# May 17, 2014: This essay is superseded by KHTK Postulates for Metaphysics – Part 1

.

.

.

#### [For further details, please see: KHTK Research]

.

• vinaire  On October 4, 2013 at 7:46 AM

This is a strange axiom. There is motion as well as no motion because there is no measure. The only underlying idea is that of uniformity or consistency. But even that doesn’t express it well.

This axiom sucks you like a whirlpool deeper and deeper into a state where one is neither conscious nor unconscious.

Have fun with it. 🙂

.

• vinaire  On October 4, 2013 at 7:48 AM

But the starting point of reality as uniform motion will do quite well.

.

• vinaire  On October 5, 2013 at 6:11 AM

When there is only one object there are no dimensions of space beyond it. Any dimensions are within the object only. There may be awareness of self and of endurance by that object – This is the case when we consider the universe as “all that exists.”

When there are only two objects, there is only one-dimensional space along the line joining the two objects. Space may be projected beyond those two objects but only along the line joining them. There may be awareness that belongs to that system of two objects. That awareness may take the viewpoint of one object or that of the other object.

When there is no relative motion between the two objects, they act as the previous case of a single object.

When there is relative motion between the two objects, we have one-dimensional space and relative duration of that one-dimensional configuration.

The same consideration applies when there are three objects. When in relative motion, they produce a two-dimensional space and relative duration of two-dimensional configurations.

The same consideration applies when there are four objects. When in relative motion, they produce a three-dimensional space and relative duration of three-dimensional configurations.

When there are more than four objects, no new dimensions of space are created. That is simply the way it is. That is the property of awareness.

I believe that the property of awareness lies within that system of objects themselves. It is the system of one, two, three, four and more objects that determines the type of awareness that is there. Space is the “type” of awareness. Time is the endurance of that awareness.

The environment that has generated our awareness consists of infinite number of objects. It appears that beyond the three concrete dimensions, the subsequent dimensions are in terms of interaction among those three dimensions, such as, color, temperature, etc.

Thus, dimensions seem to be a property of the system in terms of awareness. The dimensions cannot be separated either from the system or from awareness. Both the system and its awareness go hand in hand.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM

Vinaire: Space is the “type” of awareness. Time is the endurance of that awareness.

Chris: I want to encourage you along this line of thought as it seems to me to be closer to what is really is there than other philosophical lines of thought that I have been looking at. It is elegantly simple.

• vinaire  On October 5, 2013 at 7:35 AM

Thanks. I needed that. 🙂

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 5, 2013 at 7:46 AM

The work that you are doing is very close to my heart.

• Chris Thompson  On October 5, 2013 at 7:31 AM

Vinaire: It appears that beyond the three concrete dimensions, the subsequent dimensions are in terms of interaction among those three dimensions, such as, color, temperature, etc.

Chris: Yes, let the complexity begin. I am reminded of a previous discussion when the question was posed whether there was any “quality” such as color or even beauty which could not be expressed as a “quantity.” We seem to be able to express descriptions of disturbances in space-time in terms of quantity.

• vinaire  On October 5, 2013 at 9:39 PM

Correct!

• Chris Thompson  On October 5, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Time seems to be inextricably connected to space. Conversely, space is inextricably connected to time, therefore we have space-time.

We perceive a universe which is in motion and at its basis, that motion seems to be inextricably discrete.

At their basis, objects such as disturbances seem to appear and disappear. There seems to be a probability of 1:2 that a disturbance will be or not be found or possibly “present” when we look for it.

There seems to Max Planck to be a basic moment of time. Therefore a basic moment of space-time. I say this because at its basis, the “velocity of any motion” seems to be inextricably expressed in quantum jumps per basic moment.

And it is my opinion that Heisenberg’s uncertainty is rooted in the “fact” that the most basic velocity of any space-time object is the range of “zero” or possibly “one” quantum jump per moment. This is the most basic “packet” of space-time.

Relativity seems to be the relation of one moment to the next. Therefore, without relativity, the most basic velocity is zero. Possibly, this is the uniform motion you’ve been writing about?

• vinaire  On October 5, 2013 at 9:47 PM

Existence is in terms of form (space), and endurance of that form (time). Any motion is within the universe of “all that exists”. We cannot tell if this universe itself has any motion because there is nothing external to it to compare its motion to.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Well it is indisputable that the objects within the universe are in motion. If and when we discover an envelope to the current universe, at that time we will redefine what occurs outside that envelope as also being within the universe.

A deeper question is, ” At its basis, what is motion?”

Another is, “When particles appear and then disappear, do they ever reappear in the same place?” For me, it would be my conjecture that they do not.

• Chris Thompson  On October 5, 2013 at 7:53 AM

This basic “existence vs. nonexistence,” plus the continuous “motion” of the universe, plus the similarity but not identicality of one moment to the next seems to coincide with what can be described by fractal iterations. Each moment seems to be recursive and self-similar, but not identical.

• vinaire  On October 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM

All I see is the universe as a huge cycle, and then there are cycle within cycles within cycles ad infinitum.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 6, 2013 at 4:48 PM

All we need (haha) is an engine to drive the appearance and disappearance of particles and we would be quite a bit of the way there.

• vinaire  On October 8, 2013 at 9:35 PM

I have been struggling with KHTK Axiom #1, and have revised the OP once again.

Relative motion seems to be more fundamental to uniform and non-uniform motion, which can be taken up later. Most basic consideration seems to be the relativity of motion, without which there seem to be no awareness either.

What is that frame of reference in Einstein’s theory of relativity? How is it tied to awareness? How come no attention is given to awareness in the Theory of Relativity? Awareness seems to have been taken for granted by Einstein.

Hubbard also takes awareness for granted as something residing in Cause. But cause and effect are abstractions gleaned from associations observed among events. Awareness seems to be still more basic.

It appears that the fundamentals of awareness have not be researched scientifically.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 8, 2013 at 11:06 PM

Vinaire: Most basic consideration seems to be the relativity of motion, without which there is no awareness either.

Chris: To me this is among the rawest ideas yet. Please continue.

• vinaire  On October 9, 2013 at 5:46 AM

Axiom #2 appears to be as follows:

Awareness is relative motion. Relative motion is awareness.

1. An object is not only something physical, such as, a chair, Mozart’s music, or sensation. An object can also be something mental, such as a thought, emotion, or impulse.

2. An object appears in awareness because there is relative motion.

3. The object disappears from awareness when there is no relative motion.

4. For an object to stay in awareness, it has to consist of relative motion.

.

• vinaire  On October 9, 2013 at 5:48 AM

Awareness is some sort of a “potential difference” then. It can have a “voltage” associated with it.

.

• vinaire  On October 9, 2013 at 12:31 PM

In this universe there is no absolute static. I completely disagree with Hubbards Axiom 1. Things in this universe are always moving and changing. To view something as it is, one does not have to put it in a freeze. One views it moving and changing but without any filters, such as, colored glasses, biases, assumptions, speculations, etc.

.

• vinaire  On October 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Hubbard’s concept of cause-point or thetan started out as an unknown in the equation of life as stated by him in DMSMH. In my view, that concept is still an unknown. Thetan is not much different from the concept of soul in Christianity. Such a concept is just a placeholder for much that is not understood about life.

I see this universe as a system. Life is the activity within this system. Things like attention, intention, purpose, etc. are all filters that are also part of this system. They all color and. manipulate what is perceived. I wonder what will one perceive without the filters of attention, intention, purpose!

.

• vinaire  On October 13, 2013 at 3:56 PM

I have added a view from physics to KHTK Axiom #1.

.

• vinaire  On October 17, 2013 at 6:01 AM

KHTK Axiom #1 is now revised:

It was:

KHTK Axiom #1: There is neither absolute static, nor absolute kinetic. The only “absolute” is uniform motion.

.
It is now:

KHTK Axiom #1: There is neither absolute static, nor absolute kinetic. The absolute motion cannot be determined.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 20, 2013 at 11:03 PM

Possibly the absolute motion is zero.

There may be a process at work which in our minds we abstract as motion. However, upon looking closer there may only exist at that closer look — appearance and disappearance — instantly. This may be the reason for Heisenberg’s uncertainty. When ultimately we spot a moving object’s position in space precisely, its velocity may be zero.

Possibly the appearance and disappearance is an oscillation as Einstein suggested — the way a computer’s clock oscillates. Sadly we do not have the instrumentation to ascertain this yet but we can still look with our minds and conjecture toward more consistent theories until our technology catches up to our science fiction.

• vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 5:26 AM

How do you define zero?

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 21, 2013 at 8:43 AM

Possibly what I am misnomering as zero is the absent or opposite vector of an alternating oscillation. Thus what appears we might refer to as plus and what disappears might be referred to as a minus, blank, absence from observation, thus misnomered as zero. I am not referring to an unknowable.

• vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 12:10 PM

When there is no relative motion there is no awareness either. What we are not aware of we don’t know. We may only speculate.

.

• Chris Thompson  On October 21, 2013 at 8:15 PM

I need to finish my essay on time to fill my missing thoughts here. My conjectures are simply that we are hardly mindful at all. That there is PLENTY of time at all times and that in concert with your relative motion conjecture about awareness, our human awareness is only barely and briefly present at all times within that time. What we don’t know, what we are not aware of is almost everything.

It seems that our own attention and focus, through practice, can be improved upon something like the other machines such as the Hubble Telescope has been built as an improvement for sky gazing. It seems that there is such as thing as improvement of focus and of knowledge. Possibly as the beings that we are dissolve and disappear, we leave behind tools for others to build upon.

• vinaire  On October 20, 2013 at 7:26 PM

A frame of reference can’t be nothing. So it must be something. That means it must be a body.

• vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 6:03 AM

The force of Newton’s First Law of Motion must be part of some feedback loop if the whole system is considered.

• vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 6:25 AM

Motion cannot be determined in an absolute sense. That is why Quantum Mechanics talks about motion in terms of probabilities. This is the same as talking about motion in relative terms.

• Chris Thompson  On October 21, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Yes relative and possibly discretely.

• Chris Thompson  On October 21, 2013 at 8:46 AM

As in discrete bits of appearance and disappearance, thus probability of occurring and occurring where.

• vinaire  On October 21, 2013 at 6:26 AM

Quantum Probability = Relativity

.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 6:25 AM

Another look at Scientology Axiom #1:

SCIENTOLOGY AXIOM # 1: LIFE IS BASICALLY A STATIC.

Definition: a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.

(1) life = the general or universal condition of human existence.
(2) static = pertaining to or characterized by a fixed or stationary condition.
(3) static (Scientology) = Theta that can be the property or beingness of any individual and it is individualistic for each individual
(3) A Static = A thetan = “unmoved mover” (see Wikipedia) at the level of individuality.
(4) Experientally, awareness of static is relative only. There is no absolute static.
(5) Thus, static is not separate from the kinetic of MEST. It is the same thing viewed differently.
(6) MEST is not produced by THETA as assumed in Scientology.
(7) Both THETA and MEST are aspects of existence.

.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 6:47 AM

Some quotes provided by Valkov:

“Time and space are not conditions of existence, time and space is a model for thinking” Einstein.

“What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning” Heisenberg.

“What we see depends on the theories we use to interpret our observations” Goswami.

Not only does beauty lie in the eye of the beholder but the meaning, relevance and value of everything. The human perspective, whether defined in terms of a frame of reference, a paradigm, a point of view or opinion is a mindset construct.

“It is in the nature of human beings to bend information in the direction of desired conclusions”. John Naisbitt.

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world”. Einstein.

“Things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it”. Marcelo Gleiser.

• vinaire  On November 2, 2013 at 6:59 AM

A Scientology BT (body thetan) is probably am inconsistency that one is trying to resolve.

.