all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Some degree of non-locality (action at a distance) must occur.

      If space is some kind of a matrix in which a disturbance may travel, then
      (1) This disturbance is manifested in terms of electromagnetic fields.
      (2) This disturbance travels at a constant speed of ‘c’.
      (3) Undisturbed space does not exhibit any field that we can perceive.
      (4) Action at a distance would require that this matrix acts as a rigid structure in some aspect.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On August 23, 2013 at 12:27 PM

        Vin: (4) Action at a distance would require that this matrix acts as a rigid structure.

        Chris: Do you mean space must be rigid for the phenomena of entanglement?

        • vinaire  On August 23, 2013 at 12:50 PM

          Not space but some aspect of space.

          .

        • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 8:50 PM

          I have to study up more to understand the phenomenon of entanglement.

          .

    • vinaire  On August 23, 2013 at 5:50 AM

      Understanding of space will lead to the ability to move objects without acceleration as supposedly observed in the behavior of UFOs.

      .

  • vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 8:36 PM

    Speed of light is different in different media. It is constant for any particular medium. The symbol ‘c’ is used for speed of light in vacuum of the outer space. This is the upper limit for the speed of light as I understand.

    The speed of light depends on the characteristics of the medium in some way because it is constant for each medium. What is then surprising is that it is constant for space too, where we seem to think that there is no medium. The idea of ether in space was considered and then rejected. So the alternative possibility is that space itself is the medium. That is counter-intuitive for most people.

    In Newtonian mechanics ‘c’ was considered to be infinite. That consideration allowed space and time to have magnitude independent of each other. That was ok for practical purposes because ‘c’ is so large. The problem occurs only when we encounter speeds closer to ‘c’ as in atomic phenomenon. This is where the inconsistency with classical mechanics was first noticed.

    .

    • vinaire  On August 23, 2013 at 5:55 AM

      The speeds closer to ‘c’ are observed in atomic phenomena. There are elctromagnetic field (disturbance in space) present.

      .

  • vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 8:38 PM

    Mass is basically inertia, which is resistance to change. It is an abstract concept. It is different from concrete matter. The idea of mass approaching infinity as the partcle approches ‘c’ is a conclusion from a theory that assumes an absolute upper limit for ‘c’.

    So, an upper limit for ‘c’ is derived expreimentally and assumed to be absolute to arrive at the theory of relativity. One cannot use the theory of relativity to explain the upper limit of ‘c’. That would be like proving the assumption that one started out with. It would be circular reasoning.

    I suspect that the reason for an upper limit for ‘c’ in the structure of space itself.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 9:41 PM

      Vin: I suspect that the reason for an upper limit for ‘c’ in the structure of space itself.

      Chris: This is what I have been writing. And we may need very wide open minds to embrace what that structure is. This is a good article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

      • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 5:00 AM

        I read that article. It is a good one. It seems that ‘perception’ needs to be defined for this space-time model.

        Perception and abstraction seems to be related somehow. Instruments ‘perceive’ physicality. The mind seems to perceive more than physicality.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 7:15 AM

          That’s good. Perception and abstraction . . . ideally maybe perception is what we should see there and abstraction is whatever we do see there. Ideally, as we became more enlightened, these two would converge together.

        • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 12:23 PM

          Just as physical perception can be in error, mental (abstract) perception can be in error too.

          Mindfulness is seeing things as they are.whether physical or abstract. A major uncertainty seems to lie in the area of judging abstraction for what it is. This is the area of mathematics and logic. What associations are valid and which are not?

          It boils down to defining consistency.

          How do we define the consistency of physical perception?

          .

      • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM

        All fundamental mathematics seem to relate to measurements in space-time. And any measurement has the element of ‘perception’ within it.

        Maybe there is further explanation of what ‘perception’ is. It seems to be part of mathematics.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 7:18 AM

          Measurements seem to be our best stab at a consensus reality. What we should see if we are seeing correctly what is there.

      • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 9:29 PM

        Dimensions are independent components of a coordinate grid needed to locate a point in a certain defined “space”.

        From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
        .

    • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 9:15 PM

      Mass is inertia. It is resistance to change in speed. It seems that objects simply do not want to be accerated or decelerated. But, on the other hand, such acceleration seem to be built into them as gravity. This is like a spinning gyroscope that wants to maintain its orientation. There seems to be a universal phenomenon here like the speed of light. It is then possible that space is anchored with large spinning masses.

      Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to change in speed is increasing. I do not understand why this resistance would become infinite when the speed of an object is near ‘c’. But I can understand that the greater is the sudden acceleration, the greater would be the resistance, and mass.

      Thus, mass may depend on the rate of change of acceleration, or force, and not on the rate of change of speed. Please note that this is just wild thinking that needs to be put in a mathematical framework for a test of consistency.
      .

      • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 11:28 AM

        Vin: It is then possible that space is anchored with large spinning masses.

        Chris: Spinning masses is probably a good direction.

      • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 11:36 AM

        Vin: Mass is inertia. It is resistance to change in speed. It seems that objects simply do not want to be accerated or decelerated. But, on the other hand, such acceleration seem to be built into them as gravity.

        Chris: This does fit with my idea of space as elastic. In my model, gravity is this elasticity. “Solid” objects represent the entropy of this elasticity, and black holes? Well, they are there in this model somewhere! haha

      • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 12:03 PM

        Vin: Thus, mass may depend on the rate of change of acceleration, or force, and not on the rate of change of speed. Please note that this is just wild thinking that needs to be put in a mathematical framework for a test of consistency.

        Chris: Understood. Also, we must keep in mind these two models: One of massless disturbances, and Two of objects moving through space are different concepts.

      • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 12:22 PM

        Vin: I do not understand why this resistance would become infinite when the speed of an object is near ‘c’. But I can understand that the greater is the sudden acceleration, the greater would be the resistance, and mass.

        Chris: If there were a “clock speed” underpinning the universe in some way or some fashion, then the universe would be existing discretely as the energy states of electrons exist. Possibly there is a tremendous effort required to “increase velocity” which is another way of writing “increase rate of iteration.”

  • vinaire  On June 26, 2013 at 8:46 PM

    When one throws a stone in a pond, the speed of a ripple that moves outward from the point of impact is determined by the properties of water. Similarly, sound is a three-dimensional ripple in the air. The speed of sound is determined by conditions of the air, or the medium it is traveling through.

    I believe that light is no different. It is a 3-D ripple in the fabric of space. It is subject to Doppler Effect just like the sound is. Only thing that science doesn’t know is the nature of space.

    When we look at space and time themselves, we find that their very nature is relative. A location in space is relative to another location in space. A duration in time is relative to another duration in time. There is nothing constant or absolute.

    The speed of light is probably constant with respect to some relationship between space and time.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 26, 2013 at 9:45 PM

      You are not addressing the salient point of the ramifications of c equal for “all frames of reference.” This is the reason our analogies break down. The speed of a ripple in a puddle is not the same for all frames of reference.

    • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 5:33 AM

      Physicality seems to lie on a path (or region) in space-time where maximum ratio of space-time is maintained at ‘c’.

      There can be other paths (or regions) in space-time where this ratio can exceed ‘c’.

      Maybe those are the regions of abstraction.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 7:52 AM

    If c is constant for all frames of reference, then nothing about EMR light equates to other wave propagations. At least not in the sense that the previous moment pushes the following moment and the next.

    There is something else going on. Whether illusion, delusion, abstraction, or unseen mechanic, something else is at work to spur on the energy at every point anew across its wavefront. It’s like a field of mousetraps with coiled springs at every point waiting to be triggered to release its individual energy-point upon activation. My analogy is weak but the wavelength of light is dependant upon frame of reference; however, the speed is not.

    • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM

      I would say that speed of sound would also be constant for all frames of references, because it is the based on the property of the medium it is traveling in, and not on the frame of reference.

      The speed is the product of frequency and wavelength. The frquency and wavelength would change as in the Doppler Effect, but speed would remain the same as long as medium is the same,

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 3:00 PM

        No, we’re not on the same page here. This is why there is a “sound barrier” which can be broken. Or if a supersonic bullet is fired at a target, the bullet hits the target before the sound the bullet reaches the target. OR else I do not understand one thing about what I am reading about relativity beginning with “frame of reference.”

        • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 4:37 PM

          Does the speed of sound change with the frame of reference. In other words, does the speed of sound change when you observe it while moving compared to when you observe it at rest?

          .

  • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 12:37 PM

    Mindfulness is seeing things as they are whether physical or abstract. Instruments ‘perceive’ physicality. The mind seems to perceive more than just physicality.

    We seem to trust physical perceptions more than the mental, or abstract, perceptions. But just as abstract perception can be in error, physical perception can be in error too.

    A major uncertainty seems to lie in the area of seeing abstraction for what it is. It seems to be reletively difficult to decide which abstract associations are valid and which are not? This is the area of mathematics and logic.

    It boils down to defining consistency in what we observe.

    How do we define the consistency of physical perception? Knowing that, maybe, we can simplify mathematics and logic for the masses.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 2:51 PM

      We seem to trust physical perceptions more than the mental, or abstract, perceptions.

      This is because there is a consensus between us about the consistency of physics. Sitting alone in our houses and thinking thoughts, it doesn’t matter so much if our perceptions match consensus reality. In fact, sometimes it is better to ignore consensus, not when we are driving in traffic, but if say we are writing a book like HARRY POTTER or LORD OF THE RINGS, then its better to disregard consensus. And yet, these stories need consistency as well. What do you make of this?

      • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 4:38 PM

        Chris: “This is because there is a consensus between us about the consistency of physics.”

        Is that so? Or, is it becauise of the immediate unpleasant consequences when physical laws are violated?

        There are no immediate unpleasant consequences when people fail to perceive abstractions correctly. It leads to unpleasnt conditions but people fail to see the connection.

        The task here is to get people to see things as they are without justifications. This is more important for abstract perceptions. This is the solution to mystery.

        This is mindfulness.

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 8:37 PM

    Vin: Is that so? Or, is it becauise of the immediate unpleasant consequences when physical laws are violated?

    Chris: You are so preaching to the choir on this. What I wrote is in agreement with what you just wrote. Unpleasant consequences are not inconsistencies?

    • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 8:47 PM

      The idea of “consensus among us” comes from Scientology. I do not think that consensus is necessary. There can be reality for a single person with nobody else around to agree with him.

      It is only perception that matters.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On June 27, 2013 at 9:55 PM

        You are drifting away from our topic. We were discussing measurements of physical objects and of mental objects. Measuring physical objects requires consensus, this is not Scientology. Mental objects cannot easily be measured — mental processes seem to make waves on an EKG. This is consensus but . . . of course a personal reality is possible. I don’t understand or see which inconsistency you are challenging.

        Meanwhile I am trying to clear up my misunderstandings about what a frame of reference means in physics so that I can understand what :constant for all frames of reference means.”

        I have thought that two trains, heading toward one another, with their headlights on, — the light from each headlight is measured to travel at 300,000 km per sec no matter which observational point in this mix one chooses. Speeds of the trains relative to each other, the tracks, the ground, sky, and departing depots all be damned. Yes there is the Doppler Effect, but this is not related to the speed of the light but to the length of the wave length.

        DO I HAVE THIS WRONG?

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 4:14 AM

          Measurement of physical objects requires comparison and not concensus. One can arbitraity decide a unit of measure, such as, the span of a hand, and measure the length of a table using it.

          I think that measuring of mental objects may require a comparison too.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 4:39 AM

          Mincing.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 4:27 AM

          Oscilloscopes do not measure mental objects. They measure brain waves.

          How does one measure ideas? One measure is the effect an idea creates on human lives. Look at the ideas behind inventions or expressions that have won Nobel prize.

          Mindfulness is an idea with immense value. It has been around for thousands of years. So mental objects, such as, ideas, have been measured by their value.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 4:42 AM

          Oscilloscopes do not measure mental objects. They measure brain waves.

          Mincing and not helping – but the rest of your statement is good looking.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 4:53 AM

          Yes, this is good, yet we abstract mental objects by drawing them on paper, etc., such as architecture, engineering, and art. The scale used is consensus or are we not meeting yet?

          The Salk vaccine was synthesised after abstraction from intuition and research and a consensus reached with the virus.

          I wanted to change around the inside and outside of my house. I visualized walls removed until I landed on pleasing abstraction. Then I took out walls, added lighting, built a garage, etc.,. You tell me the language you want to use about abstracting this process and I will use it so we can continue.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:20 AM

          A consensus on a unit is not necessary for measurement. It may be necessary for communication. Scaling down or up of objects as in engineering drawings or in photography is not mental abstraction that I am talking about. It is just a symbolic representation.

          You are using a different definition of abstraction than what I am using.

          ab·strac·tion noun
          1. an abstract or general idea or term.
          2. the act of considering something as a general quality or characteristic, apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances.
          3. an impractical idea; something visionary and unrealistic.
          4. the act of taking away or separating; withdrawal: The sensation of cold is due to the abstraction of heat from our bodies.
          5. secret removal, especially theft.

          I am using definition #2, while you are using definition #4.

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 4:38 AM

          You may find the definition of frame of reference here:

          http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/frame+of+reference?s=t

          1. a structure of concepts, values, customs, views, etc., by means of which an individual or group perceives or evaluates data, communicates ideas, and regulates behavior.

          2. Also called reference frame. Physics. a framework that is used for the observation and mathematical description of physical phenomena and the formulation of physical laws, usually consisting of an observer, a coordinate system, and a clock or clocks assigning times at positions with respect to the coordinate system.

          Maybe the ‘frame of refernce’ acts like a ‘mental unit’ to measure ‘mental objects’.

          One compares a mental objects against one’s frame of reference to measure (judge) it.

          The measurement in mental space is called ‘judgment’ or mental assessment. Being judgmental would mean the use of arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not a frame of reference that actually exists.

          Consensus can occur on an arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not on a frame of reference that actually exists.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 4:58 AM

          I really like this discussion of physical vs mental objects, it has traction for me. And maybe I should leave out the vs so as not to bias the discussion by creating an arbitrary dividing line.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:08 AM

          Vin: The measurement in mental space is called ‘judgment’ or mental assessment. Being judgmental would mean the use of arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not a frame of reference that actually exists.

          Chris: This is an important one. I want to look very closely at this because of your predilection to use actually exists. I would like to understand that there is such a thing and not simply a curious and interesting model upon which we simply build another ideology. Can you see my concern?

          I watch my kids play. Their imagination goes into full flight. They build mental objects, share them with one another, and invite one another to play. This is relevant to this discussion. What language do we use to show the relevance?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:11 AM

          Vin: Consensus can occur on an arbitrarily generated frame of reference, and not on a frame of reference that actually exists.

          Chris: We do this when we play children’s games. Then we bring more solidity to it by using a board game such as Monopoly or playing cards. So the frame of reference gradually becomes less arbitrary? Is this what you are saying?

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:32 AM

          When one is using the span of a hand to measure the length of a table, that hand actually exists. One doen’t need consensus on it. Another person can see that hand without requiring a consensus.

