I’m wondering if you’re familiar with this guy. — Pfhorrest

Yes. I often link to his site for technical details that are way above my knowledge level. His worldview seems to be similar to mine, in that "Immaterial information is perhaps as close as a physical or biological scientist can get to the idea of a soul or spirit that departs the body at death." And that "Metaphysics based on information philosophy can answer some of the most profound questions about the fundamental origins, nature, and evolution of reality".

. But, since I haven't read all of his extensive website, I can't be sure that we agree on all points. I doubt that he is familiar with my website. However, I may eventually communicate directly with him.

He gives some background on his credentials on this page : http://www.informationphilosopher.com/about/

Yeah I saw his credentials, I just thought his philosophy sounded very similar to yours, so if you weren’t familiar with him you might like to be. Good to see you already are.

Granted I've been unnecessarily rude. I've gained interest in the topic and would like to be more cooperative. You cannot fault Possibility's conduct, by the way, which has been remarkable by any standard. — praxis

That's OK. I'm used to rudeness on anonymous internet forums. You can continue to "cooperate" by challenging my ideas, and giving me a chance to respond. I don't expect to convince you that my personal worldview is more up-to-date than the current paradigm of Materialism, or more scientific than New Age Spiritualism. But the feedback helps me to see how others (mis-) interpret my ideas. It helps me continue to refine the theory in my blog.

I began to dialog with Possibility because it's possible (pun intended) that a multi-dimensional cosmology could have some bearing on my own unorthodox understanding of reality. Unfortunately, it has been frustrating, because P doesn't directly answer my questions asking for empirical evidence or logical reasoning. I suspect that part of the communication problem is that my vocabulary is largely Modern and Post-postmodern, instead of the Postmodern lingo of the 80s & 90s. Although I can see that postmodern philosophers made legitimate criticisms of Modernism, I can't follow their oblique and circuitous (non-linear) arguments.

So, I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality. :cool:

Might want to check who you’re speaking to before you attack... — Possibility

What do you mean? I copied the quote from your post. The "passive-aggressive" crack sounded more like Praxis, but I was replying to your put-down. Did you interpret my calm measured defense as a counter-attack? BTW. I included "you and Praxis" in my response.

Your ‘thesis’ is a belief system at this stage, and as such is not ready to defend, I’m afraid. You don’t (and refuse to) understand the theories you prop it up with, and instead take every criticism as a personal attack. My theory is far from ready to defend either, by the way, so I certainly don’t mean that as an unfavourable comparison. — Possibility

Of course. A person's worldview is a belief system, not a scientific theory. Do you understand the theories I "prop it up with"? [ I prefer the more positive term : "support" ] If not, how do you know I don't understand them? What scientific theories do you support your theory with? [ I've repeatedly asked for references ] I also prefer the more philosophical terminology of "challenge and response" instead of "criticism and personal attack" Your mis-interpretation of my intention may say more about you, than about me. :joke:

Anyway, since we are both arguing about little-known belief systems, can we at least find some common ground? A simple summary of your theory of Fifth Dimension would be a good start. Here's what The Fifth Dimension means to me :

https://youtu.be/gebehJw946I

https://youtu.be/VlrQ-bOzpkQ

I've been meaning to ask, and I keep forgetting so I'll ask now, does your theory consider any old- school Hermetic philosophy/cosmology? ( It seems to dovetail a bit with PAP/Panentheism. .) — 3017amen

My Enformationism thesis has nothing to do with mystical occult esoteric Hermetic traditions. I prefer scientific exoteric empirical knowledge. Unfortunately, the most common mis-construal is that it's a New Age philosophy. It is instead intended to be a 21st century alternative to ancient mystery religions, including Christianity, and to the ancient philosophy of Materialism, which has been obsolete since the advent of Quantum Theory.

The implicit cosmology does have some affinity with PanEnDeism, in that it assumes a cosmic Mind of some kind to provide the Generic Information that we interpret as both Matter (objects) and Mind (subjects). It's a Deist worldview (not a religion) in the sense that the Enformer or Programmer or G*D presumably "designed" the Program (evolution), but does not interfere with its automatic execution. In other words, no miracles, no magic, no occult mysteries. The theory is Spiritual only in the sense that what used to be called "Spirit", and is now called "Energy", is actually what we now know as "Information".

Paul Davies is a primary source of ideas about Information as the fundamental element of the cosmos. He hints at Panpsychism, but tries to avoid falling into Mysticism. My worldview may also be similar to Wheelers' PAP, but I was not aware of that concept ,as I was following the lead of a quantum scientist, who stated the obvious : that a virtual particle of matter (in a state of super-position) is un-actualized immaterial mathematical information. In other words, matter and energy are merely states (or forms) of essential Information. I also acknowledge a debt to Spinoza, and his theory of Universal Substance, which I take to be Generic Information : the power to Enform, to Create, So some kind of Creator is logically necessary. But since I have no direct experience with that hypothetical entity, for me, G*D is merely a philosophical Axiom. :nerd:

Another suggestion that a Black Hole might be a portal to another galaxy, civilization, dimension, etc. etc. The funny thing is, apparently when you enter, you can't get out : — 3017amen

The notion of Black Holes was a godsend for sci-fi authors. Like the Warp Drive of Star Trek it allows us to fantasize about escaping the downer limitations of reality. I don't take up much time speculating on the infinite possibilities of a tunnel to another universe. I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile:

I leave that job to more imaginative people. Black Holes are like Dark Matter, and Dark Energy, in that they reveal more about our ignorance, than of our knowledge of cosmic science. Imagination fill holes in knowledge with maybes. :smile: — Gnomon

Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)?

Please enumerate if you could, then we can take them one at a time :gasp:

I still don't know how the hypothetical Fifth Dimension might fit into my theory of Information. I don't understand how it differs from the spiritual New Age notion, or from the mathematical universe of String Theorists. My Enformationism thesis has a lot to say about space-time, but doesn't mention higher or multiple dimensions. That's because I have no personal experience with anything beyond the mundane dimensions of apparent reality. — Gnomon

I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience

Are there any absolute's in your theory (s)? — 3017amen

The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent.

BEING :
In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Necessary Being : https://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/necessity.shtml

I'm sure it would help if you familiarized yourself with: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience — praxis

I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?

I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin:

I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense?

That's my take on it, for what it's worth.

I got this gist when I read through a collection of your posts on various topics, and you now explicitly say, "it has nothing to do with survival, dominance or procreation." I think we can collapse that into just procreation, by the way. I think it might help if you could explain where procreation fits. It fits somehow.

Maybe a good approach is with genes. It's easy to see how genes are information, and that it appears the one goal of genes is procreation. — praxis

Procreation is an intention to reproduce the system for its own sake: to ‘create forward’, so to speak. It extends the four-dimensional system to ‘survive‘ beyond its temporal limitations and ‘dominate’ beyond its spatial limitations. But it’s all an illusion.

If the one goal of genes is ‘procreation’ - to reproduce the system for its own sake - then it does a shoddy job of it. Genes are a method to maximise the transmission and integration of basic four-dimensional information across time, irrespective of the system from which it is manifest. Sexual reproduction is a misnomer: it maximises diversity from the genetic information of the originating system as much as the limitations of each system determine its practical success irrespective of new information. It presents a conflict of interest between this underlying impetus and the specific limitations of the relational structure (ie. the living organism) at this four-dimensional level: its ignorance, isolation and exclusion of four-dimensional information. A similar conflict occurs at every dimensional level, resulting in the diversity of relational structures both within and across dimensions, which ultimately maximises the diversity of opportunities for exposure to information.

The only absolute in my thesis is the axiomatic BEING from which all finite & relative beings are created. This is Aquinas' Necessary Being. Everything in the space-time world is contingent. — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. :snicker:

On the other hand, you may or may not find this novel interpretation of an old topic intriguing... . In the end, (as Paul Davies has suggested in his book The Mind of God)) it may be that a whole different language (of information) is required for something like a ToE.

This article certainly hints to it (one of your favorite topics) LOL:

https://phys.org/news/2020-06-black-holes-hologram.html

Gnomon!

As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? It is no doubt one of the most intriguing mysterious spanning science and philosophy. Becoming and Being-something you alluded to... .

Not to beat you up about it, but go to the 20-min. mark and you'll hear Davies discussing your favorite topic :snicker:

I've interpreted what Possibility has written about it to be like a dimension of measurement, if that makes sense. Affect is a dimension like depth is a dimension. There is depth information available to perception as there is affect information available to perception. Make sense? — praxis

An Effect is a physical change. To Affect, is to make a difference emotionally. For psychologists, "Affect" is how inner emotions are displayed in outward behavior. I can understand that emotional feelings are metaphorically similar to the feeling of Touch, by which we "measure" physical things. And all personal meanings are ultimately feelings.

Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people. Anyway, I've never experienced anything I'd call "Enlightenment". I suppose the closest I've come to that deep insight was when I realized that mental Information is the essence of everything in the world. The Effect of that intuition was to give me a foundation for my personal worldview. It was more of an intellectual "awakening" than a spiritual transformation, though.

What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment? Mystics seem to be innately tuned for such a state. Others use drugs, or mediate to "lift" their vibrations. But, since my normal state, as an introvert, is basically meditative, whatever vibrations I may have resonate only in the usual four dimensions.

Can you give some examples of "depth information" you have obtained from forays into the higher dimensions? :cool:

Aaron Doughty : spiritual advisor -- "calibrate your vibrations"
https://aarondoughty.com/

5th Dimension : Let’s consider, why would somebody living in this amazing Age of Awakening try to leave it. Really, leave it by “lifting your vibrations.” In short, “upgrade” your awareness away from how humans are built to experience life:
If your wish is to not have to deal with everyday human problems.
Or should you desire to develop kinds of intelligence more like spirits than like humans.
Maybe even dream of becoming the ultimate human. So vastly superior to hairy, smelly, confused human beings!
https://www.rose-rosetree.com/blog/2020/01/04/5th-dimension-nonsense-serious-warning/

Yes, thanks, but not really novel, nor a paradigm buster. — 3017amen

I wasn't talking about a Spiritual paradigm, but a Scientific paradigm. But Enformationism is also a religious paradigm-buster, at least compared to the fundamentalist Christian worldview of my youth.

As a favor, I'm offering a critique of your Glossary Page. Maybe I missed it , but why did you not include Time? — 3017amen

I discuss the notion of Time in many blog posts. But at the time I was writing the Enformationism thesis, it wasn't a big issue.

Let me know if you see any more omissions. I'm currently working on an addendum to the Glossary.

I wasn't referring to any Spiritual context. Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time):

http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html

Unfortunately, my personal Affect is rather flat. I don't have strong emotional swings. That's not a sign of depression, but of a stable happy-go-lucky temperament. I am by nature rather Buddha-like in the sense of a peaceful state of mind. I suppose that's why my general mood seems rather two-dimensional to more emotionally volatile people. — Gnomon

I can appreciate your personal assessment and acknowledge the quality of equanimity in your manner. Nevertheless, your brain is irrevocably linked to a body that experiences fluctuations in energy and satisfaction, or arousal and valence, respectively. That is affect. What your brain does with that information is largely dependent on your conditioning, and that is largely dependent on whatever culture you were raised in. Earlier you asked what the difference was between Possibilities fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions. Both are essentially about adaptively regulating energy, though the sixth dimension is collaborative between 'relational structures' in nature.

What would it take for me to experience the Fifth Dimension stage of enlightenment? — Gnomon

Note how you're feeling and realize that at its core it's simply a state of arousal/valence, and whatever emotions you might be experiencing are just so much conditioned prediction to your current situation.

I’m going take a few steps back, in an effort to pick up where I thought we were making progress in understanding each other. I hope you don’t mind.

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

It seems to me that you’re under the impression I’m making this ‘fifth dimension’ out to be an ‘actual real thing’, kind of like ‘space’? But is this ‘third dimension’ an ‘actual real thing’, or is it a relational structure of three-dimensional information? What’s the difference? I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information.

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. — Gnomon

No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. Space-time is four-dimensional information, so what I’m referring to is quite obviously more than that, in the same way that three-dimensional information is more than two-dimensional information.

A ‘state’ refers to a structural condition, usually in reference to a particular time, so I’m not sure how you would go about defining an immeasurably eternal state as an ‘actual real thing’.

I agree with you (and I don’t know why I feel compelled to reiterate this) that information is the key to dissolving the physical-mental divide. But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that.

For me, information makes a difference at each dimensional level: beginning with the existential binary of what matters in relation to anti-matter, diversifying into quantum particles, which relate in a one-dimensional ‘expansion’ of the universe to inform atomic relational structures. These atomic structures relate in two-dimensions to inform diverse molecular shapes and chemical potential, which relate in three-dimensions to inform space: consisting of diverse objects and chemical structures. These relate in four-dimensions to inform the diverse actions and molecular/chemical events of the unfolding universe (including cellular life), which relate in five-dimensional affect to inform a diversity of potential and value information systems, which relate in six-dimensional meaning to inform an infinite diversity of relational possibilities.

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. — Gnomon

I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. It’s not a term I’ve used. I recognise life as a dynamic process unfolding in time. Our perception of this life is more specific than imagination, though - it comes from a perception of potential, informed by an interoception of affect (not just feeling) with regards to a person’s history and future prospects. The meaning of life is more informed again: an intersubjective relation to all imaginable possibilities, inclusive of (but not confined to) the changeability of subjective feeling. This recognition that we are not as unaffected as our conscious thought processes suggest is an important step in an accurate account of the transition between mental and physical states.

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. — Gnomon

Yes, I have said this a number of times. Except that it isn’t an act of changing form, because the form - the event - is itself an act: a relational structure of four-dimensional information in itself. When you describe it as an ‘act of changing an act’, you lose the atemporal, subjective nature of the transition. What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself.

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: — Gnomon

Not quite. When a physicist calculates the future trajectory of a particular wavefunction, that knowledge affects the measured/observed state of the particle.

Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change.

‘Feeling’ refers to a qualitative aspect of potential information (qualia), intended to distinguish it from the quantitative reducibility of potential information as ‘knowledge’. In my view, it is this exclusion of ‘feeling’ from quantum theory, and the subsequent expectation on quantitative reduction to explain the relation between potential and observable reality, which prevents understanding.

Here, this might help (with respect to your Glossary/Time): — 3017amen

One topic, relevant to time, that I discuss at length in the blog, is the concept of Timelessness. One of my favorite neologisms is "Enfernity" (Infinity & eternity), which encapsulates my understanding that the state from which space-time emerged was unitary and formless : nothing measurable, except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd:


Time & Purpose : It can be said that the world of mathematics exists in an eternal present, a state in which neither the past nor the future have any meaning
http://www.torahscience.org/mathematics/time1.html

Thanks for that interpretation of matter, energy and information. After doing a TPF search, it appears you have studied Whitehead's cosmology/metaphysics. Does he happen to provide for any insights into any of our informational theories?

Just wondering... . — 3017amen

If by ‘studied’ you mean formally, then no, I haven’t - I took an interest in panpsychism and process philosophy, and read up on the writings of Leibniz and Whitehead.

Whitehead’s systematic approach outlined a proposal for developing his process philosophy, which directly addresses the idealism/materialism divide:

”Question assumptions that underly conceptual expression of all experiences, including the nature of the experiencing entity itself.

Develop a realist ontology that:
- acknowledges the existence of a real world;
- contains an adequate account of experiencing subjects (ie. subjectivity and experience are real);
- accounts for self-causation as well as efficient causation (relationship between freedom and determinism);

Develop a rational realist cosmology that accounts for purposive organisms and mechanical, determined relations between objects.

Develop a process cosmology where ‘events’ (not things) and ‘relations’ (not separate objects) are fundamental. Account for the ontological relationship between process and substance, between subjectivity and objectivity.”

I think Whitehead’s process cosmology sets the scene for Carlo Rovelli’s physics-based description of four-dimensional reality as consisting of ‘interrelated events’ rather than objects in time (from ‘The Order of Time’), as well as his description of quantum mechanics in relation to information theory (from ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’).

I believe that in order to understand reality we have to keep in mind that reality is this network of relations, or reciprocal information, which weaves the world. We slice up the reality surrounding us into objects. But reality is not made up of discrete objects. It is variable flux. Think of an ocean wave. Where does a wave finish? Where does it begin? Think of mountains. Where does a mountain start? Where does it end? How far does it continue beneath the Earth’s surface? These are questions without much sense, because a wave and a mountain are not objects in themselves; they are ways which we have of slicing up the world to apprehend it, to speak about it more easily. These limits are arbitrary, conventional, comfortable: they depend on us (as physical systems) more than on the waves or the mountains. They are ways of organising the information which we have or, better, forms of information which we have. — Carlo Rovelli, ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’

According to Whitehead’s philosophy: the world consists of events, not things, which interfuse and interpenetrate each other, so that no actuality is an isolated, self-contained entity; and fundamental process is inherently experiential, so nature ‘feels’ all the way down.

In my notes on Whitehead, this particular quote below relates specifically to Feldman Barrett’s more recent neuroscientific theories involving affect (which in my view constitutes the five-dimensional aspect of reality):

”Process and feeling are connected because in order for one moment, now, to be related to the immediately previous moment, past, and to the immediately subsequent moment, future, the ‘now’ moment must ‘feel’ aspects of the past by including them as constituents of its own actuality; and to give something of itself to the next, future moment.”

I scanned the article, but it doesn't say anything about higher dimensions. I assume you are implying that we know those occult planes, not by outward physical senses, but by inwardly directed intuitive feelings. Do you "feel" those dimensions? What do they feel like? How do they affect you?

I have an internal mental model of the universe; my reality. It's intuitive & instinctive, and guides my emotions. But I've never felt any extra dimensions. Do I need to open my Third Eye? :chin: — Gnomon

By ‘intuitive and instinctive’, you’re referring to internal processes you’re not fully aware of. I’ve already explained that these terms are not about occult planes or a ‘third eye’, but about a more ‘mundane’ potential for awareness of how we think, feel, remember, know, calculate, evaluate, reason or apply logic, etc - even while we’re asleep. When you ‘feel’ time, what you feel is an additional aspect to the world that is more than the three dimensional aspects of space. In the same way, we can ‘feel’ and/or understand additional aspects to what we experience than is observable/measurable in spacetime. I believe that the brain unconsciously ‘gauges’ one as affect, and we have spent at least the last five thousand years trying to make sense of this atemporal aspect of experience, to understand how it relates to the other aspects of our experience, and to eventually distinguish it from an infinite aspect of meaning.

You may have noticed this in the article:

I hypothesize that, using past experience as a guide, the brain prepares multiple competing simulations that answer the question, ‘what is this new sensory input most similar to?’ (see Bar, 2009a,b). Similarity is computed with reference to the current sensory array and the associated energy costs and potential rewards for the body. That is, simulation is a partially completed pattern that can classify (categorize) sensory signals to guide action in the service of allostasis. Each simulation has an associated action plan. Using Bayesian logic (Deneve, 2008; Bastos et al., 2012), a brain uses pattern completion to decide among simulations and implement one of them (Gallivan et al., 2016), based on predicted maintenance of physiological efficiency across multiple body systems (e.g. need for glucose, oxygen, salt etc.). — Lisa Feldman Barrett, 2017

Feldman Barrett makes no reference to higher dimensions or information, but the patterns, simulations and action plans she’s referring to here are not physical objects, but mental structures of information. It’s easy to assume from the description above that this brain ‘activity’ occurs consciously or at least in time, like an homunculus that plays back past experiences, performs research, lays out the options and then chooses which is the best way forward based on anticipating the demands of the system. But all of this happens instantly, unconsciously and ongoing at every moment, is predictive rather than reactive, and is as real and unobservable as potential energy. As such, it also draws remarkable resemblance to ‘calculating the wavefunction’ in a quantum system. Here, Feldman Barrett’s description is similar to your own ‘phase transition’: an ‘act of changing form’. But if we consider that what she’s describing is essentially atemporal, and that this unconscious remembering, feeling, applying logic, evaluating, etc relate conceptual structures as partial patterns, or potential rather than actual information (dimensionally reduced to affect), then what we’re looking at here is an example of how five-dimensional structures of the mind impact on four-dimensional events of measurable brain activity and observable behaviour.

FWIW, the main reason I refer to mental structures of information as ‘five-dimensional’ is to describe theories such as this and quantum mechanics, which enable us to cross the idealism/materialism divide, in relation to information theory without resulting in confusion between information-as-thing (3D), information-as-process (4D) and information-as-knowledge (5D).

except in terms of Mathematical and Logical relationships. :nerd: — Gnomon

Personally, I would say: mathematical and illogical relationships. Meaning, a place (our existence) where Godel/Heisenberg meets Platonism :cool:

That would work better since everything is information, that is providing for clues, which in turn are paradoxical. Being and becoming. Temporal and a temporal. Necessity and contingency. Changing and unchanging. Time-dependent and timelessness.

Logical impossibility.

I like how you think. We are trapped in time.And I really like that you’re syscant and don’t blather on.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings.

I don’t think either of us are talking about actual real things here. We’re talking about information. — Possibility

I wasn't asking about the definition of a "real" thing. I was requesting a succinct definition of your concept of whatever kind of "thing" these extra dimensions are. Without some kind of defining mental image, I am at a loss to know what you are talking about. Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space".

Those metaphysical "dimensions" sound like the spiritual language of heaven & hell (imagined as real places) but translated into sciencey sounding modern terminology. They are spatial metaphors intended to allow us to imagine unreal "things" as-if they are real. Spiritual leaders have always used such physical imagery to convey metaphysical concepts. And they typically imply some causal connection (spiritual energies) from human minds to those abstract places in Mind-Space. This spiritual "mechanism" gives the impression that we can gain leverage over occult forces that bedevil us. But humans have typically relied on specialist Shamans to operate the spiritual system.

PS__My questions are not directed toward distinguishing "real" things from "ideal" concepts, but to discern "factual" from "fictional". For example : Time is generally accepted as an objective fact, but people's notions of that fact vary. Some think of Time flowing like a river, but Einstein pictured Time as a static block. Which metaphor is true? Depends on what kind of truth you're looking for. We all experience Change, but that simple fact has inspired all kinds of stories about change, from Fatalism or Destiny to Opportunity and Possibility. I'm looking for a Time story that is useful for my needs, that are mostly pragmatic instead of emotional.

No - the fifth dimension is not located IN space-time. — Possibility

I get that. But what kind of stuff is figuratively "located" in those multiple dimensions? How do we detect those "containers", and how can we differentiate one dimension from another? Are alternate forms of consciousness (drugs, meditation) required to access those dimensions?

But so much of what you write here also seems to perpetuate the divide, so I’m not sure what to make of that. — Possibility

I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to?

BTW. My Information Theory was based on cutting-edge science, not on New Age philosophy. So I am not well-versed in the alternative lingo of mysticism.

I’m not sure where you got ‘state space’ from. — Possibility

It's a mathematical term for a metaphysical "container" that seems to be similar to the dimensions you are talking about.
State Space : The state space of a dynamical system is the set of all possible states of the system.

What is affected is the perception or structure of potential, the five-dimensional information from which the observation is a reduction. It isn’t an ‘actual change’ as such - it’s a selected ‘mental’ structuring of potential information which determines and initiates the actual distribution of effort and attention in the observation itself. — Possibility

I need a translation into less abstract terminology.

Affect is an instruction for the distribution of effort and attention requirements, so it’s both: it’s the relation between a physical transfer of energy (actual, 4D information) and the sum of feeling/knowledge (potential, 5D information) as a prediction of change. — Possibility

Where do you get this information? Is there a book or website that gives grounding and backup for these assertions? Are these concepts related to Jungian psychology?
Or to mystical psychology? : https://www.sacred-texts.com/myst/myst/myst06.htm


Space-Time : the metaphysician Immanuel Kant said that the concepts of space and time are not empirical ones derived from experiences of the outside world—they are elements of an already given systematic framework that humans possess and use to structure all experiences. . . .
However, disagreement continues between philosophers over whether it is itself an entity, a relationship between entities, or part of a conceptual framework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space

Physically, space is emptiness that can be filled with something sensible and measurable. What kind of "things" are filling these extra empty containers.Praxis offered a couple of examples : "fifth (personal conditioning) and sixth (shared cultural conditioning) dimensions". But I don't grasp how the processes of adapting personal and cultural beliefs can be localized to specific places in "mind space". — Gnomon

This Newtonian perception you have of space as a ‘container’ is where we seem to be getting stuck. Space IS the measurable relations between systems and structures, not a container to be filled with objects or ‘things’. Space is, and was, never ‘empty’. To talk about even the fourth dimension as if it were an empty container is to misunderstand the concept of dimensions.

When you talk on the phone to someone who lives across the other side of the world, how do you get a sense of the space between you? What about the time difference? Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ deconstructs time from the single independent measurement of Newtonian classical physics, and reveals it to consist of measurable relations between systems and structures, which are themselves measurable relations between systems and structures, and so on. This understanding of ‘dimension’ forms the basis of six-dimensional metaphysics.

So the additional aspect of reality I’m referring to, just as with time and space, consists of measurable relations between systems and structures. Those relations, just as with ‘time’, can be reduced to a single, supposedly independent yet essentially local measurement known as ‘affect’. But our attempts to understand how we arrive at this measurement have hit a snag along the way, in the distinction between internal and external reality that led to this materialism/idealism divide (damn you, Descartes!). It was not dissimilar to the dilemma facing the concept of ‘world time’ two hundred years ago, which led to the slicing up of the planet into time zones, and continues to this day in the incompatibility of the time variable between quantum physics and spacetime relativity, and the distinction of ‘time’ from the three dimensions of ‘space’.

Essentially, if we have begun to understand space and then time more accurately as a structure of measurable relations between systems and structures, then surely it makes sense to talk about any additional aspects of reality beyond time in terms of measurable relations between systems and structures as well. These measurements are necessarily ‘local’, not just in relation to spatial aspects (like time is), but in relation to spacetime. That is, these measurable relations are those specific to the location of the observer in the spacetime moment of the experience. This is evident in the imminent convergence of quantum physics with subjectivity (even as it continues to ignore, isolate and exclude the relevance of qualia).

The third dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about depth to a two dimensional structure of information, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (changes) its relational position in four dimensions (time).

The fourth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about change to a three-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts (affects) its relational position in five dimensions (potential/value).

And the fifth dimension is measured locally as a relation of information about affect to a four-dimensional structure, achievable only by an integrated system that adjusts its relational position in six dimensions (meaning or possibility/impossibility).

I too, keep repeating and stipulating that I make a key distinction between Physical and Meta-physical aspects of our experience of the world. Empirical Science deals with Physics, and normally leaves Meta-Physics to Philosophers and Spiritualists (until forced to deal with abstractions and unknowns). Your extra dimensions seem to be metaphysical metaphors that are supposed to have some Effect on human Affect. But how that works is not clear. Scientists have a pretty good understanding of the physical causal forces (e.g. neurotransmitters) that elicit the Affects we call Feelings and Emotions. Are you saying that there are other "forces" involved that physical scientists are blind to? — Gnomon

It is this key distinction that you make which confuses your supposed aim to bridge the divide. The aim of science is to deal with abstractions and unknowns, not just with physics. Authority in science is founded in what can be proven and universally understood, but their work has always drawn from this metaphysical level.

Scientists do NOT have a solid understanding of the ‘physical causal forces’ that elicit what we call feelings and emotions - that’s the point that Feldman Barrett makes. The classical view of emotions was disproven by neuroscience decades ago, and yet psychology, evolutionary biology and many other fields of application continue to perpetuate the mythical assumption that feelings and emotions are inherent, instinctual and universally defined. The latest research in neuroscience shows instead that personal and cultural conditioning lead to the construction and learning of emotional concepts.

I like how you think. We are trapped in time.And I really like that you’re syscant and don’t blather on.
However, the reality is we are chemical beings. — Becky

Becky!

Can you elaborate on what you mean by 'chemical beings'?

With respect to matter, energy and information, here's a short Whitheadian interpretation of the primacy of change/events that Possibility alluded to... . This is in contrast to say Platonism, relative to cosmology/metaphysics/unchanging things-see process theology.

However, it is important to note that in Panentheism, as Davies posits, the Di-polar God is that where both timeless and temporality are folded into one entity. A combination of both determinism and indeterminism on a quantum scale. A God that is both imbedded in the stream of time, yet retains it's eternal an unchanging character. (Wheeler's game of 20-questions illustrates by that by analogy.)

Anyway, here's the 101 on the former interpretation of process philosophy: