I refer to Evolution as Ententional, because it has a direction of progression toward some unknown future state. I can only guess what that "Omega Point" might be. (see Graph below) But, because Evolution is progressing in a zig-zag path via Hegelian dialectic, I assume that the end-point is not pre-destined, but only the parameters of success --- as in Evolutionary Programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_programming). It's just a guess. — Gnomon

This is more where I’m at - and I would interpret the ‘fitness function’ of the algorithm simply as maximal awareness, connection and collaboration.

Since G*D is presumed to exist infinitely and eternally, the "ALL" characterization includes all logical possibilities, but the "LOGOS" label prohibits "illogical possibilities. Yet, again, I'm just guessing. — Gnomon

But the ‘LOGOS’ label applies only at the level of potentiality, which ‘collapses’ the infinite and eternal possibility of G*D to five dimensions. It is at this point (in the ‘mind’) that all illogical possibilities are ignored, isolate or excluded from the eventual actuality of the universe, but not from G*D.

I think it’s important to recognise that G*D is inclusive of BOTH logical AND illogical possibilities, as well as BOTH love AND hate, and BOTH ‘good’ AND ‘evil’. This transcendent G*D is also immanent in my theory - which is not panENdeist, but understands this six-dimensional G*D as reality. The relationship with the world is ongoing, because the actual, measurable universe is simply a limited account of all possible information that IS G*D. The human capacity to relate to illogical possibilities and to all possibilities inclusive of ‘evil’ or ‘hate’, are crucial to the fitness function.

It is at this point (in the ‘mind’) that all illogical possibilities are ignored, isolate or excluded from the eventual actuality of the universe, but not from G*D. — Possibility

Of course, illogical concepts are possible in the dualistic state of Reality, but not in the unitary state of Ideality. Eternal LOGOS includes all logical possibilities, including negations, which offset to neutralize each other to Zero values. But space-time opens Pandora's Box to all kinds of illogical and irrational mentality.

Yes, the "fitness function" requires a choice (natural selection) between good & bad outcomes. All creatures make what seem to them at the time & place to be logical choices. But the veil of Time does not allow them to see the future consequences of those choices. So, they get the grade now (life or death) and the lesson later (ooops! bad choice). :cool:

This transcendent G*D is also immanent in my theory - which is not panENdeist, — Possibility

A non-personal deity who is both Transcendent and Immanent is, by definition, PanEnDeism.

Of course, illogical concepts are possible in the dualistic state of Reality, but not in the unitary state of Ideality. Eternal LOGOS includes all logical possibilities, including negations, which offset to neutralize each other to Zero values. But space-time opens Pandora's Box to all kinds of illogical and irrational mentality. — Gnomon

I don’t find this consistent with what you were saying here:

in my thesis, the next higher level above immanent EnFormAction is simply transcendent G*D. — Gnomon

and here:

Since the infinite potential of G*D is all possibilities, S/he is necessarily both Love & Hate, Good & Evil, Male & Female, Positive & Negative. Any comprehensive philosophical worldview, could be turned into a religion for the masses, only by choosing one side of the coin, and by taking its metaphors literally : "God is Love". Also, by turning the abstract deity into Santa Claus or Satan. — Gnomon

I’m a little confused by your use of ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and how they relate to G*D, enformaction and spacetime. Because I don’t recognise mentality as being IN spacetime, so I’m not sure how this ‘illogical and irrational mentality’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’ in spacetime, when it’s not possible ‘in the unitary state of Ideality’.

Describing this unity as ‘ideal’, as ‘including all logical possibilities’, implies an exclusion of anything illogical or less than ideal, which is then NOT unitary. As much as I respect and admire your efforts in putting all of this down, I guess I’m just not quite seeing how it all fits together. It seems to me like your BOTH/AND principle lacks the unity you think it does.

I’m a little confused by your use of ‘potential’ and ‘possible’, and how they relate to G*D, enformaction and spacetime. Because I don’t recognise mentality as being IN spacetime, so I’m not sure how this ‘illogical and irrational mentality’ suddenly becomes ‘possible’ in spacetime, when it’s not possible ‘in the unitary state of Ideality’. — Possibility

In my worldview, Enfernity (eternity-infinity) is completely neutral, because it's all possibilities at once --- positive and negative cancel out. Nothing happens in Enfernity, because there's nowhere to go, and no time to get there. This notion is equivalent to the Greek concept of Chaos. Enfernity is "Ideal" in the sense of Plato's Forms as timeless, absolute, unchangeable ideas, that are not real.

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine.

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors.


EnFormAction : analogous to Energy; the power to enform, to cause change; energy is just one form of Generic Information --- Mind is another.

Chaos : In ancient Greek creation myths Chaos was the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos. It literally means "emptiness", but can also refer to a random undefined unformed state that was changed into the orderly law-defined enformed Cosmos. In modern Cosmology, Chaos can represent the eternal/infinite state from which the Big Bang created space/time. In that sense of infinite Potential, it is an attribute of G*D, whose power of EnFormAction converts possibilities (Platonic Forms) into actualities (physical things).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again.
https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/2553858

Potential vs Possible : example --- Battery voltage is Potential electricity, not Actual electricity, because no energy is flowing. However, you could say that it's Possible for energy to flow, conditional upon a complete circuit. Enfernity is infinite Potential, but only in Space-Time is it Possible for that energy to flow. Space-Time is the complete circuit that allows the power of G*D to flow into the world and back again. — Gnomon

But it’s also possible for energy to flow between a potato and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. Which means that it’s also possible for energy to flow between a rice grain and a lightbulb - conditional upon a complete circuit. The difference between these three possibilities is the potential, which can only be considered infinite AS the absolute possibility of G*D. Potentiality in itself is limited by the perceived value of awareness, connection and collaboration - the function of metaphysical will. I used to believe that potentiality was infinite, but a more recent understanding of science suggests that the energy in any physical system - including quantum systems - is finite, although it may be beyond our capacity to measure.

Therefore, in order to convert an infinite pool of Possibility into finite Actuality, G*D must create a little pocket of space-time as a place for Change. And the tool for Change is EnFormAction, which can be imagined as the Will of God acting in the real world. So, in Enfernity, all things are possible, but nothing is actual. Yet the manifestation of EnFormAction transforms impotent Possibility into the world-changing Power of Energy, which ultimately changes (via evolution) mundane Matter into Mind, a spark of the divine. — Gnomon

Spacetime is a function of interrelated potential (EnFormAction), which is a function of the metaphysical will, which is a function of pure relation, which is a function of absolute possibility. Possibility - G*D, the source of potentiality itself - requires nothing to manifest (not transform into) this potentiality, only the relation, the idea, that anything it could possibly be matters, even if it only ever remains just a possibility.

Possibility relates as this love or pure relation to manifest potentiality, which relates as metaphysical will (awareness, connection and collaboration) to manifest particles, which relate as interaction to manifest material information. This is the origin of the universe: the beginning of information, of everything that matters. From here, all matter in the universe mostly stabilises into a relatively isolated ‘object’, some changes in relation to an interaction, and even rarely integrates into a system of more complex interrelated information, evolving as one dimensional atoms, two dimensional molecules, three dimensional chemical reactions, four dimensional life, and eventually into the rare, five dimensional human organism: with maximum capacity to interrelate across all six levels of information complexity, including the pure relation of G*D.

This is all very esoteric, and hypothetical, so I wouldn't worry too much about getting it right. This is not presented as absolute Truth, it's just my way of thinking about the unknowable in terms of metaphors. — Gnomon

I understand that, and I’m not suggesting that you’re necessarily ‘wrong’ - only that I think we have more information than this. I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses.

I guess I’m not willing to leave it as metaphor. I personally think the conceptualisation has more meat on it than that, and I think the ultimate aim is to develop it towards testable hypotheses. — Possibility

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile:

"According to physics, the most fundamental stuff of science is fields, not particles."

Sounds very untrue, but the topic is very interesting.

I know absolutely nothing about modern physics, and very little about acient physics. But I doubt that physics can change our modality of being, or can increase our undestanding about what is real or not. Reality is the most stable thing in our lives and since we are humans, there is a reality; and, in essence, the same and always the same.

The knowledge of what is real or not do not depend of science, but depends of human capacity to understand reality. Reality is an object of understanting, not a object of knowledge, according with Hegel. And that's is obvious, no?

Physics study some relations of reality, not reality itself.

Greentings.

Obs: if reality cannot be understood in itself, by our mind and by our judgment, it cannot be studied in his relations. It is more than obvious.

Notice how fields are different than old fashioned materialism.

If you look at equations of motion it is obvious there were never any particles.

The Standard Model lays out 13 fields which exist throughout the universe, oscillate and interact with one another to generate everything else.

I find it dubious to talk about 13 types of “meta-fields” when they all apparently converge and aggregate into only 3 fields: magnetic, electric, and gravitational, which then are sufficient to describe all objective phenomena that actually matters to us in the realm of our size scale of existence.

Do you think Possibility (G*D) directly intervenes in Reality (Actuality) in such a way that scientists can observe and test those cause & effect changes empirically? Are you talking about a miracle, or something else with "meat" on it? :smile: — Gnomon

No. ‘Cause and effect’ describes only relations in time - it doesn’t describe relations to 5D or 6D information. The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’: the function that determines and initiates action from relations of potentiality, limited by awareness, connection and collaboration. Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability, which accounts for a degree of uncertainty in the prediction. But this structure is limited to quantitative values of potentiality only.

I think that possibility is always the source of any relation. I remember David Bentley Hart once described the ‘personal’ nature of ‘God’ as that “He knows, loves and relates to us all”. For me, the relationship works the other way: it’s not a matter of looking for improbable possibilities or ‘miracles’ as proof of direct intervention with actuality by some all-knowing G*D, but rather for us to map the relational structures of increasing awareness, connection and collaboration that might then increase the probability or potential of an event we now observe as possible. The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality. It’s proof of a capacity to increase the level of awareness, connection and collaboration in relation to possibility (G*D).

I guess the ‘meat’ I’m referring to is our capacity to map more and more of these anomalous structural relations between 5D and 6D information. The more of these relations we’re aware of and can map, the more accurately we can determine not just the probabilities or potential but the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to this potential, and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’.

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence - rather than insisting on reducing the information further to ‘accurate’ empirical data - if we want to understand all of the universe as interrelated events, let alone as potentiality. The testing in frontier science these days is less empirical or observational, and more mathematical, as the SUAC (Shut Up and Calculate) expression in reference to quantum physics implies.

When we learn to recognise the potentiality wave calculations of quantum physics and the qualitative potential we perceive in our experience of the world as interrelated information about this 5D aspect of the universe, then we can work towards a more effective conceptualisation of reality: as an evolving awareness, connection and collaboration with potentiality in relation to absolute possibility.

The way I see it, ‘actuality’ refers to an awareness of 4D information only. ‘Cause and effect’ re-imagined as a 5D relation refers to ‘metaphysical will’: — Possibility

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping here, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change.

5D : A five-dimensional space is a space with five dimensions. If interpreted physically, that is one more than the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time used in relativistic physics.[1] It is an abstraction which occurs frequently in mathematics, where it is a legitimate construct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

Its relation to ‘cause and effect’ as we understand it is mathematically constructed as probability, — Possibility

Does that mean the Will of G*D is perfectly random, so "miraculous interventions" seem like accidents? I have a different explanation for why divine causation is not apparent in the world. The intentional goal of evolution is preset in the original Program, but the actual Path to the goal is heuristic, seeming like random trial & error. So, the only "miracle" is the creation of a real world (computer) to calculate the program in real-time.

The actuality of improbable possibility, what seems to be a ‘miracle’, is simply an event whose obvious possibility we have yet to map in relation to our current map of potentiality. — Possibility

Can you give me an example of a miracle that was inevitable, but seemed improbable because we are looking at the wrong map?

I think it won’t just be scientists who are going to have to rely more and more on probability calculations or potentiality maps as sufficient evidence — Possibility

If I experience an African elephant suddenly appearing in my living room, how can I calculate the probability of that occurrence to prove it was an act of G*D? How can non-mathematicians read a "potentiality map"? Will these maps draw direct lines between dimensions to show "as above, so below"? Will the Probability Map look like a Bell Curve, with a You-Are-Here arrow?

and then predict and plan actions that were once considered improbable, even ‘impossible’. — Possibility

They said it couldn't be done, but then I found this 5D map. Is that the kind of "meat" you're talking about? I'm having difficulty imagining all this within the limitations of my 4D mind.

I'm not well-informed on higher levels of abstract mathematics. Is this Fifth Dimension a conventional mathematical concept, or something you came up with yourself? You seem to think of 5D (probability??) as something like the Will of G*D, which sounds pretty far-out even for a String theorist. What's the Sixth Dimension : Divine Possibility? I'm grasping mere, but my own ideas sound far-fetched to most people who are not familiar with the fringes of Science. I have referred to my own notion of EnFormAction metaphorically, as the Will of G*D operating in the world to cause Change. — Gnomon

I wouldn’t refer to it as ‘the Will of G*D’, because a limited understanding of the two concepts doesn’t do justice to the complexity of the idea as I understand it. I use these terms here with you, because I think we are roughly on the same page as far as these concepts go. The common misunderstanding is that G*D is doing the ‘operating’ or ‘causing’ as something separate from ‘the world’ and from ‘change’, rather than the idea that G*D IS the possibility of operating, and the possibility of cause, and the possibility of the world, and the possibility of change. I guess I would more accurately translate this ‘Will of G*D operating in the world to cause change’ in my own understanding as ‘the faculty by which any possible action is determined and initiated through increased awareness, connection and collaboration’.

In Carlo Rovelli’s book ‘The Order of Time’, he refers to the relativity of time as a four-dimensional relation between variables known as ‘events’. Rather than tacking another dimension onto the three that we’re familiar with (the 3+1 view that refers to objects in relation to a universal ‘time’), he describes the entire universe as consisting of four-dimensional events in relation to an observer - who is themselves a four-dimensional event within this universe. So a more accurate understanding of ‘time’ from a physics perspective that is inclusive of quantum mechanics is how these 4D events change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to each event.

This acknowledges the irreducibility of the universe to 3+1 dimensions - but it also opens up the possibility of 4+1 dimensions. We verify three-dimensionality by correlating the changes in relation to our four-dimensionality (our movement in time). All animals do this, regardless of their level of consciousness. Don’t we also verify this four-dimensionality by correlating changes in relation to our five-dimensionality (our awareness of value/potential)? So if we follow this pattern, it is also possible to describe the universe as consisting of five-dimensional potentialities in relation to an experiencing subject - who is themselves a five-dimensional potentiality. I find this surprisingly consistent with the human self-conscious experience of the world, as distinguished from animals lacking self-conscious capacity. Then a more accurate understanding of reality - that is inclusive not just of quantum mechanics but of morality, emotion, language and other value-related experiences - may be how these 5D potentialities change in relation to each other: the ‘difference that makes a difference’ to potential.

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles. IMHO, it fails because it lacks an understanding that enables it to be inclusive of both quantitative and qualitative potentiality. It’s a limitation of awareness, connection and collaboration that excludes unquantifiable information in the irreducibility of a potential 5D structure. Just as ‘time’ is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to space, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of spacetime inclusive of all potential events, regardless of observation/measurement; so, too, potential or value is not a unified extra-dimensional variable in relation to spacetime, but rather an irreducible relation of variables that constitutes the overall structure of experience, inclusive of all possible experiencing subjects, regardless of awareness of potentiality.

Of course, it’s all speculation.

Of course, it’s all speculation. — Possibility

I have no problem with informed speculation. But some concrete or metaphorical examples, as requested in my previous post, would help me to understand your 5D/6D worldview, and your special interpretation of Possibility and Probability and Potentiality. Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to.

The 5D conceptual view of the universe explored by physicists looks precisely at attempting to unify the potentiality fields this thread tackles. — Possibility

Can you give me a link to a site that discusses the "5D conceptual view" in terms a layman can understand? Are "Potentiality fields" the same as Physical fields, like EMF, or something different?

Discussions of higher dimensions in terms of abstract mathematics gives me little personal experience to build a concept around. Einstein's notion of a 4D world is easy enough to imagine, by simply thinking of Time as a dimension. But I have no idea what the 11 dimensions of String Theory are referring to. — Gnomon

I don’t really follow String Theory, so the ‘folded’ dimensions it describes are not what I’m referring to here. My understanding of five and six dimensions is mostly intuitive, and it surprises me that I’ve yet to find an existing explanation that comes close. What follows is an attempt on my part, while trying to keep it brief. I guess I initially followed the ‘Flatland’ conceptualisation of dimensions, but I disagree with the ‘materialist’ assumption that each dimension must be imagined in relation to ‘space’. For me, dimensional existence is about awareness and information - not an imagined mathematical extension of space. Even though six-dimensional possibility is necessary for the existence of the universe, that existence begins at zero.

We think about the concept of zero dimensions in mathematics as a point in space, but technically a universe of zero dimension only exists in possibility. Any possibility in relation to a universe of zero dimension must come from beyond that ‘point’, necessitating a universe of at least one dimension, consisting of the possible point and its possible relation. A one-dimensional universe allows for a distinction between possible points - but what manifests is potentiality (not two actual points in space). As these points of possibility relate, they manifest a variety of distinctions as quantum particles, or potentiality. A universe of two dimensions then allows for distinctions to manifest between these one-dimensional particles - still not in space, though. As quantum particles relate, they manifest their differentiated potential in two-dimensional or atomic relations (actual matter in motion) - with the information of differentiated potential energy in quantum particles recognised in their relative distance from the nucleus.

It’s difficult not to think of this one dimensional ‘distance’ as located in space, but there is no awareness of direction, space or time. Nevertheless, we imagine this energy manifesting as a ‘Big Bang’, as particles suddenly differentiating themselves in all possible directions of an expanding spacetime, creating the material universe and the start of ‘time’. In the two-dimensional universe of atomic relations, however, it’s important to understand that quantum particles aren’t rotating around a nucleus in space, but are simply at a certain ‘distance’ in relation to that nucleus. It isn’t until some particle relations ‘collide’ with other atoms (a relation of outer electrons being equidistant from two or more nuclei) that energy creates action, and the shape of a three-dimensional universe starts to come into focus in relation to existence.

A universe of three dimensions allows for distinction between two-dimensional relations, manifesting molecular or chemical relations as these atomic relations interact: information consisting of direction or change in relation to distance/potential energy. Shapes, actions, noises, smells, textures and colours, etc manifest without much more than a vague awareness of them. A universe of four dimensions allows for distinction between three-dimensional relations, manifesting as molecular and/or chemical systems of differentiated complexity: information consisting of action, shape or chemical qualities in relation to distance/potential energy. Life develops at this level, directing energy into manifesting its own direction or change to alter its relative distance/potential energy - changing direction towards/away from chemical gradients, for instance.

You’ll notice that every relation always relates back to this one-dimensional, non-spatial ‘distance’, the differentiated potential energy from all possible relations in the universe. The error we make in materialist interpretations is in assuming this ‘distance’ is spatial or at least quantifiable, simply because that’s how we tend to perceive it manifested in relation to the universe. It is better described as ‘perceived potential’.

So if we continue in the same vein, a universe of five dimensions allows for distinction between four-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed and significant experiences: information consisting of differentiated ‘objects’ or environmental conditions with velocity, duration, space or complexity as well as texture, taste, colour, scent and sound in relation to this ‘perceived potential’. Life at this level of consciousness also directs energy into manifesting its own action, shape, sound, taste or scent (response) to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating movement towards/away from senses, shapes or actions, attacking, evading, or directing energy towards effecting a particular sensory effect, shape or action in the world.

The way I see it, a universe of six dimensions allows for distinction between five-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed conceptual systems or ‘meaning’: information consisting of differentiated qualitative and quantitative experiences in relation to distance or perceived potential. Life at this human level directs energy into manifesting its own experiences to alter its relative distance or perceived potential - initiating causal conditions that contribute to or change particular events, or directing collaborative energy in anticipation of achieving or avoiding objects or environmental conditions.

While I don’t believe there is any limitation to possibility (when we recognise the distinction between possibility and potentiality), I don’t think we could ever be certain that a seventh (or any subsequent) dimension does not exist, and acting as if it does (even if we simply refer to it as G*D) could help to broaden our understanding of this sixth dimension. We can attempt to unify an overall structure of possible ‘meaning’ by exploring how our own conceptual systems in relation to distance or perceived potential (that we manifest in meaningful expression) relate to differentiated meaning that others express. We can also direct energy into changing our conceptual systems in order to alter the relative distance or perceived potential in how we relate at every other level, or even change how we perceive this distance or potential (through imagination, for instance) in order to alter our conceptual systems. I think we do this anyway, we’re just unaware of how these efforts help create a sense of relative meaning or purpose.

Any possibility in relation to a universe of zero dimension must come from beyond that ‘point’, necessitating a universe of at least one dimension, consisting of the possible point and its possible relation. — Possibility

This is not a necessary conclusion. There could be a dimensionless reality, actuality which validates the dimensionless possibilities which has relations not describable in terms of dimension. This is what dualism gives us, the basis for a dimensionless reality, the principles required to describe actual existence with principles not derived from spatial representations (dimension).

n the two-dimensional universe of atomic relations, however, it’s important to understand that quantum particles aren’t rotating around a nucleus in space, but are simply at a certain ‘distance’ in relation to that nucleus. — Possibility

These locations, and 'distances' are not actual distances, they are possible. So this dimensional (spatial) representation is inadequate because it cannot provide an actual spatial representation, only possible locations. For an actual representation we need to turn to the dimensionless actuality (granted to us by dualism) and determine the actuality which underlies the dimensional representation of possibilities.

The error we make in materialist interpretations is in assuming this ‘distance’ is spatial or at least quantifiable, simply because that’s how we tend to perceive it manifested in relation to the universe. It is better described as ‘perceived potential’. — Possibility

Yes, the monist materialism presents us with this problem; we cannot understand any reality in terms other than spatial. That is why we must accept the precepts granted by dualism, and move toward recognizing the actuality which exists on the other side of the "perceived potential", as a true non-spatial existence.

So if we continue in the same vein, a universe of five dimensions allows for distinction between four-dimensional relations, manifesting as detailed and significant experiences: information consisting of differentiated ‘objects’ or environmental conditions with velocity, duration, space or complexity as well as texture, taste, colour, scent and sound in relation to this ‘perceived potential’. — Possibility

This is a move in the wrong direction though. You have described the non-spatial, zero dimensional, then you move to represent this as a fifth dimension. How is that consistent? Instead of proposing that we represent the non-dimensional as it is described, as non-spatial, you apply a spatial principle "dimension", and try to represent it that way, as a fifth dimension.

This is not a necessary conclusion. There could be a dimensionless reality, actuality which validates the dimensionless possibilities which has relations not describable in terms of dimension. This is what dualism gives us, the basis for a dimensionless reality, the principles required to describe actual existence with principles not derived from spatial representations (dimension). — Metaphysician Undercover

Dimensions are not necessarily ‘spatial’ representations, but are defined as aspects of reality, of which actuality only accounts for four, at best. So I’m not sure what you think dualism answers here, except to reduce reality to only two aspects, with no viable explanation for how they interact. What you refer to as ‘dimensionless’ reality is, for me, at least two non-spatial aspects of reality that extend beyond what you refer to as ‘actuality’.

These locations, and 'distances' are not actual distances, they are possible. So this dimensional (spatial) representation is inadequate because it cannot provide an actual spatial representation, only possible locations. For an actual representation we need to turn to the dimensionless actuality (granted to us by dualism) and determine the actuality which underlies the dimensional representation of possibilities. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, they’re potential distances - I never said they were actual. There is no actual representation of an electron - it’s a quantum particle. There is only relative ‘distance’ from the nucleus (represented as a calculation of potential energy) or the probability wave calculation that represents its potential two-dimensional location relative to the nucleus: either relative velocity (direction in relation to potential energy) or relative position (direction in relation to distance). I have a feeling we’re referring to the same thing here, though.

Yes, the monist materialism presents us with this problem; we cannot understand any reality in terms other than spatial. That is why we must accept the precepts granted by dualism, and move toward recognizing the actuality which exists on the other side of the "perceived potential", as a true non-spatial existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I don’t believe we must accept dualism, although I agree that monist materialism IS problematic.

‘Dimension’ is not a spatial representation but an aspect of reality. Each aspect is relational, regardless whether it pertains to our understanding of three-dimensional ‘space’ or not, and what you call ‘non-spatial existence’ refers to not one but two of six aspects of reality. The first aspect is possible awareness or existence, the second is relative distance or potential energy; the third is relative shape, action or chemical qualities; and the fourth is relative space, velocity, duration, complexity or sensory qualities. The fifth aspect of reality is the relative perception of value, significance or potentiality, including ‘qualia’ and conceptual relations. And the sixth aspect of reality is pure relation, meaning or possibility.

This is a move in the wrong direction though. You have described the non-spatial, zero dimensional, then you move to represent this as a fifth dimension. How is that consistent? Instead of proposing that we represent the non-dimensional as it is described, as non-spatial, you apply a spatial principle "dimension", and try to represent it that way, as a fifth dimension. — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstand me, and hopefully my explanations above have clarified my position a bit more. Your misunderstanding seems to come from this dualist assumption that there are only two aspects of reality: spatial/non-spatial, dimensional/dimensionless, actual/potential - as well as defining ‘dimension’ as necessarily spatial. I have used ‘aspect’ in place of ‘dimension’ below, in the hope of clarifying my argument.

The terms ‘potential/potentiality’ and ‘possible/possibility’ demonstrate a necessarily ‘circular’ structure to these six relational aspects of reality, from which the universe evolved. The first aspect of reality - possible awareness and existence - is not the understanding, awareness or knowledge of what possibility IS. It’s only the possibility of existence. The sixth aspect refers to an awareness of possibility itself. Likewise the second aspect is not an understanding, awareness or knowledge of what potential energy is. That’s just its potential for existence. The fifth aspect of reality is an awareness of this potential in the world around us.

Dimensions are not necessarily ‘spatial’ representations, but are defined as aspects of reality, of which actuality only accounts for four, at best. So I’m not sure what you think dualism answers here, except to reduce reality to only two aspects, with no viable explanation for how they interact. What you refer to as ‘dimensionless’ reality is, for me, at least two non-spatial aspects of reality that extend beyond what you refer to as ‘actuality’. — Possibility

Right, the more we can reduce the need for a huge multitude of aspects of reality, in our descriptions, the less complicated and easier it is to understand. Dualism actually provides a comprehensive explanation of how the two aspects interact, so that assertion, that dualism has no viable explanation for how the two interact is just a monist straw man. You'll notice that Plato introduced a third factor with his "tripartite soul", to account for interaction. The third thing is not really a distinct aspect though, it is the mixing, or interacting of the two aspects, so "dualism" remains as the appropriate term.

So, for example what's the point to positing "at least two non-spatial aspects of reality"? If the spatial aspect of reality is described as three dimensional, this does not mean that there are three distinct aspects of spatial existence. it's just how we draw things, as three dimensional. We're much further along, in our efforts toward understanding if we simply look at spatial existence as one aspect of reality, and non-spatial as another.

The first aspect is possible awareness or existence, the second is relative distance or potential energy; the third is relative shape, action or chemical qualities; and the fourth is relative space, velocity, duration, complexity or sensory qualities. The fifth aspect of reality is the relative perception of value, significance or potentiality, including ‘qualia’ and conceptual relations. And the sixth aspect of reality is pure relation, meaning or possibility. — Possibility

See here for instance, why don't you combine #2 with #4? I see no reason to separate "relative distance" from "relative space". And, since #6 is "pure relation", why not class all the other "relatives", #2, #3, #4, and #5, in with #6. This simplifies things, leaving us with the possibility of awareness #1, and relations #6. Everything can be reduced to these two categories.

I agree that understanding the universe as awareness and relation is ideal, but the fact is that the universe consists of relations and awareness that are limited to certain levels. Awareness of what level these relations are at helps us to make the most of our connections and collaboration.

I can relate to an acorn and be aware of its diverse possibilities, but I can’t force that acorn to relate to much more than the relative shape, action and chemical qualities of its interaction with the world, let alone be aware of much more than a vague distinction of some kind of potential as it interacts. I can’t ever expect it to be aware of its own potentiality to become food or oak tree - but I am aware of my own potential to reduce its possibility through awareness, connection and collaboration with others in relation to the acorn as a particular level of awareness and relations.

My six-dimensional ‘structure’ follows on from Rovelli’s description of the universe as interrelated events: a four-dimensional structure that does away with the 3+1 understanding of spacetime which continues to hamstring much of modern physics. It’s still useful at times to interact with the world according to classical physics, but it’s important to acknowledge that it isn’t as accurate as we once thought.

Recognising this irreducibility of reality also enables us to more accurately understand the origin of space, life and consciousness as they have evolved in the universe. Six-dimensional relation refers to a highly complex relational ‘structure’ in the conceptual sense. I find it more comprehensive to refer to this structure in terms of relations evolving at various dimensional levels, especially when trying to understand how abiogenesis or consciousness evolved. Until we can all conceptualise a relational structure of six-dimensional complexity, it make sense to ‘scaffold’ this complexity of reality in a way that is manageable as well as navigable. I find dual aspect reality too simplified to illustrate how neatly it all evolves and continually interrelates. It lacks a unifying navigability - but that’s just my understanding of it.