          But when one is using a particular standardized “span” as a unit to communicate measurements that may be duplicated elsewhere, then one would require consensus.

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:36 AM

          It is essentially a matter of consistency. There can be consistency within onself, without requiring a consistency among a group through consensus.

          I am opposed to the idea of a standalone individuality with a totally free will. There is no such thing in my view.

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:40 AM

          Consistency is relative. It can be there within a person. It can be within a group. It can be within the universe.

          There is no absolute consistency of a standalone free will.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM

          I think that pretty much all ego generated mental concepts of “what is real” or “how things are” have false major premises. I am beginning again beginning with what I thought when I was 18 years old which is that “everything I have been taught about spirituality is bullshit.” Not in an unhappy or negative way but simply in a cheerful neti-neti way.

          I will happily build back my reality one bit at a time. My current model embraces that video you or someone put up about abstraction with the pinwheel spinning and then not spinning. “Disk, then no disk.” Abstraction.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 12:41 PM

          That video was introduced by Rafael.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:42 PM

          I’d like to find it again but cannot remember the name nor the thread we were on.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 8:15 PM

          It is here:

          Two Favorites

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 12:13 AM

          Yes, that’s it, thanks. Lots of meat with those potatoes.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:42 PM

          Rafael??? Can you help?

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:41 AM

          Yes, I think we’ve long since passed that one and left it in the rear view mirror, haven’t we? We’ve moved on.

          I’m loving this discussion but this morning I’ve got to move on for a few hours as I owe some work to the consensus reality… haha

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:42 AM

          I meant that you and I have move on from this one of individualitiy.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:46 AM

          There is no absolute consistency of a standalone group either. The word ‘consensus’ seems to refer to such an absolute group consistency.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:56 AM

          Agreed. This is what I see as well. If you and I form a little cocoon of thought experiments, models, we seem to create a little recursive and self-similar frame of reference and for a time, we start seeing the similar things, but the longer we look, the more the iterations diverge and the inconsistencies emerge.

          This is terrifically satisfying to me. It gives me a handle on why we almost see the same thing, now not the same thing, later the similar thing, then later not the same thing. It opens the door for me to compassion and tolerance and maybe a little bit of understanding.

          This may be quite a leap but it feels like I understand my place in the scheme of life.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 12:44 PM

          That’s wonderful. There is no rest for me because there is no absolute.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:55 PM

          It is good to look. It will always be good to look. My own fixation with absolutes is ego driven. It is like burning ambition or other fixation. It is frustration with being on the squirrel cage instead of simply admiring the squirrel cage for its beauty, its perpetual design. It’s a thought and an attitude that I’ve gotten. It both drives me and quenches that drive — both. The fixation part is not so good – like running to catch a glimpse of the end of pi and not finding it, running faster. Not so good. But the raw curiosity over things not yet seen. Of more complexity made simple, this is good. A life in balance is good, fresh, and new with neither stagnation nor burning madness. I want to continue my education and yet if I don’t complete it, that’s ok. I want to LIVE but death holds no particular sadness for me, so I’m not trying to stave it off. There’s no particular ending anymore than there was a particular beginning. I see appearing and disappearing — like magic and it still intrigues me.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 8:36 PM

          I find that even when I have the discipline to simply look, there are instances when I have to quietly confront stressful moments like a very angry person upset with me and shouting in my face at the top of his voice. Even though it is easy for me to simply observe and not react, and calmly respond to the person, the incident plays later again and again in my mind. The mind tries to figure out all different ways that the situation could have been addressed.

          But I also know that this playing again and again of the incident is not useful. The situation was handled best by not reacting. Why is the mind then playing it over and over again?

          It seems that some chemical gets created during the stressful moment. This playing again and again of the incident in the mind is simply the gradual dispersing of that chemical. It takes a day or two for this chemical to disperse fully. So one just have to put up with it.

          The next level of spiritual advancement would be when the chemical does not get produced in a stressful situation in the first place.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 12:18 AM

          Interesting!

          I was just driving home from having dinner with my wife. We were both humming a tune we both don’t like which was playing in the restaurant. I told her, well when I get home I’m going to play that on my guitar and get rid of it. When I get a tune stuck in my mind, looping over and over, I accidentally found that by mimicking that tune, just playing single notes of the melody on my guitar for only a minute or two, something happens which breaks that loop and lets it go. I have no idea what is occurring with that.

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:38 AM

          Then are we together that Planck calculations are a standard and provide a consensus? Or else what?

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 12:35 PM

          Do you have an ideology based on Planck’s constant?

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 6:04 PM

          Do you have an ideology based on Planck’s constant

          I guess so. It seems consistent if we are looking closely at physical objects and at mental objects, that we would parse them down as much as possible. Planck’s constant is parsed down as small as physics has gone and the math seems to work, that’s how we Skype, right? — because that math works.

          Or what is the point where one’s construct of a model becomes an ideology. We make these lenses and peer through them to see how the focus looks . . . I’m not insisting on anything, just trying this out to see how it fits.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM

          I always question what I come with, to look deeper still. I question the Planck’s constant just as I question the speed of light.

          They both seem to depend on ‘physicality’, which I need to understand better in the context of the dimension of abstraction.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 12:23 AM

          I thought of something today which I want to put out there. As I was considering the Doppler Effect and how it is similar for waves in all mediums and seemingly without(?really?) mediums and I question whether there is no medium in space (as we have been challenging and discussing) and it occurred to consider time as a medium. I don’t know what I am making of this but I wanted to mention it before it slips my mind.

        • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:32 PM

          “Start-Chage-Stop” defines the medium of time for any action.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 5:42 PM

          Brushed off.

        • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:51 PM

          Explain yourself.

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM

          Examples of past such consensus are:
          (a) The earch is flat
          (b) Earch is the center of the universe
          (c) There are seven planets. There cannot be an eighth planet because 7 is a perfect number.

          Just having a consenus is not a measure of what is.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:39 PM

          Neither is having no consensus.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

          The word consensus is not in my vocabulary. I don’t use it.

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 4:42 AM

          Maybe precise ‘mental units’ or ‘frames of refences’ needs to be defined.

          The Golden Rule may be defined as a standard mental unit to measure mental ideas, such as, the biblical “an eye for an eye.”

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:22 AM

          Yes, this is a good one.

          I’m so very intrigued by the two Voyagers which are at the egress point of this solar system. I am interested in the science – such very good data still coming back from these two remote viewing points now nearly 40 years later. And I am interested in the wild imaginings that these travels generate such as the wonderful story line in the first “Star Trek: The Motion Picture.”

          These two types of objects seem relevant to this discussion.

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 4:50 AM

          Here is more data on frame of reference

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference

          .

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 5:08 AM

          The velocity of sound in air is constant from all frames of references. The different frames of references only change the frequency and wavelength of sound (but not its speed). This is called the Doppler’s effect.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:34 AM

          Really? Because this is not how I am understanding light speed nor “constant for all frames of reference.” The supersonic bullet cannot detect its own compression cone of sound, is probably unaware of its existence as it recedes further behind it. Light speed is not like this.

          Light speed seems to be irrelevant to frame of reference and this is peculiar to light and is what we need to look at for our clues to what is going on with spacetime.

          EMR / light seems to use all of the “box” – all of the available “clock speed.” Can you see where I am going with this?

        • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 7:01 AM

          Just like the speed of light in vacuum is constant fo all frame of references, similarly the speed of sound in air is also constant for all frame of references. Check it out.

          Even when you are riding on a supersonic jet and measure the speed of sound, it would still be the same as measuring from a slow moving car, or standing still.

          The speed of sound does not depend on the motion of the frame of reference.

          .

  • vinaire  On June 27, 2013 at 8:50 PM

    Science deals with perception at physical level. Law, Politics, Psychology, Medicine, Anthropology, etc. deal with perception at human level.

    How is perception and reasoning at human level different from its counterpart at physical level?

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:59 AM

    Oh, and I like your golden James Bond girl art! haha! Very arty and sexy! Like our conversation? haha! Now it is 4:00 AM and I MUST get to work!

    • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 12:45 PM

      To meet her, you have to go into the fifth dimension.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On June 28, 2013 at 5:56 PM

        LOL! I must be there then because I think I know her! hahaha (Never mention this conversation to my wife!)

  • vinaire  On June 28, 2013 at 8:54 PM

    A sound wave moving through air and a supersonic jet moving through air are two very different phenomena. The sound wave is dependent on the structure of the medium (air), but the supersonic jet is not.

    Similarly, light moving through space, and an object moving through space are two very different phenomena. I believe that space has a structure and the light wave is dependent on it, whereas an object moving through space may not be. I have to understand the relationship of matter with the structure of space.

    But I believe that the Theory of Relativity does not provide reason enough to claim that an object cannot move in space at a speed faster than light.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 12:25 AM

      And I am beginning to wonder if light moves through space using the medium of time. There may be an explanation within this idea that satisfies “constant for all frames of reference.”

      • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:34 PM

        No action is possible without the “medium” (start-change-stop) of time. But one may say that this universe is one continuous action without beginning or end.

        .

  • Chris Thompson  On June 29, 2013 at 12:34 AM

    Vin: “But I believe that the Theory of Relativity does not provide reason enough to claim that an object cannot move in space at a speed faster than light.”

    Chris: Do you see an inconsistency? Does the math not run the mass up to infinity as the speed approaches light speed?

    Maybe we are not looking very well at the obvious spacetime right in front of us.

    • vinaire  On June 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

      I do not understand that math. Here we seem to be getting from physicality into abstraction because mass is nothing but resistance to change.

      I need to understand mass better.

      .

  • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 6:36 AM

    Science represents physicality.

    Mathematics represents the layer of abstraction just below physicality.

    Logic is the layer below mathematics.

    Philosophy is the layer underlying logic.

    ..

  • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 7:00 AM

    The glue that binds science, mathematics, logic, and philosophy together is CONSISTENCY.

    Consistency has a much deeper characteristic.

    .

    • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 7:04 AM

      One needn’t worry about absolute consistency. One more step towards greater consistency is enough at a time. Progress occurs in simple steps.

      .

    • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 7:11 AM

      There is physical space.
      Then there is mathematical space.
      Then there is logical space.
      And then there is philosophical space.

      There is a thread of consistency common to all these spaces.

      .

    • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 7:13 AM

      Time is built into space as the persistence of that space.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On June 30, 2013 at 8:29 AM

        Vin: Time is built into space as the persistence of that space.

        Chris: Which is pure unadulterated tautology . . . I am not pleased with that answer and have to look further.

      • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 8:35 AM

        LOL! I can picture space as an infinite elastic sheet solidifying and bulging at locations per the degree of persistence there.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On June 30, 2013 at 8:41 AM

          So what about my misunderstanding about the “fabric” of space being drawn as a grid with massive objects making a dimple in that fabric, rather than the lines of space curving inward toward the dead-center of the massive object?

        • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 8:53 AM

          These are different models. Some appear more consistent than others. The models at this level are still evolving.

          Sent from my iPhone

        • Chris Thompson  On June 30, 2013 at 9:03 AM

          Well this model shows mass wedged in between layers of space as though the mass itself uses no space. This is inconsistent. I’m drawing the other model myself.

        • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 9:08 AM

          Mass seems to be a function of space and time somehow.

          .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 30, 2013 at 8:27 AM

      I get that you mean that. But I also get that you mean in an innate way. . . such as in a higher or more holy or profound importance, aside from the significance we give it as a tool.

      I want to ask you about that twist of it. Do you feel that consistency is innately more profound than inconsistency? And is this a belief or wish or feeling about something in the way of Higher Power?

      • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 9:14 AM

        I don’t think that consistency and inconsistency are two different things that need to be compared to each other. Consistency seems to involve an aesthetic quality for me.

        .

  • vinaire  On June 30, 2013 at 7:27 PM

    Mathematics allowed Ptolemy’s earth-centric description of the solar system, with the intolerable complexity of its cycles upon cycles, epicycles upon epicycles. It was fully competent to account for the observed motions of the planets. And more, with sufficient ingenuity the theory could be modified to accomodate certain new observations.

    However, the ptolemaic system was swept into limbo by a much simpler heliocentric picture of the solar system, which disclosed itself to Copernicus.

    It was the mathematical simplicity of the latter that was more appealing. Even the Church in Rome had to finally accept sun at the center of the solar system.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On June 30, 2013 at 7:56 PM

      And what will the Universal Church need to accept when life is discovered on other planets?

  • Chris Thompson  On July 2, 2013 at 11:14 PM

    All notions of dimensions are abstractions.

    It seems that all processes are proceeding — staying grounded in tautology.

    Possibly our abstraction can simply improve. There seems to be infinite room for that to occur.

  • vinaire  On August 20, 2013 at 6:32 AM

    I have updated the OP for The Fifth Dimension to improve its clarity.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 20, 2013 at 7:45 AM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    Time seems to vary along the dimension of abstraction, so I would consider Time to be a dimension separate from the dimension of Abstraction.

    Maybe a number of components are grouped together in the dimension of Abstraction, which should be identified as separate dimensions. These may be discovered as we proceed along the path of current investigation.

    Consciousness is the general sense of awareness that underlies perception. When something manifests we become conscious of it. Thus, consciousness accompanies manifestation. It is a natural outcome of existence. A special case of consciousness may be described as self. The concept of self needs to be investigated.

    To think of SELF as something mysterious from which everything proceeds, is an assumption.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 20, 2013 at 10:26 PM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    Time seems to be a sense of change in space. To the degree space is physical, time would be physical too, even if you can’t perceive it directly. The characteristics of time would vary in the dimension of abstraction.

    .

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

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    I think that time can be sensed through the physical body at the upper limit of abstraction. Underlying the sense of motion and acceleration, there is the sense of time.

  • vinaire  On August 21, 2013 at 5:42 AM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    I have moved away from the idea that I “see” something because I agree with it. I believe that I perceive something because (1) either it is there, or (2) it is a result of some assumption. As I recognize my assumptions and account for them, I can more clearly perceive what is there.

    Maybe what is there is due to layer upon layers of assumptions, and ultimately, there is nothing. Yes, that theory exists in Hinduism. We shall find that out for sure as we continue with the mindfulness route. Then we’ll also learn about the structure of assumptions, or the ubiquitous “illusion.”

    .

  • vinaire  On August 21, 2013 at 5:58 AM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    When all the physical sense organs are not there, then the perception of physical universe is not there. That can be very frightening for some because the physical universe is the stable datum for us. We may have a tenuous connection though as long as we have consciousness of the body. That would become the consciousness of self when the sense of “touch” is also not there.

    So, without the five physical senses,
    Sense of body = the sense of self.
    Since, All Senses – physical senses = mental sense
    We have, mental sense = the sense of self = the sense of abstraction
    But, the sense of abstraction = patterns underlying physical reality + assumptions

    If one were never exposed to the physical reality, then one would not be aware of the patterns underlying physical reality. In that case,
    All sense = mental sense = the sense of abstraction = assumptions

    This then leads to the conclusion,
    the sense of self = assumptions

    Now that is an interesting look. 🙂

    .

  • vinaire  On August 21, 2013 at 7:24 AM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    With sensory deprivation, one is simply left with one’s assumptions and speculations. The stable datum is reality. Reality includes the physical reality and the abstraction proceeding from it. Therefore, one’s speculations and conjectures must seek consistency with reality. Any inconsistencies must be discarded.

    We can sense physical reality through our physical sense organ. We can sense abstraction through our mind. We can also sense consistency and inconsistency. Thus, we can separate abstraction proceeding from reality from “abstraction” proceeding from assumptions.

    The fifth dimension of abstraction is the abstraction proceeding from physical reality. But physical reality and abstract reality are one and the same. Physical and Abstract are two different aspects of reality that we sense through different sense organs.

    Unreality comes from assumptions that are not consistent with reality. Actually, assumptions would be defined that way.

    You are recommending mathematical approach originated by David Hilbert to separate abstraction from assumptions. That is fine. I need to study up on this approach.

    But, 2ndxmr, if you follow Hilbert’s approach do you find “thetan” to be an abstraction from reality or an assumption? I find it to be an assumption.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 23, 2013 at 2:01 AM

      Vin: Unreality comes from assumptions that are not consistent with reality. Actually, assumptions would be defined that way.

      Chris: Assumptions lack proof. Whether they are consistent or not is another matter. Deciding to cling to an idea, to fix an idea and to create the assumption, that process is what may be inconsistent and dropped except as metered out in small doses as we feel our way.

      • vinaire  On August 23, 2013 at 5:07 AM

        Proof = demonstration of consistency with reality.

        .

  • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 6:10 AM

    In response to
    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10232

    .

    Space-time seems to be the concrete dimension with 4 recognized components to it. We can perceive it through our physical senses.

    The dimension of abstraction is relative to the concrete dimension, and it is quite real also because we can perceive it through the mind. It may have many different components too.

    SPACE can be felt as concrete as well as abstract.

    TIME can be felt as concrete as well as abstract.

    The concrete space-time may therefore form the upper end of the dimension of abstraction, which may extend from the concrete to the most subtle.

    This makes the dimension of abstraction as the most basic dimension that underlies even space-time.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 23, 2013 at 2:08 AM

      Both of you are making good points. I see the coordinates of this fractal diverging and tending “away” from one another. Each model has integrity within its own model. This is very interesting.

  • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 7:29 AM

    I have modified the title of Opening Post. Some of the contents of the opening post are also modified.

    I hope these modifications bring greater clarity to the subject.

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On August 22, 2013 at 4:48 PM

    You are doing great.

    If “(2) Matter is the condensation of energy. . . ” Then what if “energy is the condensate of space” and “space is the condensate of time.” The more I’ve thought about this, the clearer this has seemed to me. Or possibly this is an exercise demonstrating how a model can be created and made consistent regardless of it being outrageously over the top.

    You are leveling inconsistencies and I am stirring the pot! What I’ve written is an attempt to challenge the status quo and break loose our thinking in new ways while remaining sequitur to the discussion.

  • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

    Here is something I just wrote on Facebook in response to a post by Gary Hart:

    “The biggest assumption that I see here is “light travels through space.” In my opinion, light does not travel through space the same way as matter travels through space.

    A boat travels through water, but a ripple of water does not travel through water. Ripple is a disturbance in water. It is the disturbance that appears to be traveling. There is no mass traveling through water.

    Similarly, I see light as a disturbance in space. It is the disturbance that appears to be traveling, There is no mass traveling. through space.

    The speed of a ripple in water is determined by the properties of the medium that is being disturbed. Similarly, the speed of light in space is determined by the properties of the medium that is being disturbed. The Maxwell’s equations, in a way, describe the properties of space that is being disturbed.

    The speed of a boat traveling through water is not constrained the way speed of a ripple in water is constrained. Similarly, I believe that speed of a mass traveling through space would not be constrained the same way as the speed of light is constrained. There seem to be a big assumption here that needs to be looked at more closely.

    In my opinion, electromagnetic field represents disturbance in space. When there is no electromagnetic field present, we have undisturbed space. From this point of view, the space in the sun or stars must be very disturbed.

    Per Wikipedia, frame dragging is media dragged forward by a moving mass. For example, if a mass is moving through water, the viscosity of water makes some of the water move forward with mass. It is supposed that space shall be dragged forward by a huge mass rotating in space. There are no conclusive results obtained of this effect in space by experiements so far, because the frame-dragging affect is very, very small – about one part in a few trillion.

    Just like a ripple is a phenomenon of its medium, I believe that light is a phenomenon of space. Therefore, whether it is light that is bending, or if the space-time itself is bending, is just about the same thing.

    In my system, the speed of light is determined by the properties of space. Space is not nothing. Space is something, and an abstraction of space is possible. There is an interesting rabbit hole here.”

    .

  • Chris Thompson  On August 22, 2013 at 4:54 PM

    And considering the above comment, I would ask,“What would time be the condensate of?”

    • vinaire  On August 22, 2013 at 8:24 PM

      Time (durability) is a measure of the condensation.

      .

  • Chris Thompson  On August 22, 2013 at 5:03 PM

    Yes, BIG assumptions. For instance, I believe that assuming a big bang to have occurred that the singularity of MEST Etc. which ensued thus condensed before accreting. Accretion has begat more phenomena such as celestial dust, stars, planets, etc., — a clumping if you will of matter, energy, space and time. But possibly space-time was the first such dichotomy to divide after the big bang. Brainstorming here . . . Rafael? Maria?

  • Chris Thompson  On August 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM

    There are large expanses of space in the universe which seems to be empty of celestial bodies, meaning galaxies. Why could this be and how might it happen?

  • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 7:23 AM

    The theory of relativity starts with the constancy of speed of light as its stable datum.

    (1) This makes spacetime the constant or “stable datum.”

    (2) Space and time, taken individually, become relative quantities. They are no longer constant, or “stable data” as treated in the past in the Newtonian system.

    (3) Spacetime translates as the vacuum of space, which now becomes the stable datum, or the current absolute state for science.

    (4) Light may now be looked upon as a disturbance in the vacuum of space itself. No ether need be there.

    (5) This disturbance may be treated as a harmonic of disturbance in air created by sound. Similar mathematical formulation may apply.

    (6) The speed of light is not relative to anything in the physical universe. It is relative to the physical universe as a whole.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 3:21 PM

    Maxwell’s equations convince me that light is a phenomenon of space. Light ripples through space the same way that sound ripples through air. Magnetic and electric fields represent the vibration of space “particles”.

    Conjecture about Energy and Space

    .

  • vinaire  On August 24, 2013 at 6:31 PM

    Here is something I wrote to Gary Hart on Facebook (for my record):

    (1) Mindfulness is seeing things as they are without assumptions. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. It is common sense.

    (2) What I see may have assumptions hidden in them but at the moment I am not aware of them. If someone can help me see them, I shall be very happy to update my view.

    (3) Nobody is bound by my views. If someone wants to tell me that I am assuming something I will not resist it, but I would like to understand how what I am seeing is an assumption.

    (4) In the exchange above, it is not an assumption that the starting point of the theory of relativity is the constant speed of light. Actually, the assumption is thinking that constant speed of light is an outcome of the theory of relativity.

    (5) It is definitely a conjecture on my part that electromagnetic waves represent a “ripple moving through the fabric of space”. It is a hypothesis that needs to be verified. However, this hypothesis is consistent with Maxwell’s equations and it does not contradict anything experimentally confirmed by science.

    (6) The only rules I go by is to separate reality from assumptions and recognize hypothesis for what it is. I do that as much as I can with what I write. I try not to represent reality falsely.

    (7) Ripple moving on water’s surface was compared with light moving in space with regards to how disturbance travelling in a medium has a speed that depends on the properties of the medium. There was no implication that space has a surface. So, the allegation that I am not applying mindfulness does not make sense.

    (8) I shall be confirming the idea that mass of an object becomes infinite at the speed of light, is coming from the assumption that objects travel in space the same way as light travels. There is no assumption on my part. I simply suspect an assumption in the theory of relativity.

    (9) My conjecture is that space itself acts as a medium for light. The magnetic and electric fields in space represent light “waving” through space, similar to the way sound “waves” through air.

    (10) Per Wikipedia “frame dragging” occurs at the interface between space and a heavy, rotating mass. This is similar to the way air may drag at its interface with a rotating top. Thus, it implies that space has a property similar to the property of viscosity in fluids. I know that electrons in atoms have a spin. This led me to wonder if the macro phenomenon of frame dragging could occur at quantum level too. There is a good possibility of it.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 5:54 AM

    (1) The theory of relativity seems to say that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are relative to ‘spacetime’, and ‘spacetime’ is absolute.

    (2) ‘Spacetime’ represents universe as a whole. It is not a part of the universe.

    (3) The absoluteness of ‘spacetime’ is represented by the constancy of the speed of light.

    (4) The phenomenon of inertia that resists acceleration also seem to represent the absoluteness of’ ‘spacetime’, or the universe.

    (5) Mass is inertia. Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to acceleration is increasing.

    (6) Infinite increase in mass would mean infinite resistance to acceleration. This may occur when the relative speed wants to go from ‘0’ to ‘c’ in no time.

    (7) The idea that mass of an object increases to infinity as its speed approaches ‘c’ seems to be inconsistent if the object is experiencing no acceleration, but simply moving at ‘c’.

    (8) Mass would increase not with its speed but with its acceleration.

    (9) The universe as a whole cannot be said to have any speed, only its parts can have relative speeds.

    (10) The universe as a whole cannot be accelerated, only parts within it may be accelerated relative to each other.

    (11) Any acceleration within the universe would lead to the creation of mass (resistance to accelertion).

    (12) Thus, in this universe, mass would balance force.

    (13) It is my conjecture that force converts into mass, and mass converts back to force in this universe.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:06 PM

      Vin:(1) The theory of relativity seems to say that ‘space’ and ‘time’ are relative to ‘spacetime’, and ‘spacetime’ is absolute.

      Chris: Here in his own words are clues as to where to look for inconsistencies. Newton said, “. . . Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time …”

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:07 PM

      Vin: (2) ‘Spacetime’ represents universe as a whole. It is not a part of the universe.

      Chris: That seems a slippery slope. To me it seems to be at least one whole part.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      Vin: (3) The absoluteness of ‘spacetime’ is represented by the constancy of the speed of light.

      Chris: This would be our abstraction of the processes going on.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:08 PM

      Vin: (4) The phenomenon of inertia that resists acceleration also seem to represent the absoluteness of’ ‘spacetime’, or the universe.

      Chris: I don’t know what you mean by this.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:13 PM

      Vin: (5) Mass is inertia. Increase in mass would mean that the resistance to acceleration is increasing.

      Chris: Space used to have homogenous elastic mass. Now there is less mass in the seeming void of space as it has already gathered itself together into the deposits of mass we know as galaxies, clusters and superclusters of galaxies.

      I agree with your question about why mass increases as it “moves” faster. There is an answer to this.

      • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 7:14 PM

        Is mass the same thing as matter? Can there be massless matter?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:33 PM

          That is quite a good question. I will ponder… What are the qualities of matter vs what are the qualities of mass? How could there be such a thing as massless matter?

        • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 7:36 PM

          Mass is an abstract concept. Matter is concrete.

          .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 8:57 PM

          Would you say that gravity is an abstract or concrete?

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:16 PM

      Vin: (6) Infinite increase in mass would mean infinite resistance to acceleration. This may occur when the relative speed wants to go from ’0′ to ‘c’ in no time.

      Chris: That’s not how it’s laid out is it? Both acceleration and deceleration is resisted, however, mass increases as velocity increases and we have to ask “relative to what?” So what could the answer be? I say it is relative to the space around the object.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:18 PM

      Vin: (7) The idea that mass of an object increases to infinity as its speed approaches ‘c’ seems to be inconsistent if the object is experiencing no acceleration, but simply moving at ‘c’.

      Chris: Yes! Bravo Vin. Now let’s use that inconsistency to pick at. What that we currently have no technology of could produce such a phenomena?

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:18 PM

      Vin: (8) Mass would increase not with its speed but with its acceleration.

      Chris: I may not understand correctly but I don’t think that’s the extant way it is laid out.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:21 PM

      Vin: (9) The universe as a whole cannot be said to have any speed, only its parts can have relative speeds.

      Chris: Not so fast! As I wrote before, the universe of particles can have a relative speed to the space-time in which they exists. Is the space in motion? Or is it fixed? Or is it nothing? Or is some of it relatively fixed and some of it in motion? Is gravity “space in motion?”

      • vinaire  On August 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

        How would you assess the speed of the universe as a whole? Is the universe moving relative to something else? What is that something else?

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 10:14 PM

          Vin: How would you assess the speed of the universe as a whole? Is the universe moving relative to something else?

          Chris: I’m not sure — that answer can go a couple ways. Something that does seem sure is that this universe is in motion, at least all the parts of it seem to be in a different place than they were each and every moment. The universe seems to be roiling and everything we have a sense of is in motion or so it seems. We do not seem to have yet a good grasp of space nor of time – yet. Understanding more about these two will move us closer to accurately abstracting.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:22 PM

      Vin: (10) The universe as a whole cannot be accelerated, only parts within it may be accelerated relative to each other.

      Chris: Why would we state this? How does this idea help, which inconsistency does it level?

      • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 7:32 PM

        My definition of universe is “all that exists”. Therefore, there is nothing else that exists beside the universe. You do not have anything else to compare the universe to. So, the idea of universe for us acts as a near absolute.

        Thus, we take speed of light as constant, or absolute for the purpose of the theory of relativity. It may not be absolute, but the theory of relitivity treats it as absolute.

        .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:24 PM

      Vin: (11) Any acceleration within the universe would lead to the creation of mass (resistance to acceleration).

      Chris: So we have this phenomena. If what you’ve written were true, then what property of QM could account for this phenomena?

      • vinaire  On August 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

        I don’t fully know what resistance exists at QM level.

        .

        • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 10:18 PM

          And yet doesn’t it seem that ALL resistance is truly at QM level?

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM

      Vin: (12) Thus, in this universe, mass would balance force.

      Chris: In this universe there seems a call to equilibrium. To state that mass balances force reminds me of complete entropy, and that is yet a long way off . . .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:27 PM

      Vin: (13) It is my postulate that force converts into mass, and mass converts back to force in this universe.

      Chris: How is this different from the Theory of Relativity? Or did you mean it to be different or a corollary or what?

    • Chris Thompson  On August 25, 2013 at 7:28 PM

      Good post . . . many juicy items there.

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 6:04 AM

    It seems that acceleration and mass are the same thing, but they look different from different frames of reference. Gravity is the phenomenon arising from this equivalence.

    One needs to separate the idea of matter from mass. A large amount of matter can have no mass at all.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 6:08 AM

    As we move in the direction of abstraction, we note that mental force of persuasion is used quite often. A person who lets himself be persuaded without understanding, would develop mental mass.

