Flippant? There’s an understatement. I don’t think you’re sorry at all. There’s no point in having a discussion with you, if you’re going to ignore and misrepresent everything I’ve attempted to explain by carrying on about the occult, superpowers and magic. More strawmen...

but if it’s your attempt to come across as knowledgeable on the subject of dimensions, then I’ll just applaud you and be done with it.
— Possibility
So, is this a kiss-off? — Gnomon

I’ll take that as confirmation of your intent.

There’s no point in having a discussion with you, — Possibility

I agree. From our exchanges on this thread, I gather that your non-spatial dimensions are devoid of content. Hence nothing for a meaningful discussion to build on. And a waste of fourth dimension Time. :yum:

I don’t think you’re sorry at all. — Possibility

Sorry. I've changed my mind. I will waste a bit more of my Time dimension on this off-topic digression --- for my own edification.

I'm currently reading a Kindle book by Bernardo Kastrup, More Than Allegory. It's talking about the "transcendent" realm that is revealed in religious myths and mystical visions. "These are transcendent truths, for they escape the boundaries of logic, time, and space. . . . Where the intellect stops intuition picks up. We can sense truth even if we cannot articulate it in words . . . Unreliable as this sense may be, it is our only link to a broader reality." I've just begun to read the book, so I'll reserve judgement til I can see where he's going with this.

Although he doesn't use the actual word "dimension" to describe the mythical & mystical transcendent realm --- presumably above & beyond the sensible boundaries of the four-dimensional space-time universe --- some of his other terminology reminded me of this thread. Since I couldn't get any direct answers from Possibility about the nature of those postulated multi-dimensions in our off-topic discussions, I'm assuming the vague evasive answers indicate that they are knowable only by Intuition rather than Reason. Although Kastrup is a computer scientist, and presumably uses Reason in his mundane work, when discussing Transcendence, he calls Reason the "obfuscated mind". So, he asks about Intuition, "what can it know about nature that the intellect cannot?" He explains that intuition works with emotional Symbols, not rational Facts.

After raising some perennial philosophical questions, he says "the possibility that presents itself to us is that our neglected obfuscated mind . . . could offer us answers". Later, he makes an ambiguous statement : "although this transcendent view is not literally true, it is potentially truer than anything our intellects could possibly come up with." Are our metaphors & allegories & myths somehow more real & true & meaningful than the mundane facts of science & reason? That seems to be the point of Kastrup's book. If so, how do we discern Truth from Error among the thousands of myths in the world. Is Truth whatever feels good? As Joseph Campbell said, "follow your bliss!" If so, Islamic terrorists believe they are following their bliss to Allah's Paradise, while non-Islamists think the murderers and rapists are taking a short-cut to Jehovah's Hell.

At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds?

As a recovering Fundamentalist Christian, I no longer take assurances of invisible or transcendent domains on faith. But, based on my Enformationism worldview, I have concluded there must be One Transcendent "dimension" : Enfernity (Infinity & Eternity), which is timeless, spaceless , and dimensionless. Hence, as Kastrup said, it's beyond "the boundaries of logic, time, and space." Which is why I make no claims to know anything about that completely abstract non-reality. We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation. And nothing we say about it is literally true. :cool:

Referent : the thing that a word or phrase denotes or stands for.

Bad Faith : acting inauthentically

Dimension : a measurable extent of some kind, such as length, breadth, depth, or height.
How do we measure non-spatial dimensions --- with feelings? Do we know them with spiritual eyes?

Because you blatantly dismiss anything I attempt to put into my own words, I’ll start with some quotes from the Wikipedia entry on ‘Measurement’:

Information theory recognises that all data are inexact and statistical in nature. Thus the definition of measurement is: "A set of observations that reduce uncertainty where the result is expressed as a quantity." This definition is implied in what scientists actually do when they measure something and report both the mean and statistics of the measurements. In practical terms, one begins with an initial guess as to the expected value of a quantity, and then, using various methods and instruments, reduces the uncertainty in the value. Note that in this view...all measurements are uncertain, so instead of assigning one value, a range of values is assigned to a measurement. This also implies that there is not a clear or neat distinction between estimation and measurement.

In quantum mechanics, a measurement is an action that determines a particular property (position, momentum, energy, etc.) of a quantum system. Before a measurement is made, a quantum system is simultaneously described by all values in a range of possible values, where the probability of measuring each value is determined by the wavefunction of the system. When a measurement is performed, the wavefunction of the quantum system "collapses" to a single, definite value.

Qualitative (rather than quantitative) measurement looks for patterns in non-numerical data, allowing the brain to construct concepts such as colour, taste, emotion, etc. The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems.

The way I see it, it’s the way these concepts are structured from uncertain quantitative and qualitative data according to ranges of possible and expected values, reducing to this dual ‘wavefunction’ of affect in each organism and relating to other quantum systems without ‘collapse’, that together constitutes what I refer to as the fifth dimensional aspect of reality. It is the qualitative part of this that lacks explanation - partly because our understanding of dimensions has always been described only in relation to spatial and quantitative data. There is nothing necessarily ‘mystical’ about this dimension, just a whole lot of uncertainty and speculation, based not on faith but on information theory, quantum mechanics and neuroscience, as well as philosophy, metaphysics and subjective experience. It’s an interpretation, sure - but one that isn’t content with expression as unexplained metaphorical relations and deism. Still, each to their own, I suppose.

As for Kastrup, his book sounds interesting, and relevant to a discussion I’m having with Congau on a thread I created regarding the notion of ‘objective truth’ sans certainty. I may need to read it after I finish with Deacon’s book. I personally tend not to refer to ‘mystical and transcendent realms’ because it gets difficult to keep the discussion coming back to empirical reality. When discussing intuition and emotional symbols in relation to reason, I think it helps to also understand the relation of emotional concepts to current work in neuroscience, which is where Lisa Feldman Barrett’s book may once again prove informative, without getting too technical.

At the beginning of this thread, I took the posts of Possibility seriously, assuming that the invisible transcendent dimensions referred to, would eventually be related back to the visible mundane world of physical senses, and the "obfuscated mind". But eventually, I began to wonder if I was being punked. Whenever, I requested specific information, all I got was assurances that the vaguely defined Higher Dimensions actually exist in some sense. But I remain none the wiser for all my efforts to understand what the mysterious Referent of "Higher Dimensions" might be. Is that failure due to my bad faith or to that of the proponents of invisible parallel worlds? — Gnomon

Can I just clear up that I have made no reference to ‘invisible parallel worlds’ (they’re your words), and that I have continually referred back to empirical reality, but apparently not in a manner that satisfies you, although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind - you just ignore my explanations, or dismiss references to dimensions in relation to quantum mechanics as ‘uninteresting’ for you. I get the sense that you’re after a neatly packaged expression you can critique without understanding anything about how it relates to science, or that you can borrow from heavily in terms of neologisms and metaphorical language (again, without understanding the analogy behind it) to bolster the credibility of this belief system you’ve concocted. I can’t help you there (or maybe I won’t, I’m not entirely sure).

IMHO, I’m not convinced that your ‘conclusion’ is based on reason in your case (not that you’re not capable of it, just that you haven’t applied it yourself), but on expressions of reasoning described by others, their words taken as gospel. I think that you have intuitively accepted their reasoning as sound without attempting to understand why, which is probably why you struggle to engage in any critical analysis of the theories your belief system is based on. I’m thinking your recovery from fundamentalist Christianity is not yet complete - I’m challenging you to make a concerted effort to understand why their reasoning makes sense to you, and why it doesn’t make sense to other ‘reasonable’ people in the form you’ve presented. That’s all. You can continue to dismiss my efforts to be understood, but that won’t improve your argument in relation to your own ‘theory’ - or your edification, for that matter.

The way I see it, we continually structure, test and restructure this non-numerical data with uncertain quantitative data (as described above) in the mind, reducing into a dual ‘wavefunction’ - what we call a neural interoception of affect: a probabilistic prediction of effort (quantitative) and attention (qualitative) requirements for the organism, which then determines and initiates the observable/measurable actions (thoughts, words, movement, etc) of the quantum system (ie. the organism) in relation to other systems. — Possibility

I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).

Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin:


Wave Particle Duality : Bohr regarded the "duality paradox" as a fundamental or metaphysical fact of nature. A given kind of quantum object will exhibit sometimes wave, sometimes particle, character, in respectively different physical settings. He saw such duality as one aspect of the concept of complementarity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
[ Note : Complementarity is the essence of my BothAnd philosophy, but it's not derived from an understanding of the Schrödinger equation ]

Schrödinger equation :


Interoception : sensitivity to stimuli originating inside of the body
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interoception

Affect : touch the feelings of (someone); move emotionally.

Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.

although you won’t clarify in what way it fails to make sense in your mind — Possibility

As I said above about the concept of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity) "We can only discuss that imaginary concept in terms of metaphors & allegories, based on our sensory experience, and our rational evaluation." I need relatable metaphors for invisible abstractions. :joke:

I'm sorry if my thick skull frustrates you, but I still have no idea what you are talking about. Can you translate the quote above into words a non-specialist can understand? The technical terms bolded are not in my everyday vocabulary. Although I can look up the individual definitions, the whole sentence still doesn't mean much to me (me no Grok).

Are you saying that Quantum Uncertainty is "the fifth dimensional aspect of reality"? If so, what difference does that make to me? Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? :chin: — Gnomon

There’s no need to apologise for not understanding - the onus is on me to present it in a way that makes sense to you. To that end, I appreciate your genuine attempt to make sense of it - it helps me to see more clearly where my explanation is failing. Simply saying “it makes no sense to me” doesn’t help me improve.

The wavefunction of a quantum system is a mathematical equation that determines the probability of a property of the system having a particular measurement value: that is, the chances of an electron being in a particular position around the nucleus at a particular time, for instance, as a prediction of how to direct our efforts in ‘looking’ for that electron. We can’t actually observe an electron, so the only way to interact directly with it is to trust the probabilistic results of the calculation, and to determine any action based on that.

My view is that the human organism acts similar to a quantum system, determining all action based on trusting a probabilistic prediction (analogous to a wavefunction) not just of how to direct its efforts - in terms of quantitative energy relative to spacetime - but also how to direct its attention, as in qualitative awareness, connection and collaboration. Neuroscience refers to this dual-aspect prediction as affect, a structure of valence (positive-negative feeling) and arousal (high-low) in relation to an ongoing event of the organism ‘being’ in time. It’s often used to describe what’s left when we extract the quantitative prediction of effort - which can be verified by ‘math or logic’ - by which we determine and initiate action. But affect in neuroscience is inclusive of both qualitative and quantitative potential. The classic assumption is that the rational, logical mind battles to overcome the emotional, intuitive body. Neuroscience is finding, however, that this is a misunderstanding of how we operate, particularly in relation to emotion.

The term interoception refers to the fact that this prediction isn’t directly informed by external reality, but is based on an internally conceived reality (concepts) constructed from all past interactions. The brain, locked inside the skull, relies on only a relatively small amount of external stimuli, from sensory systems directed by the prediction itself on how, where and when to ‘look’, and interpreted eventually into affect, to verify or adjust this ongoing prediction in relation to external reality.

I think quantum uncertainty fairly closely describes the nature of five-dimensional reality, but it still fails to fully account for qualia in the existence and evolution of our universe.

Is it the "dimension" of Intuition? Do intuitive people, such as artists, have access to a source of information that is hidden from more rational folks? Do they "measure" that alternate "reality" in terms of feelings instead of math or logic? — Gnomon

It isn’t a matter of either/or in terms of feelings or intuition INSTEAD of math or logic, but rather BOTH/AND. It is the unique way we each construct our value systems based on past experiences, concepts, knowledge, beliefs, logic, language, etc that determines how we continually reduce all potential information to affect, which determines our thoughts, words and actions in time. Even those who consider themselves ‘more rational’ will act according to this dual measure of affect. It is the extent to which they struggle to integrate the aspect of valence (pleasant or unpleasant feeling) into their justification after the fact that defines them as ‘more rational folk’. The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation. It isn’t that they don’t apply logic and math, they just don’t really understand how they apply it to a predictive distribution of energy in space-time to determine their actions.

Having said that, there are many of us who at least vaguely recognise the duality of affect, even if we struggle to express it in relation to language or logic. Many artists, for instance, are adept at applying math and spatial logic to the canvas, but struggle with the language to identify it as such. Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information.

My view is that the human organism acts similar to a quantum system, determining all action based on trusting a probabilistic prediction (analogous to a wavefunction) not just of how to direct its efforts - in terms of quantitative energy relative to spacetime - but also how to direct its attention, as in qualitative awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

This quote sounds like it might be relevant to human consciousness. But the terminology is more appropriate for quantum theorists or neuroscientists. Could you break it down for me, with examples from our ordinary experience of knowing via Intuition or Reason? I can accept that our voluntary behaviors, our actions, are usually based on uncertain and incomplete information. They are instead, derived from intuitive judgments of relative values of the most favorable outcome (probabilities) of optional actions. In other words, we evaluate what little we know about a complex situation, in order to estimate which actions will result in the optimum Effect for me. That predicted, positive or negative, abstract Effect is felt as a visceral Affect (mediated by neurotransmitters such as dopamine).

Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.

Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.

Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke:


Intuition vs Reason : https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman-ebook/dp/B00555X8OA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1590345423&sr=8-14

Quick Decisions : https://theconversation.com/you-make-decisions-quicker-and-based-on-less-information-than-you-think-108460

Judgment Under Uncertainty : https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/topics/stats.htm

Intuitive (Bayesian) Statistics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitive_statistics

The information isn’t hidden from them, it’s dismissed by them as irrelevant, illogical, impossible, meaningless or simply uncertain. They don’t recognise how they apply feeling to a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. On the other hand, those who consider themselves more ‘intuitive’ tend to struggle with integrating the quantitative specifics of their actions into a later explanation. — Possibility

I doubt that the average person dismisses mundane Intuition as irrelevant. But they may not be aware that most of what they think of as Reasoning is actually Intuitive. Instead, the dismissal occurs when one man's intuition clashes with another's. For example, the 20th century mystic Gurdjieff once dissed his contemporary mystic Aleister Crowley, as "dirty inside". Since mystical revelations are subjective, they are internally (among believers) cohesive, but externally (in the objective unbelieving world) divisive.

In cases of clashing faiths, an ecumenical (Rational) approach to "the way" may be necessary to untangle the various "my ways" of intuitive mystics. That's why the Catholic Church typically ignored its mystics, until they became famous after death, and could then be conformed to the Catholic "way" by pigeon-holing them as "the saint of _____", and ignoring any teachings that deviated from official doctrine.

Mystics have always been associated with Occultism because their visions and revelations are inherently hidden from their non-mystic followers, who relied on their gurus as a source of "information" about transcendent realms. The "explanations" of their intuitions are typically idiosyncratic, and often incompatible with official (rational) church doctrine. So, the problem is, which transcendent authority do you believe : the Holy Roman Church, or the Holy Roller Mystic? Can intuition resolve that dilemma? Or is plodding Reason more likely to parse the true from the false? Some people trust their intuition more than their reasoning powers, but others have learned that intuition can lead them astray. Mystics, who sit on mountaintops, or live in cells, don't have to worry about making sense to unbelievers.

I assume that "predictive distribution of attention/awareness" is a long way of saying "intuition. And "integrating the quantitative specifics . . . into explanation" is another way of saying, to translate feelings & opinions into facts & reasons. :cool:

Mystic : one who believes in the spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect.

William James : A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.

Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.

George Gurdjieff : his method for awakening one's consciousness unites the methods of the fakir, monk and yogi, and thus he referred to it as the "Fourth Way".
[ presumably Jesus was the third way. And Lao Tse had a "Way" (Tao) of his own. ]

Likewise, many ‘rational folk’ have a strongly intuitive social sense, even though they’re vocally dismissive of feelings as valid information. — Possibility

Such antagonism arises primarily when objective scientific facts clash with subjective religious beliefs. For example, the Theory of Evolution seemed to turn divine miracles into mundane mechanics. So, Intelligent Design proponents counter-attacked the scientists by using their own weapon of Reason against them. Both sides in the ongoing debate have a "strongly intuitive social sense", but different opinions about what qualifies as "valid information". Christians and Muslims both have Intelligent Design arguments online, but they get their valid Information from different scriptures --- different revelations of "truths beyond intellect". Can intuition tell you which revelation is true, or would you prefer to roll the dice, or to laboriously reason through the evidence? :chin:

Note : The BothAnd philosophy is intended to reconcile the world's inter-social divisions by accepting the necessity, and validity, for both Intuition and Reason in human intercourse. But each side must "doubt a little of their own infallibility". ___Benjamin Franklin
https://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/pop_finalspeech.html


Reasoning vs Intuition : Many people regard Reasoning the opposite of Intuition. Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, a paranormal gift, a magical awarenessnot accessible for normal humans, or a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field.
https://thinkibility.com/2012/11/17/reasoning-versus-intuition/
[ Normal mundane Intuition is how most human thinking works. But magical, esoteric Intuition is a claim that must be taken on faith. So choose your prophet wisely, or your faith could lead you astray.]
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." 1 John 4:1

The problem with discussing this only in relation to ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’ is that we don’t really understand or agree on what these concepts are or how they operate objectively in relation to science. I cannot expect your experience of knowing ‘intuitively’ to be the same as mine, in the same way that there is no such thing as a universally recognised instance of ‘anger’.

The reason I refer to neuroscience and quantum mechanics to describe how mental processes relate to physical processes is because we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances instead of amorphous mental structures of pattern recognition that vary according to subjective past interactions. To switch from talking about physical processes to metaphysical processes as if they relate, without an understanding of how they relate, is an exercise in cognitive dissonance, often concealed behind unexplained metaphorical language. It’s fine to talk about intuition, reason and emotion as metaphysical concepts - just not in the same discussion as objectively measurable/observable action in spacetime. And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word.

Intuition gives us a quick overview of possible outcomes --- like watching a movie in fast forward --- from which we select what seems to be the best path to a desirable future state. Therefore, we "direct our attention" to that optimum path, and ignore the ones that seem to be less profitable. However, in some cases, the situation is so complex that Intuition is a poor guide to action. So, we slow down the movie and examine it frame-by-frame, by Reasoning, to see if we missed any important details that may affect the overall meaning of the movie.

Most human behavior is more or less successfully guided by Intuition, but our innate ability to judge probabilities (statistics) is poor. We tend to be more confident of our intuitions than is warranted. That's why modern scientists rely on computers to fact check their original estimates. Unfortunately, while computers are good at predicting Effects, they are poor at anticipating Affects (how it will make me feel). So, the method of Bayesian Statistics was developed to take advantage of human intuition for subjective affective evaluations.

Intuitive statistics were not derived from our understanding of quantum randomness, but of our self-correcting procedures to improve first guesses with more information. However, Rational computer statistics could, in theory, make use of wavefunction calculations to sharpen their ability to predict future states. I'm just riffing here. So this little diversion may have missed the point of the quote above. And I still don't know what it has to do with "five dimensional reality". :joke: — Gnomon

What you’re describing here - mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality. The ability to play with the timing of the ‘movie’, to isolate elements from their temporal and spatial context, and to consider them in terms of value and significance such as profit, desire, potentiality and future probability is how we interact with five dimensional aspects of reality. Some of these relations we have the luxury of processing in time through conscious thought, reasoning, critical introspection, imaginative simulation and abstract discussion. Others are limited by time, energy and attention constraints before action is required, and so they are often processed instantly and unconsciously according to existing conceptual structures that bypass or shortcut the thinking process.

Bayesian Statistics is a simplified description of the structural relation in which we continually adjust our conceptual structures (beliefs), and the resulting probabilistic predictions, according to new information. Like most maths and logic, the human brain was doing Bayesian statistics long before Bayes wrote down his formula to describe it. Similarly, quantum mechanics is just a way of describing the structural relations of what already occurs. Quantum physicists would agree that we don’t have to understand conceptually how it works or what it means in order for it to work, and for us to achieve things with it. Where intuitive statistics describe cognitive processes by which we can adjust and improve a probabilistic prediction, quantum mechanics can be seen to describe the process by which we convert that prediction into action. I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action.

The problem with discussing this only in relation to ‘intuition’ and ‘reason’ is that we don’t really understand or agree on what these concepts are or how they operate objectively in relation to science. — Possibility

Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option?

I cannot expect your experience of knowing ‘intuitively’ to be the same as mine, in the same way that there is no such thing as a universally recognised instance of ‘anger’. — Possibility

Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper?

we cannot keep pretending that concepts such as ‘intuition’, ‘reason’ or ‘emotion’ always refer to measurably identical physical instances — Possibility

Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.

The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html

Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell.

And we need to recognise that we could very well be referring to two quite different patterns of experience, and therefore different conceptual structures, while using the same word. — Possibility

That's why I have focused on a different word, Information, to describe those "different patterns of experience". Raw Information has the potential to take on infinite Forms or Patterns.

mental relations irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance - all refer to five-dimensional reality. — Possibility

In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional".

I’m not suggesting that the wavefunction is a useful tool in predicting future states - I’m suggesting that its probabilistic nature provides a useful analogy to describe the existing structural relation between belief and action. — Possibility

I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge. :nerd:

Let's try to see where we agree or disagree on the Intuition vs Reason debate. Which of the following definitions would characterize your understanding : "Reasoning is rational thinking using logic, while Intuition is unconscious, A> a paranormal gift, B> a magical awareness not accessible for normal humans, or C> a connectivity to an all knowing esoteric field." Or does your Fifth Dimension theory provide another option? — Gnomon

None of the above. Reasoning is understanding something via conscious thought processes, and need not use only logic. Intuition is defined as “the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning”, with instinct defined as “an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli”. Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. The only real difference between intuition and reasoning is that one is an explainable process (even if determined after the fact), and the other isn’t.

Of course. That's the distinction between Subjective knowing (I feel angry) and Objective knowledge (I sense an increase of adrenaline). It's the mystery of Consciousness that I can't know directly what's in your mind. Which is why rational humans, and not intuitive animals, have developed methods for objectifying their thoughts in conventional words and concepts. Some animals, such as ants, communicate their feelings about factual information (e.g. a source of food) via chemicals. Dolphins communicate their emotional states, and some factual information, via squeaks and body language. Do you suppose they have a deeper (or higher) understanding of the world than the founders of religions (holistic, oceanic oneness) , or empirical scientists (reductive, particular details), who communicate their feelings and facts via language and mathematics? Can we humans have the best of both worlds, higher and deeper? — Gnomon

Animals don’t have a deeper or higher understanding of the world. Ants aren’t aware of any feelings about factual information - rather they instinctively embody what this chemical information means for the colony in terms of their particular distribution of effort and attention in spacetime. We interpret this behaviour as evidence of ‘their feelings about factual information’, but the colony has no awareness of ‘feelings’ as anything distinct from the ‘factual information’. It’s more likely that dolphins may be vaguely aware of another’s emotional state as information distinct from where the fish are, for instance - but they’re unlikely to recognise an emotional state in themselves.

I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. Given that we rarely need to be so economical these days, we should at least recognise and challenge our untapped capacity to increase awareness, connection and collaboration with the world beyond simply surviving, dominating and procreating ourselves.

Some neuro-biologists like to think they can trace all mental activity back to neuronal functions. But a few neuroscientists, such as Christof Koch, are beginning to take a more holistic approach to understanding the mysteries of Consciousness. The physical functions of brains are not fully understood, but the correlations between measurable brain activity and felt mental concepts are undeniable. So, it behooves us find the link (or common denominator) between brain and mind. In my thesis, that common measure (both physical and metaphysical) is universal Information.

The Feeling of Consciousness : Koch notes that, “much ink has been spilled over arguments that quantum mechanics is the secret to consciousness”. However, after years of research, he saw “no need to invoke exotic physics to understand consciousness”.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page18.html

Note : the names of metaphysical Feelings are metaphors based on physical sensations, such as touch, vision, smell. — Gnomon

It’s been some time since I read ‘The Feeling of Life Itself’ - Koch introduced me to Integrated Information Theory. Other than that I don’t remember much of it, although I’m guessing many of my ideas about consciousness could be traced back to that book.

My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. While I will say that there is no need to invoke any physics at all to ‘understand’ consciousness as a mental process, that doesn’t allow for integration of such an understanding with that of the physical world. As promising as much of the theory is, in my view IIT continues to fall short of this. I believe that Feldman Barrett picks up where Koch leaves off: at the dual aspect of interior/exterior, and explores the connection between them in relation to the neuroscience of emotional states. Her Concept Cascades theory builds a convincing explanation of how mental states and brain states interact and how we learn the simplest to the most complex concepts and apply them in our organic interactions with reality.

Intuition refers to unexplained means by which we find that we understand something, but there need be nothing magical, paranormal or esoteric about it. — Possibility

Good! I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing. Some intuitives feel that their non-rational approach to problems is superior to plodding reasoning, in part because it is a magical connection to occult knowledge that is not accessible to mundane reasoning.

However, as you implied, they are not two separate (mundane vs magic) channels to knowledge, but merely faster (intuition) or slower (reason) processes of thinking. Most of us switch between both speeds without being aware of it. When confronted with novel situations or problems, we tend to slow down and dissect the details to see if there are familiar components that we already know how to deal with. But then, all we have is a collection of meaningless unrelated pieces of the puzzle. So, we often just stop analyzing at that apparent dead end, and turn our attention to other topics, or just go to sleep, or meditate. Meanwhile, the always-on subconscious functions of brain operation continue to process the data until a pattern emerges that ties the parts together into a whole concept.

The primary difference between Reason and Intuition is that we are consciously aware of the individual steps (movie frames) in rational processing (words, numbers), but are aware only of the final output (meaning of the movie) in subconscious processing (feelings, gist, general impressions). All humans use both procedures, but just as some are right- or left-handed, we tend to show a preference for one or the other.

I think as humans we need to recognise that there are reasoning-type processes our brain undertakes unconsciously, not necessarily because they’re beyond our awareness, but because we’ve operated more efficiently or economically this way in terms of effort and attention requirements. — Possibility

Precisely! Subconscious (non-verbal) thinking is the default mode of human and animal information processing. It is energy efficient and requires much less effort than Conscious (words & numbers) reasoning. The problem here is that the quick summary method may miss some crucial bit of knowledge, resulting in erroneous conclusions. The rational mode of thinking (science) is often frustratingly ponderous, and requires deferring the emotional satisfaction of a solution. That's why visceral (affective) feelings and mental intuition are correlated, while dispassionate (effective) concepts and mental reasoning are typically associated in personality trait theories.

Thinking, Fast and Slow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow

My biggest problem with IIT is that it fails to account for, and so practically ignores, quantum mechanics. — Possibility

Yes. Dr. Giulio Tononi is a psychiatrist and neuroscientist, so his focus in IIT was on the behavior of humans. But other scientists are beginning to do research on the quantum level. My thesis assumes that higher level phenomena, such as human emotions and intuition, can be traced back down the hierarchy of metaphysics & physics to fundamental Information --- which is omnipotential. I won't go into the details here, but just as quantum "particles" are essentially bundles of potential energy, energy itself is an active causative form of Generic Information (EnFormAction). In effect, metaphysical Enformation is the new Atom of the physical world. It's equivalent to Spinoza's Single Substance, that he called God, and I call G*D.

Quantum Integrated Information Theory : https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.01421

In my own thesis, that state "irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance" is what I call Enfernity (dimensionless eternity & infinity). So perhaps we have some common ground here. I begin to see where you are coming from. But I would call it "non-dimensional". — Gnomon

Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? I recognise that what we’re talking about exists beyond (yet in relation to) the four dimensions that science has currently structured, but in the same way that a square is essentially a line with an additional aspect of shape, structured relative to a three-dimensional position; and a cube is essentially a square with an additional aspect of volume, structured relative to a four-dimensional position; so, too, an experience is a 4D event with an additional (fifth) aspect of affect, which we learn to structure only by imagining a six-dimensional relational position of pure possibility of meaning: objective truth, the All, the Absolute, the Single Substance, or G*D.

It is understanding the distinction and relation between affect (the ‘feeling of life itself’, irrespective of temporal or spatial relevance) and meaning, between subjectively perceived potential and objectively infinite possibility, which appears to be lacking in your thesis. Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness.

I can see the analogy, but the question is how we could predict the future state of the waveform upon the collapse of the stateless wave-function. How does "observation" trigger a phase transition from non-local to local, or from possible to actual. I have toyed with some scenarios, but the topic is way beyond my competence in science and philosophy, not to mention mystical knowledge. :nerd: — Gnomon

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. A waveform refers to the shape of a graph - how do you see this relating to the wavefunction analogy? By ‘state of the waveform’, do you mean an observation/measurement of the energy event?

An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition. You cannot separate the observation (interaction in time) either from the event as observed or from the function of the observer. And any subsequent interaction with either the observer (as a measuring device) or the observed merely joins this superposition state.

Of course, when we’re talking about the ‘observation’ of an energy event such as a photon or electron, it isn’t observable in any classical sense - we’re not really looking at it. We’re arranging for an observer to locate it in spacetime relative to that observer. And so we locate this event in spacetime relative to the position of the observer relative to ourselves.

The important thing here is that we cannot ‘observe’ the energy event without locating or actualising it in spacetime. But we can perceive its potential via the wavefunction, which effectively tells us where and when to direct our effort and attention to interact with the event. At that moment of interacting with the event (or interacting with the measuring device interacting with the event), we ‘observe’ it, and join its superposition state. It becomes, from our position in spacetime, an actual event.

The wavefunction still exists, though - just not from our perspective, or from the perspective of anyone interacting with the measuring device. Included in this superposition might be anyone also interacting with the observation/measurement as expressed ONLY if it is expressed in such a way that enables them to accurately locate this same electron in spacetime. Given that any expression of observation/measurement occurs in a different spacetime location to the event, though, this isn’t possible. So the wavefunction is the most accurate way to express an objective observation/measurement of an energy event as separate from the event observed and the observer (now both in the past). Anyone with the capacity to perceive the potential of the wavefunction, then, is able to reproduce the experiment and verify the observation/measurement.

So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect.

I understand your preference for neologisms in order to ‘control its meaning precisely’. The amount of posts arguing over definitions and meaning of terminology on this forum seem to outweigh all other posts. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

I did a cursory read of the entire thread, and wanted to bring to light a simple or obvious but often overlooked component to Philosophy, which is the logic of words.

"Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation."— William James

Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention.

Don't mean to disparage any of your discussion points, but as you've alluded, on a public forum like TPF, it is more often than not very helpful (if not fundamental) to agree on the meaning of terms, words, definition standards, etc..

Why can’t it still be dimensional, though? — Possibility

In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.

Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice.

State Space : A state space is the set of all possible configurations of a system. It is a useful abstraction for reasoning about the behavior of a given system . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_space

Probability Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_space

Your implication by referring to the entirety of this ‘state’ as ‘non-dimensional’ is that there is no such distinction. For me, however, there is a level of perception between life and meaning - which corresponds to consciousness. — Possibility

The state I was referring to was Eternity & Infinity, both of which are immeasurable, hence non-dimensional. But you seem to think of the 5th Dimension as a non-sensory state in space-time, although not measurable out there in space or time, but only subjectively via intuition & imagination. The "distinction" between space-time dimensions (matter & motion) and mental-meaning dimensions (mind, consciousness) is like apples & oranges : true, but obvious.

Note :In my thesis, I find their commonality in the notion that both are forms of Generic Information. Just as Energy = Mass (matter) x the speed of light, Mind = Matter x Meaning (intention). But that's also a concept that defies common sense, even though it's the fundamental difference between Classical and Quantum science.

I don't understand the "level of perception" that senses a "state space" between Life and Meaning. As far as I know, Life is not a static space, but a dynamic process unfolding in time. And we "perceive" Life, not via sensory perception, but in imagination as a metaphor like a journey from point A to point B. The Meaning of Life is also not a sensible thing, but a subjective feeling about a person's history and future prospects. Some people take figurative metaphors literally, attributing properties of the symbol to the thing symbolized. For example, some idolators actually try to feed and clothe their little statues, thinking that it will make a difference to the occult deity, supposedly hanging around the state space of its artificial model.

An ‘observation’ IS the process of locating or actualising an energy event. It doesn’t trigger a phase transition, but rather IS the phase transition. — Possibility

Actually, that is close to my own concept, that the process of EnFormAction is what we call a Phase Transition. It's the act of changing form, of revealing latent possibilities in new actualities. To EnForm is to Actualize.

So the idea is to look for the ‘wavefunction’ as an objective expression of affect. — Possibility

So, when a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the state of the waveform (particle)??? The problem here is that "affect" can refer to a physical transfer of energy, or to the emotional feeling of knowing something about that change. Does the feeling cause the phase change, or is it an effect of the change? Again, mixing literal and metaphorical meanings is confusing. Feynman's famous quote may apply here : "If you think you understand quantum theory, you don't understand quantum theory". :joke:

PS__I may be gradually coming to "see" your 5th Dimension, but it's still a bit fuzzy. I have to translate your dimensional terminology into my own Information-based language.

I recognise how important it is to agree on the meaning of terms, words, etc, or to at least begin with a standard definition, even if we don’t stay there. William James has a good point in that our complex understanding of truth is irreducible to language, let alone definitions.

But I think there’s a difference between striving to reach a shared meaning beyond language and attempting to control meaning by assigning significance from the top down. It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information’, for instance. The top-down approach requires starting with an assumption of shared meaning, though, and then expecting one to think or process that meaning the way they’re instructed to. It’s great for those who aren’t used to thinking for themselves, but to guide them only to a certain point and then leave them with metaphorical language and vague reference to complex theories comes across as unfinished at best, at worst all talk and no substance.

I have no real problem with neologisms, as such - more with failing to take responsibility and due care for the directed thinking process assumed by controlling meaning from the top down. It’s a bit like leading someone to an unfamiliar location, and then telling them to find their own way back.

Just as a matter of formality, what you seem to be saying is that you may not value the deconstruction (the existential meaning not the Platonic one) between the meaning of words (AKA: Derrida) and reaching a holistic or consistent world view. The relationship between text and meaning is still a problem that consistently requires attention. — 3017amen

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. Deconstruction, as I understand it, is about exploring the meaning of words beyond value or the significance of language. The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. But this is a cursory interpretation - I haven’t formally studied Derrida, so I could be misunderstanding it completely.

The instance of the word or text is the event, the definition the machine, and language the rules and laws - but meaning is what all this ultimately refers to: the relation between possibility and impossibility, and the ‘undecidable’ difference that manifests. I would have thought this renders the possibility of a consistent worldview relatable and yet indefinable as such. Neologisms don’t solve the problem, they’re just an attempt to control the uncontrollable. — Possibility

Hi Possibility!

No exceptions taken on the jist of your reply, but just some clarifications if I could. I was trying to make two points.

1. The argument from 'iterability of meaning' (refer to video if you like) was that which I was referring to, where there is need to reach consensus in (contextual) definitions first, before proceeding into a debate or discussion etc. about the concept. In other words, agree (or disagree) on the definitions about the subject matter beforehand.

Another spirited/working example comes from the doctrine of vagueness:

"Where does the tail of a snake begin? When posed as a rhetorical question, the speaker is hinting that there is no definite answer. But the tail can be located by tracing down from the snake’s rib cage. A false attribution of indeterminacy will lead to the premature abandonment of inquiry. The risk of futile inquiry into questions that cannot be answered must be balanced against the risk of abandoning questions that are actually answerable. "

Anyway, you get the idea, here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vagueness/


2. IMO, your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. Meaning, as being a sort of paradigm-buster myself (in his case him being a recovering Fundy), I have argued or suggested in the past that in the 21st century we needed to re-define many old-school belief systems that are either unsophisticated, oppressive, or otherwise deleterious to our way of Being (part of the problem and not the solution). Similarly, Derrida's work in part, was an effort in the 60's socio-political movement where change was much needed at the forefront of Vietnam war, civil rights, women's rights, etc..

Anyway, just a minor summary point about iterability:

It can be easier to coin a new term than to discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information — Possibility

I'm sorry you don't like my gnarly neologisms. You seem to view them as prideful dogmatic assertions of ownership of the ideas embodied in them. You may not believe me when I say that was not my intent. I was merely addressing the ambiguity and prejudicial baggage of old words in a new context. When you said "information" in 1920, it was assumed you were referring to the meaningful contents of a human mind. But in 2020, the same word now is presumed to reference the meaningless numbers of a non-human computer, processing 1s & 0s instead of concepts. Shannon focused on the material containers of Information, rather than the meaningful contents. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, I coin new words, "not because it's easy, but because it's hard" --- and necessary.

So, most of my glossary was directed at explaining why my philosophical "enformation" is not your scientific "information". True, it's easy to make-up nonsense words, like "grok". But it's hard to encapsulate a novel concept in a single word, like EnFormAction. My Website, Glossary, and Blog are ongoing attempts to "discuss the multiple levels of meaning associated with a word such as ‘information".

On other forums, I was regularly forced to deflect implications of the Shannon term, defined by destructive Entropy. So I developed the neologism of "Enformy" to mean the constructive aspect of Energy. If you limited my thesis to standard definitions, there would be nothing new or important in it. I just checked the Glossary of Philosophical terms in Wikipedia, and "Information" is not on the list. I hope to change that omission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_philosophy#I

When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below. :cool:


First Define Your Terms : There's no one answer to this. Plato's use of language was idiosyncratic, and he often used common terms in non-standard ways as a way of reshaping how people conceptualized them. Conversely Wittgenstein believed many classic philosophical problems were reducible to language ambiguities.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/37569/defining-terms-in-philosophy

Dimension : The concept of dimension is not restricted to physical objects. High-dimensional spaces frequently occur in mathematics and the sciences. They may be parameter spaces or configuration spaces such as in Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics; these are abstract spaces, independent of the physical space we live in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

Five Dimensional Space : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-dimensional_space

The Fifth Dimension : https://sciencing.com/5th-dimension-11369444.html

The Intuition Dimension : a predictive distribution of attention/awareness that determines their thoughts, words and actions. — Possibility

*1 Patching old cloth with new thread : https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/CGG/ID/9273/New-Cloth-on-Old-Garment.htm

Aleister Crowley : He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century. — Gnomon

Just a passing comment about this very interesting gentleman. He was a pioneer British rock climber and mountaineer. He was on an expedition to the Himalaya (K2) in 1902. Also, he wrote the first British bouldering guide in 1898, illustrated by a famous artist.

It would be entertaining to read about other little known aspects of the lives of well-known philosophers - show they were not one-dimensional.

And a tiny factoid about the Schrödinger equation: Under certain (unrealistic?) restrictions, it has the form dQ/dt=CQ(t), which is the familiar expression from elementary calculus stating that the rate of change of a quantity at time=t is proportional to the amount of the quantity existing at time=t. :cool:

In your own theory, you can call it anything you want. But as I pointed-out before, the notion of extra dimensions has been used to describe a variety of spiritual mysteries, and also referring to the far-out mathematics of String Theory, and as another word for the imaginary Parallel Worlds of science fiction. But in all those cases, the occult "dimensions" are not measurable in any objective manner. You just have to take the word of psychic adepts & math mavens & sci-fi authors that they exist. That's why I prefer to limit that common-sense word to features of reality that we can all agree on. These abstruse concepts we're both playing around with are obscure enough without straying too far from grounding in common ground.

Can you define your Fifth "Dimension" in a way that is not occult and magical? Metaphorical is OK, as long as it is meaningful to common sense. "State Space" and "Probability Space" are mathematical concepts that don't apply to actual real things, but to possible outcomes of physical processes, such as rolling dice. — Gnomon

Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. These are the main assumptions that I think prevent a reasonable understanding of any kind of fifth dimension. Mathematics refers to relationships as structures, but assumes all possible values to correspond to a numerical value or range, and all relationships to be spatially relevant. All multi-dimensional theories you’ve mentioned are at least inspired by common subjective experiences of aspects to reality that cannot be explained within the three spatial dimensions we can observe and measure in relation to an arbitrary time value. Descartes ensured a systematic exclusion of these ‘doubtful’ aspects from science and mathematics for centuries, and yet these obscure theories persist because the question of how these shared experiences correlate with ‘material’ reality remains to be answered.

That something other than this 3+1 dimensional reality exists is undeniable. How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense.

Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. This corresponds to the idea of mathematical dimensions, in which a cube is basically a square extruded into an additional aspect from every point on that shape. Where they go from there, however, is to try and reify this additional aspect using purely qualitative descriptions: excluding any relation to logic, mathematics or science, controlling meaning from the top down by redefining or inventing words, and isolating their imagined structure conceptually from the physical dimensions by its formlessness.

String Theory, on the other hand, has a mathematically formulated structure isolated from subjective experience by a purely theoretical foundation. And the ‘parallel worlds’ of science fiction are based on a misinterpretation of dimensional extrusion that multiplies the existing world into isolated worlds each with randomly altered variables.

So instead, we ask the question: how do you ‘measure’ value or potentiality? The answer is paradoxical, because in order to measure anything accurately, we need to attribute value. So what we end up doing is attributing value to value, which is where the measurement problem occurs. To solve this paradox, we need to understand what it really means to ‘measure’ something without necessarily attributing a fixed value. In four dimensions, this is what we tend to call observation.

Observe: notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant.

When we observe an event happening, we essentially relate four dimensions of information and register it as being significant. Spatially, when we observe an object, we relate three dimensions of information. When we observe a shape, we register the significance of relations between two dimensions of information. And when we observe a line, we relate a single dimension of information - the difference between two points - and register it as significant.

The thing is, when we register something as significant, we’re essentially still attributing a value or potential - just not necessarily a numerical one.

Significance: the quality of being worthy of attention.

So we’re back to the same measurement problem, except it’s now qualitative. If we remove the entire process of attributing value, what we’re left with is the relation itself.

Relate: make or show a connection between.

The same problem applies to ‘information’, which Shannon describes as “the difference that makes a difference”. To ‘make a difference’ is to have a significant effect, so if we remove this process of attributing value, what we’re left with is a difference - this is what ‘information’ means at any level, whether it’s the content of the human mind or the content of a physical message transmission, simplified to a 1 or 0 in binary code. It isn’t meaningless - it’s just reduced to the simplest form of difference that makes a difference to a physical system.

At the quantum level, the most basic difference that makes a difference would be the binary distinctions between matter and anti-matter. And interestingly, it is in relating or manifesting a connection between them as a difference that matter is able to exist at all.

That something other than this 3+1 dimensional reality exists is undeniable — Possibility

Please provide references for this statement. Or, do you mean the subjective "I find it undeniable"?

Subjective, of course - everything I write here is necessarily subjective, unless specified otherwise.

Forbes: This-is-why-time-has-to-be-a-dimension

When you are introducing a new concept, new words are necessary. By spelling Enformationism with an "E" I was deliberately disassociating my meaning from Shannon's usage. As a matter of fact, in the earlier thread, I had to insist to Sushi that I was not misusing Shannon's authoritative terminology, because I was talking about a distinctly different function of "Information". In your own theory of the Fifth Dimension, you are using an old word with a new meaning*1. Which is why I've had difficulty groking what you are talking about. But I never accused you of a haughty proprietary "top-down" intent. Does the scientific definition of "Dimension" below describe your concept? Or would you define it in a different way, to clarify the distinction from the conventional meaning? Maybe you need to coin a new word that would be more suggestive of your precise meaning. See suggestion below. — Gnomon

I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. I’ll grant that it’s an alternative perspective of the meaning of ‘dimension’ - and yes, this may suggest a degree of perceptual limitation to the standard definition - but the meaning doesn’t change. Information, dimension and meaning, for me, all refer to structural relations at every level of existence. I’m only recently starting to work out the complexity of navigating these kinds of discussions, but one thing I have discovered is that I can’t go about coining new words for all of these ultimately six-dimensional ‘concepts’ (another term whose definition is perceptually limited) in order to clarify their distinction from ‘conventional’ meaning. It’s much more difficult and less gratifying, but I think it’s worth the effort.

Dimension is a perfect example of a word that previously had a more limited scope in meaning. The idea of referring to ‘time’ as a dimension is fairly new, and already necessarily broadens the way we approach the meaning of the term. Prior to this inclusion, a dimension referred to any physical measurement (3D). At an earlier stage, dimensional relations could only be mapped out on a Cartesian plane (2D), and before that ‘dimensio’ simply referred to a measured relation between two points (1D). I can understand your reluctance to accept a broader meaning of the term, but given its etymological history, I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. Where we’ve done that historically, I think we’ve paid the price with a conceptual gap in understanding, many of which, even now, resist closure.

And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope.

Measurable is not necessarily quantitative, and not necessarily spatial. — Possibility

Yes. Time is not a physical thing that can be measured with a yard/meter stick. But it is a dimension only by analogy to spatial dimensions. Time measures Change. What does your Fifth Dimension measure : Meaning, Values, Significance . . . ? Like the passage of Time, such qualities are completely Subjective and Relative, until we agree on conventional units of measurement, such as objective physical Moon revolutions. What kind of units do you use to measure the structure of the Fifth Dimension? How do you "observe" that structure?

How we ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ the properties of these aspects such as knowledge, potentiality, value, significance, feeling, creativity and imagination without affecting the measurement or compromising either certainty or objectivity is what we haven’t been able to work out. But they’re not imaginary - just undefined and unexplained in an objective sense. — Possibility

Many world religions claim to have "worked out" how to "observe" those metaphysical properties : divine revelation, visions, mystical experiences, faith, Intuition, meditation, drug trips, etc. Are you looking for a new more certain method to measure the incommensurable? If these properties are "not imaginary" (mind pictures), does that mean they exist outside the mind, in the objective real world? If so, can we use pragmatic methods to observe them?

Incommensurable : not able to be judged by the same standard as something else; having no common standard of measurement.


BTW. I have no problem with taking Metaphysics seriously. But I try to make sure I'm not just taking it on Faith. That's why I challenge my own beliefs, with skeptical questions. :smile:

Physics & Metaphysics :
Two sides of the same coin we call Reality. When we look for matters of fact, we see physics. But when we search for meaning, we find meta-physics. A mental flip is required to view the other side. And imagination is necessary to see both at the same time.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

I disagree that it’s a new meaning as such, or a new concept, for that matter. — Possibility

Please reference some venerable or historical definitions of the Fifth Dimension. Do they match your meaning of the term? Are they different from the examples I gave above? Do you have a new way to perceive that extra-sensory dimension, besides the methods I mentioned above?

I hope you can understand my reluctance to simply coin a new term that disassociates the concept from its more limited usage. — Possibility

The problem here is that when I propose a variety of old terms referring to the same general concept, you don't accept them as correct. If my list of conventional words for the metaphysical dimension are missing your point, what is the relevant difference? Wouldn't a new terminology help to make the distinction you are implying? If you are trying to avoid traditional religious and mystical definitions, why not give us a new interpretation of the ancient concept? How is the Fifth Dimension different from old fashioned Spiritualism?

BTW. After a Google search on "Fifth Dimension", I couldn't find anything that seems to match your meaning. So aren't you using old words with new definitions (i.e. neologisms)? How is 5th Dimension different from the Akashic Field, or from Heaven?

And I don’t believe you have reason to accuse me of “a haughty proprietary ‘top down’ intent”, because I have never once suggested that meaning was something I could control. The meaning already exists, I’m only suggesting we remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions, which prevent us from fully understanding its scope. — Possibility

If you can't control the meaning of your words, then they can mean whatever the reader wants them to mean. Why do you think philosophers throughout the years have spilt so much ink on defining conventional words, and so often resorted to creating new terms with no prior baggage? Was Kant haughty when he coined the term "categorical imperative" and "pure reason", by combining old words into novel concepts? Enformationism is a new paradigm, which would be incomprehensible in terms of the old paradigms of Materialism or Spiritualism.

How do you propose to "remove the perceptual limitations set by conventional definitions", without proposing unconventional meanings? Do you think that consciousness raising will magically remove millennia of prejudicial interpretations of common words? Demonizing the blunt term "cripple" in favor of "handicapped" or "impaired", may have changed attitudes toward certain previously marginalized people, but if you continue to use old spiritual terminology, how can you change attitudes toward the variety of uncompromising religions with us-versus-them attitudes toward their fellow spiritualists? How can you remove the perceptual limitations of seekers like me, who were raised with Biblical definitions of spiritual concepts? :cool:

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of terms" ___attributed to Socrates
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” ____Voltaire

Neologisms : Like many other philosophers, Kant introduced a new terminology, consisting of a mixture of neologisms and expressions borrowed from tradition and given a new meaning.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Immanuel_Kant

One word, one meaning fallacy : to assume that your definition of a word is the same as the meaning of the same word in another person's mind.

Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. — Possibility

I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries".

The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages. IMHO, It was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire. Since then, Empirical Science has gained dominance among the intellectual elite, while Spiritualism, in its many incompatible forms, still dominates the lives of the non-intellectual masses. Apparently, like me, you feel that this attempted amputation of Soul from Body favors one part over the whole system. But most attempts to patch the rift tend to favor one side over the other : Reason vs Emotion. Even the empiricist philosopher, David Hume, noted that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." But he was not advocating a return to the submission of individual reasoning to collective passions in the form of organized Religion. Instead, " All I insist is that it is fantasy to pretend that reason can provide the fundamental foundations for our hopes, ambitions or morality". My proposed patch for the Matter vs Mind split is the BothAnd philosophy.

Bernardo Kastrup, in the book I'm currently reading, is also on the same mission. But we are all approaching the goal from different directions. He even seems to have a concept similar to your Fifth Dimension. He observes, "since we all seem to share the same world, there has to be a broader cognitive space --- beyond just perceptions". He describes that "higher dimension" in spatial terms resembling yours in the quote above : "a cognitive space not only comprising, but also surrounding, perception". His "space" is also transcendent in a sense that you might agree with : "consensus experiences live in a transpersonal cognitive space, instead of an individual mind." You'll have to read the book to see how he defines his personal "consensus reality". Hint : it's not simply objective reality, or socially-constructed realty. Anyway, the point of the book seems to be that we know and discuss that transcendent reality in terms of symbols, myths, metaphors, and analogies. Kastrup seeks to reconcile the thousands of contradictory mythical narratives by discovering their essential commonalities, as suggested by Joseph Campbell, in Myths To Live By. I may not completely agree with his prescription for what ails the modern fragmented world. But we seem to be looking in the same direction. :cool:


Consensus Reality : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. — 3017amen

Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words.

Unfortunately, I grew-up in the era of Modernism. So I missed the "corrections" of Post-Modernism. I once tried to read a book by Michel Foucault, but I got lost in his paragraph-long sentences. :joke:

If I might butt in for a sec.

the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse — Gnomon

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse.

The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages. — Gnomon

Also odd, like blanketly claiming that a natural development is correct. How do we know that things developed the best (correct) way possible? Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error?

It ["Enlightenment"] was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire. — Gnomon

The rebellion was justified because of the dogmatism or because of something else? I'm sure bad stuff happened during the dark ages but it's not like whatever bad that was happening went **poof** after the "so-called" "enlightenment."

The third oddity is how you seem to simultaneously acknowledge the value of the enlightenment and question its value. It was a correction (for some reason) to the dark ages but caused the "attempted amputation of Soul from Body" or "Reason vs Emotion" rift, and therefore requires a patch for the "Matter vs Mind" split.

There is no attempted amputation and there's no rift or split. You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying.

A loss of meaning can only be resolved with something that is meaningful.