    Mental mass would be mental resistance to change.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 6:11 AM

    Mindfulness gradually frees one from mental mass as it defuses inner resistance.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 6:16 AM

    How does one address the condition of a person who is resisting to the idea of mindfulness itself?

    The solution has to be getting that person in touch with his physical environment because mindfulness starts from there.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 25, 2013 at 6:49 AM

    Too many changes of ideas suddenly presented to another person will generate considerable mental mass (resistance).

    .

  • vinaire  On August 26, 2013 at 5:55 AM

    (14) To me, constant for all frames of reference means, constant for the universe as a whole. Different frames are different viewpoints within the universe.

    (15) Alone out in the space, it is hard to discern if one is moving or not. Only acceleration is felt, whether linear or angular, as some kind of resistance to change. Once the change is over, it remains as a constant motion. In other words, constant motion determines a state. Acceleration is the shift between two different states. In life, we seems to keep moving in a certain state (personality). It is the momentous shift triggered by some shock or realization that brings changes to our personality. We feel those shifts keenly.

    (16) Deep changes seem to occur due to acceleration. Regular motion is just motion that keeps repeating itself.

    (17) The flavor of space and time changes with the frame of reference (viewpoint) within the universe. We assess the location in time and space of something with respect our own location in time and space. But when we take the historical viewpoint, or the viewpoint as the whole existence (universe), we start to get the idea of locations in a different time and space that approaches a constancy or “absoluteness.”

    (18) This overall view of Space and Time from a universal perspective may be called Spacetime, and that seems to approach a constancy. For example, everything in the universe may be in a constant flux, changing from moment to moment. But universe as an entity persists. The idea of universe remains constant as abstraction. This is a very subtle idea.

    (19) This constancy of universal presence may be called an abstraction. The constancy of the speed of light forces us to think in those universal terms that are not relative because there is no other universe to be relative to. Here we define the universe as “all that exists.”

    (20) Thus, speed of light is a universal or spacetime phenomenon. Similarly, acceleration (shift) and resistance to that accleration or shift (inertia) appear as universal or spacetime phenomenon that are not dependent on frames of reference.

    (21) Mass is associated with inertia. Therefore, mass seems to be a universal or spacetime phenomenon too. Gravity seems to be that ‘shift’ that has become permanent.

    (22) Mass is not associated with uniform velocity. Mass is associated with acceleration ‘shift’. When that ‘shift’ is associated with matter, we get planets, solar systems and galaxies. Matter changes its ‘personality’ by acquiring mass.

    (23) Mass is not associated with constant ‘c’, which cannot be distinguished from any other uniform velocity. Mass is associated with how fast or slow the accleration or decelaration from uniform velocity is.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 27, 2013 at 5:08 AM

    (24) Inertia is manifested as resistance to acceleration.

    (25) When a particle is forced to accelerate from one uniform velocity to another uniform velocity, the inertia is stored as mass and expressed as gravity. Thus, gravity is the expression of shift from one uniform velocity to another.

    (26) A planet with gravity has been shifted from some earlier velocity to its current velocity. It is not the current velocity that determines its gravity. Its gravity is determined by how much it has been acclerated in the past.

    (27) If a particle is acquiring mass, then it is being accelerated.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:45 PM

      These are interesting statements. As you state “mass is acquired through acceleration” then how is mass different from momentum? Are you using mass interchangeably with momentum?

  • vinaire  On August 27, 2013 at 5:36 AM

    (28) The state of zero mass is space.

    (29) A particle is created when space is disturbed. This is where light comes in.

    (30) When that particle is accelerated it acquires mass.

    (31) When a particle is decelarated it moves toward the state of light and then to space.

    (32) The mystery is how does the space, the disturbance, acceleration or decelertion come about.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM

      Vin: (28) The state of zero mass is space.

      Chris: Questioning this as the zero mass of space reacting with the zero mass of EM can happen how?

      • vinaire  On September 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        Somehow energy gets converted to mass through the mechanics of EMR.

        (1) First there is the low frequency disturbance in space (radio waves)

        (2) As energy is pumped in to this disturbance it goes through the stages of:
        …….. Microwave
        …….. Infra red
        …….. Visible
        …….. Ultraviolet
        …….. X-ray
        …….. Gamma

        (3) The velocity does not increase as it is limited by the properties of space.

        (4) As energy is pumped in frequency increases but a reaction also occurs.

        (5) The reaction is in terms of the disturbance breaking up into wave packets.

        (6) The wave packets behave like particles as more energy is pumped in.

        (7) This is the realm of Schrodinger’s equation that I need to understand better.

        .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

      Vin: (29) A particle is created when space is disturbed. This is where light comes in.

      Chris: Compare to (28). Now about matter and mass being different, are we saying that matter can have no mass? And that part of acceleration being mass . . . I get the shift in velocity being acceleration but not the part where acceleration equals mass.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:36 PM

      Vin: (30) When that particle is accelerated it acquires mass.

      Chris: See my comments on (29)

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:37 PM

      Vin: (31) When a particle is decelerated it moves toward the state of light and then to space.

      Chris: Not following this.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 9:39 PM

      Vin: (32) The mystery is how does the space, the disturbance, acceleration or deceleration come about.

      Chris: Yes this is a good question. There seems to be an unseen underpinning to it all.

  • vinaire  On August 27, 2013 at 11:58 AM

    Space, Inertia, Mass and Gravity

    1. The conclusion that speed of light is constant is arrived at by experimental results.

    2. The speed of light is directly related to permittivity and permeability of free space (classical vacuum).

    3. Permittivity of space is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming an electric field in a classical vacuum.

    4. Permeability of space is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming a magnetic field in a classical vacuum.

    5. Maxwell’s equations use the constants of permittivity and permeability in describing how electric and magnetic fields are generated and altered by each other in free space (classical vacuum).

    6. The speed of light is the inverse of the square root of the product of permittivity and permeability.

    7. Light is an electromagnetic wave that is made up of alternating electric and magnetic fields. These electric and magnetic fields appear to be disturbance in free space.

    8. Thus, light appears to be the propagation of a disturbance in free space, the same way that sound is the propagation of a disturbance in air. In a disturbance, only the undulations of media propagate and not any particles of matter.

    9. The speed of light depends entirely on the character of free space (classical vacuum), the same way that speed of sound depends entirely on the temperature, pressure and other characteristics of air.

    10. Theory of relativity proceeds from the postulate that the speed of light is a constant for all frames of references. Therefore, the theory of relativity essentially considers free space (classical vacuum) to be an absolute.

    11. Thus, all frames of reference in the theory of relativity operate within the absolute frame of reference represented by free space (classical vacuum).

    [To be continued…]

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 27, 2013 at 10:03 PM

      Please say what you mean by “free” space.

    • vinaire  On August 28, 2013 at 5:31 AM

      From Vacuum:

      Vacuum is space that is empty of matter. The word stems from the Latin adjective vacuus for “vacant” or “void”. An approximation to such vacuum is a region with a gaseous pressure much less than atmospheric pressure.[1] Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they sometimes simply call “vacuum” or free space, and use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as one might have in a laboratory or in space. The Latin term in vacuo is used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.

      I am surprised that Google doesn’t find this definition easily. That means this definition is no longer in common use.

      .

      From dictionary:

      “Also called (no longer in technical usage): vacuum a region that has no gravitational and electromagnetic fields: used as an absolute standard”

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On August 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

        Understood. That is extant physics. But our assertions that space is something and not nothing makes”free space” an oxymoron.

        • vinaire  On August 28, 2013 at 12:01 PM

          I think that ‘free’ in free space means ‘free of matter’. It doesn’t mean the opposite of bound space.

          .

  • vinaire  On August 28, 2013 at 5:48 AM

    I have revised the above as follows:

    NOTE: Here ‘free space’ refers to the ‘classical vacuum’ as found naturally in outer space.

    1. The conclusion that speed of light is constant is arrived at by experimental results.

    2. The speed of light is directly related to permittivity and permeability of free space.

    3. Permittivity of space is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming an electric field in a classical vacuum.

    4. Permeability of space is a constant that relates to the amount of resistance encountered when forming a magnetic field in a classical vacuum.

    5. Maxwell’s equations use the constants of permittivity and permeability in describing how electric and magnetic fields are generated and altered by each other in free space.

    6. The speed of light is the inverse of the square root of the product of permittivity and permeability.

    7. Light is an electromagnetic wave that is made up of alternating electric and magnetic fields. These electric and magnetic fields appear to be disturbance in free space.

    8. Thus, light appears to be a disturbance that propagates through free space, the same way that sound is a disturbance that propagates through air.

    9. In a disturbance, only the undulations of media propagate outward from the point of disturbance. There is no mass propagating forward.

    10. The speed of light depends entirely on the permittivity and permeability of free space (vacuum). This is analogous to how the speed of sound depends entirely on the characteristics of air, such as temperature, pressure.

    11. Theory of relativity proceeds from the postulate that the speed of light is a constant for all frames of references. The speed of light, therefore, acts as an absolute for the theory of relativity.

    12. Since the characteristics of free space determine the speed of light, free space acts as the absolute frame of reference for the theory of relativity.

    13. Free space seems to be defined fully only when space and time are considered together as ‘space and changes in it. Regarded separately, space and time appear to be relative as shown by the theory of relativity.

    14. Free space as ‘spacetime’ seems to represent the universe as a whole in an absolute sense.

    15. Uniform velocity seems to be indistinguishable in spacetime. One cannot distinguish if one is moving at a slow or fast speed, or even at the speed of light when moving at a uniform velocity.

    16. One can only sense a change in that velocity, as linear or angular acceleration.

    17. That change is sensed in terms of a reaction, which resists that change. This resistance is called inertia. This inertia is also the same in all frames of reference.

    18. Inertia expresses itself in terms of mass. Increased mass means increased resistance to acceleration.

    19. Infinite increase in mass would mean infinite resistance to acceleration. This may occur when the relative speed wants to go from ’0′ to ‘c’ in no time.

    20. The idea that mass of an object is infinity when it is moving at the uniform velocity of ‘c’ seems to be inconsistent if the object is experiencing no acceleration.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 7:16 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10379

    .

    A tune looping in the mind may have some inconsistency about it that the mind is trying to resolve.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:04 PM

      Maybe so. Music has the effect of evoking great emotion within our species as well as sometimes other species. You may be right about the loop-back having to do with some inconsistency although sometimes the repeating riff can be pleasing and attractive as well. Possibly what is pleasing is the unpredicted sequence which would also be an “inconsistency” in that riff.

      • vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 8:14 PM

        Well, there is something fascinating about music for sure. But why would attention get stuck on a particular tune, so it keeps on repeating? Maybe it reminds one of something that is puzzling.

        .

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 7:21 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10372

    .

    Stressful moments seem to get stored in the mind in some form of chemical, which then takes time to disperse back out. But such dispersal requires the practice of mindfulness.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:08 PM

      That is a good way of looking at stressful moments. In addition, if one does not disperse or somehow equalize that “chemical” but rather is antagonized or further irritated by it then more of the irritating chemical may be manufactured by the body causing a “runaway” effect such as the “psychotic break.”

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 7:28 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10365

    .

    That is an excellent observation. It shows that ‘I’ itself may be something “stored” when some limit is crossed. The ‘I’ tries to struggle with itself to no resolution. Resolution comes about only when mindfulness is practiced. Pure observation without resistance and without any assumptions is the key.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:37 PM

      Vinaire: Resolution comes about only when mindfulness is practiced. Pure observation without resistance and without any assumptions is the key.

      Chris: And the “I” cannot be mindful as it is a part of the construct with which the mind identifies and identifies as itself. This is tricky ground and seems to be the fundamental mistake of Scientology which is to identify with the ego and to strengthen and crystalize that ego, become certain of that ego and to wrongly identify that ego as source of one’s experience when in fact it is no more than a filter through which to experience.

      • vinaire  On August 31, 2013 at 8:50 PM

        Who or what is the wrong question to ask. It is the thought that is thinking.

        Spacetime seems to be a very intriguing concept. There is no who or what that seems to apply to spacetime.

        .

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 7:34 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10343

    .

    Being mindful about consensus keeps one free from the loop of consensus that one may get stuck to.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:45 PM

      Consensus seems to be a “forced” abstraction which can never be truly valid. Consensus enforces a hope that an absolute can be arrived at because of recursive and self similar Nature. However, the identical same thing as the first thing never quite comes up – forever. It is like waiting at the slot machine for the three cherries to come up when in this model, they never will.

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:46 PM

      Vinaire: Being mindful about consensus keeps one free from the loop of consensus that one may get stuck to.

      Chris: Understanding the recursive and self-similarity of Nature is the key to this.

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 7:43 AM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10342

    .

    My best learning comes from investigating the basics of any subject without taking anything for granted. I compare those basics with my experience.

    I discard all consistencies and focus on the first inconsistency that I find. If that resolves quickly then I go to the next inconsistency. I do not move off an inconsistency until it resolves. I may go on looking around that inconsistency in wider circles, but I always come back to that inconsistency until it resolves.

    This is much deeper form of auditing.

    .

    • Chris Thompson  On August 31, 2013 at 8:48 PM

      Vin: This is much deeper form of auditing.

      Chris: When I finally gave myself permission to look, I discovered what you are saying to be true. Everyone should give themselves permission to look.

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 12:35 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10380 about the suggestion of time as a medium

    .

    I no longer think in terms of space as a medium, or time as a medium. I think in terms of spacetime as a medium.

    Space is sort of a matrix. Time is sort of a change or sequence of states. Spacetime is something bigger, which has space and time as subsets. The speed of light, acceleration and inertia are directly the characteristics of spacetime and not of any frame of reference within it.

    Planck’s constant shows the linear variation of Energy with frequency. The greater is the frequency, greater is the energy of the disturbance in space though the speed of disturbance remains the same. As energy is poured into the disturbance, the frequency increases and the wave-length shorten. Beyond a certain point the wavelength is so short that the modulations of electric and magnetic fields start to “stack up” on each other. This is like being accelerated or pushed beyond ‘c’. Additional energy poured beyond this limit seems to get stored as mass with the property of gravity.

    .

  • vinaire  On August 30, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    https://vinaire.me/2013/06/25/the-fifth-dimension/#comment-10330

    .

    There is an overall reality of which all the ‘I’s are a part. Then there is reality created by an ‘I’ for itself. This personal reality is different from the original reality. If the personal reality is inconsistent with the original reality then there are going to be consequences in the form of unreality and delusion.

    Now a consensus of many ‘I’s may try to substantiate a personal reality, such as, man never landed on the moon and it is all a conspiracy. To the degree this consensus reality is different from the original reality there would be a conflict. Two consensus realities may also be in conflict with each other. The solution would be not to worry about the original or absolute reality. Instead, get busy resolving one inconsistency after another using mindfulness. Sooner or later one would reach the original reality.

    .

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: