Below I have posted two works of original thought. The first is an old paper from my university metaphysics class which I took towards my philosophy degree. The second is a short write up of abstract applications to contemporary theoretical ideas.
My personal beliefs and theories have evolved over the years and the paper from my class reflects younger thinking and a lack of clarity in my terms. When I refer to "spacial entities" it might be more comprehensive to think of them as "geometeric (or topological) entities" in that they are meant to be abstract concepts that help define physical ones (i.e. forces are geometeries in dimensional surfaces [gravity = warped space/time])
__________
Dustin Wetzel
12/18/00
Metaphysics
Final Paper
Ontological Argument for Existence - Three Fold Spacial Existence Theory
When challenged with the question of existence many different theories have come to surface and have attempted to answer this question. Of them, there is Plato’s concept of the Eternal Pattern, Plotinus’ Unity, and Leibniz’s Monadology. To those arguments I will now try to add my theory: Three Fold Spacial Existence. As the name implies, I attempt to explain existence by looking at three spacial entities. Through these entities all things exist and interact with each other. Though this theory is far from complete, this is the rough idea behind it. I will back up these points with citations and quotes from the texts that we studied throughout the semester.
First, let me start by explaining my theory. Like I said all existence can be interpreted by using just three spacial entities. What we believe to be our physical existence is merely a point of dimensional space (or also called geometrical space), moving along a line of temporal space, within a vast region of causal space.
Though there really isn’t any motion at all, instead there are separate points of geometrical space which have a physical make-up (that can be reduced to a simple set, since it is only a collection of points in a three-dimensional area). All of these individual geometric points are connected in a line (though this line need not be straight, in fact we can’t determine any form of this line since it exists abstractly within causal space that doesn’t have any physical laws). The “motion” along this line is what can be called temporal space. Like I said, there is no real motion nor is there real change. All of these points are laid out and then we “move” from one to the next. This constantly changing perspective creates the illusion of motion. This is very similar to the persistence of vision that creates motion in films. Our individual, subjective perceptions are just frames (separate images) along a strip of film. What we believe to be motion is simply the film being played through a projector.
Dimensional (or geometrical) space, as is evident, is what we perceive as being our physical world. All of our perceptions can be reduced to a set of points and physical qualities (those that can be interpreted by using our senses), which can be represented by numbers. This makes our physical world one large numerical set. However, geometrical space can’t be just a bunch of points all over the place. If this were true, then there would be chaos and no real form, but there is order and we can see that since our physical world does have shape and form. So, what ties all of these seemingly random points in a geometrical space together? Well, since geometrical space resides in another region of space, called causal space, then it can interact with the one thing that can help it. Within causal space exist three other concepts that we can use. These are the Platonic tools of properties, relations, and propositions.
Properties will place our points of geometrical space in an order (when using set-theory this order is implied by the order that the points are in when in the set). At any given moment of time, the geometrical space that makes up our physical world will have the property of being as it is for that moment of time. Therefore geometrical space will be given order due to the property that it has. But still, this does not explain why the property had any order. First off, the geometrical space itself isn’t the only thing that has a properties. The individual points also have properties, each one has it’s own property of being that point (a variation of the identity property). When dealing with points alone, that is where properties end. However, once the points construct certain objects, then these objects have many properties: size, shape, color, temperature, smell. All of these new properties are physical, or sensible, and we can perceive them by either seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, or touching.
Now, how do these points create the objects of our physical world and give the physical world the qualities that it possesses? To answer this we must turn to relations. A relation is a property that two or more things have with each other. Take for example the points in geometrical space. If point x has the property of being numerical distance from point y, and point y shares the converse property with point x (being the same numerical distance from it), then there exists a relation between point x and point y. These relations are what give order to geometrical space. Properties give identity and quality to the points and the relations (which are also just properties) give the order that is needed. These dimensional (or geometrical) relations get very complex. They locate the points to each other in relation to each other in every dimensional sense (height, width, depth) along with aiding in the definition of the qualities that exist in the physical objects. What is 108 degrees Fahrenheit, but a relation between the numerical value, 108, and the numerical value, 0, on some measured device. This isn’t the best example since we created the method in which to measure the temperature, but the concept of temperature still existed before we came up with a way to gauge it.
Now, I mentioned earlier that at any given moment of time, the geometrical space that makes up our physical world will have the property of being as it is for that moment of time. This implies that there can be one and only one property at any given moment of time, which is true. Taken even further, there can only be one property and no other properties can be like it. There is only one moment of time in which the points of geometrical space will line up as they do to create an apple with it’s shape, size, taste, smell, texture, temperature, etc. Therefore there is only on property and only one relation that will make that apple what it is. In fact, the identity property of that apple is the most unique, since there is no other identity property like, or there would be the exact same apple. Even if the points in geometrical space lined up to resemble the exact same apple in every regard and quality, there would still be only one property (now two, one for each apple). There are an infinite number of properties all of which are individual and none of which are the same.
Now the question arises: If there can be only one property at one moment of time, then is the apple the same apple that it was say 5 minutes ago. The answer is yes and no. Yes it is the same apple because we can see that it is even if it has changed (someone took a bite out of it). It will always be the same apple because we understand it to be. But, the truth is that it is not the same to a certain extent. The property of it being that apple will endure through time. However, that endurance itself is only an illusion, for the apple will take on a very similar property, in fact similar in all regards but one. Now that apple will have the same property but have a new one, that being the property of being 5 minutes later in time. It is the same apple since it does have the very same property that it had 5 minutes ago with the only exception being that the time-index is different. Geometric properties are time-indexed (along with causal properties). Also geometric relations must then be time-indexed as well. We take for granted the property of being time-indexed, for everything and every property has that added property.
So, is the apple the same apple. I said yes and no. Yes because it is the same apple logically; but literally, it can only be the same apple if it has the “exact” same property. Then no, for it exists through time and therefore it’s time-indexed property is always changing. The apple’s complete property set is an ever-changing (or perpetually in motion) entity due to the apple’s relation to time. However, it’s identity property taken out of the context of time never changes even if the apple itself changes (unless the apple is destroyed). The identity property that everything possesses endures through time. The best example is our own identity property which is much stronger than an apple’s since we can even contemplate and realize it. Now each of us individually are perceiving our own existence subjectively, and therefore can’t change, since everything changes around us (rather, we move through everything which looks like change). We of course possess something that simple physical objects do not. This allows us to actually perceive the “motion” through time. This is a very strong identity property that many call a soul. Before I get into the soul let me talk about temporal space.
Temporal space is abstract when compared to geometrical space (and causal space is even more abstract). I can metaphorically explain temporal space real quickly by comparing it to the motion along a line. Every instance of geometrical space exist as separate points along a line. The motion along this line is what I call temporal space.
Even though many can’t explain why, there exists an order in everything of this world. From the events that happen to the simple cause and effect of actions, there is an order that seems to govern over them stating a beginning, middle, and end. We can even “look back” and reflect on things that happened in the past, or talk of what may come in the future, and if you ask anyone they’ll say we reside in the present. So, what are the meanings of past, present, and future? Why do we use them and what significance do they have. Like I said, there seems to be an order. I feel that the concept of temporal space is the entity that commands this order. Temporal space is actually not a “space” at all, but a motion like I said. Without the motion there would be no time or change or any movement in our physical world at all. Temporal space also acts as a guide through causal space. Through the motion of time, a line (or temporal wake) is created, this is the temporal space and allows us to move backward in time, if we so desire. However, time travel isn’t as easy as it seems. Mainly because it will be different for each and everyone of us since we all exist independent of each other when dealing with subjective perceptions.
Now, I will try to explain the purpose of causal space, then after which I will explain what we call the self and how it interacts with the multiverse. Causal space is a spacial entity in which all abstract entities reside, such as the concept of numbers, thoughts, values, choices and their outcomes, etc. This is where all possible outcomes to all possible decisions exist, however only in the abstract sense, void of any physical understanding. We can’t “see” this space, but we most certainly experience it, for without it, then we would not be able to even perceive the dimensional (geometrical) space. Properties, relations, and propositions also reside here, but I won’t talk about them since the same concepts that applied to geometric properties and relations also work with causal ones (right down to the time-indexed notion). Propositions state truths (though depending on the situation, these truths are sometimes false) and reside only in causal space but rule over all three (geometrical, temporal, and causal).
The proposition: that magic is real (in this sense I mean actually work, one can summon upon flames if he so desires), is in fact true, due to the Principle of Plentitude, and therefore exists in causal space. Everything possible for that matter reside in causal space, since the Principle of Plentitude states that anything conceivable is possible (though not always perceivable). All possibilities are so in causal space. As I said, causal space is the most abstract of the three spacial entities. It has no shape or form and is void of anything physical. But, it does help shape what is physical. The ideas and concepts in causal space give form to the physical objects in geometrical space. Properties themselves actually reside in causal space. So, does a pink, 18 foot tall, dog with 3 three eyes and 9 tongues exist? Well, causally speaking, yes it does. Anything possible does exist, the idea of such a creature is as real as the ground you walk on (this is just a figure of speech, I’m not implying that the ground is actually real for all you non-realists out there), in causal space, that is. Now the idea resides in causal space; if for some reason a point of geometrical space ever intersected with this region of causal space, then we would actually see such a creature since the points would get their properties and relations from causal space and form the animal.
Though the simple idea of causal space is easy to explain, it is actually difficult to grasp. The easiest way is to understand it metaphorically, as I stated the entire theory earlier. What we perceive as our physical world is actually a point of geometrical space moving along of line of temporal space within a region of causal space. Now, this perception is subjective as it pertains to you and only you (for that matter, me and only me). My perception (though it probably is not) could be entirely different from your perception of the physical world. My existence is merely telling you that I’ve come across you in causal space (but we can’t possess the exact same point of causal space). Since there isn’t any physical laws that bind causal space it is possible to “cross” the same space that you do. When this happens we see each other, or rather an object that represents each of our presence in the other’s perceptions.
Like Leibniz’s Monadology, all subjective existence is merely perception. I perceive my surroundings. So, do I exist within dimensional (geometrical) space? No, for how can I perceive something fully that I am a part of? But you say that you are inside a room, clearly you are surrounded by walls and therefore must be in the room, inside the dimensional space. You perceive yourself as being located there, but in actuality your Self resides elsewhere. The “room” is just a collection of perceptions, as you turn that’s a new group of points in geometrical space. Like I said, there is no motion, no change, so as you turn you aren’t moving inside anything, but perceiving along a line of separate points of dimensional space. If you existed in geometrical space, then you wouldn’t move either, and instead be a group of points, but we know that isn’t so. Your friend is a collection of points, but that collection is just a representation of your friend. Your friend is actually not really what you see before you, but he or she is as abstract as you are.
So, does the Self exist in temporal space? No, the reason being that temporal space isn’t a space at all. In fact, what we will see, is that temporal space will still remain a mystery when we discover where the Self is located. Remember, temporal space is a motion, the spacial entity can be considered the temporal wake left by that motion.
Then, the Self must certainly dwell in causal space along with all the other abstract entities and all the other Selfs. This, also is not so. If the Self existed within causal space, then where would it be, and how would it interact with everything else in causal space. Causal space is where every outcome to every decision resides and within all causal space there exists certain abstract entities, such as logic and math (some regions won’t have all abstract entities, certainly the region where magic resides there is a different version of physics, or has physics just been adapted differently?). The only things that have a “location” in causal space (metaphorically speaking), are the paths of conclusion. The effects of the causes that make up this spacial entity. So, the Self does not abide here.
The truth is, the Self exists outside all of the three spacial entities. Dimensional (geometrical) space is what we perceive as being physical and causal space is what governs over everything that is non-physical. The Self actually “moves” through these two spaces. Now about temporal space. One can argue that this movement of the Self is actually due to the Self’s location in temporal space. I have to disagree, since with the removal of all of the three spaces, including temporal, the Self would still exist. So, do the spacial entities exist in the Self? That I can’t agree with either, for I certainly interact with other individuals who appear to be as sentient and individual as myself. If the three spacial entities where within me, then all of the people I see must also be within me. Of course, I say within me in a strictly abstract sense. In nothing was real or physical and everything was just perceptions, then I would have no body, and what I thought was existence would be just a program of perceptions being played out before my “eyes.” That is the monadic view that Leibniz has, however, I tend to disagree with parts.
Physical existence certainly is just perceptions. Very detailed perceptions that go beyond sight (which is most associated with perception). I perceive through all my senses and “interact” with the physical world. But I feel that true existence goes beyond physical perception. It delves into the depths of causal perception.
Causal perception of course has nothing to do with the senses and I use the term “perception” in the logical meaning. Like I said, causal space contains all the outcomes to all of the decisions that anyone makes. In a way, every path is laid out, which would elude to the concept of destiny (however, I’ll save issues of freewill for another time). When viewed in a non-subjective manner, causal space contains many different course, which I referred to as paths of conclusion. These courses each have a series of events that unfold in a logical manner (even the ones containing magic as being real still follow logic). No two Selfs can follow the same path of conclusion. If both you and I were walking down the exact same path, then we would be traveling to the same destination (if you walked of the path, then it wasn’t the exact same path to begin with). Similarly, if both you and I were existing in the exact same area of causal space, then we would have to be living the exact same life, and therefore be the same person (though sometimes this happens, in the case of multiple personalities). Each set of choices defines a different person. There is one set of choices that defines you, and another set that defines me. That’s when viewing all people, non-subjectively.
Subjective views are different. Subjective causal space is individual to you and only you (or me and only me). Subjective causal space is the area of actual causal space in which I always exist over. This may sound strange, how can one area of a space never be different but still somehow move so it can interact with other areas that never differ. That’s because causal space is far from being anything remotely physical. The reason that there is one area where only I exist over, is the same reason why there is only one set of choices that defines my Self in causal space. They are one and the same, now I’m only looking closer. Within my own subjective causal space there are still a number of outcomes to a number of decisions that I could and might make. This creates more sets of choices and more paths of conclusion. However, only one of these defines my Self. The others belong to other people. In fact, they belong to all the other Dustins that exist. This complex causal space creates what I will close my theory with, the Multiverse. I’ll look at the Mulitverse from a subjective standpoint to make things simpler.
The subjective multiverse is the composite of every effect to every cause that I may or may not actualize. The Principle of Plentitude applies here as well, though in a much more localized sense. Though I can ask the question: What if I were born in 1920 instead of being born in 1980? And that question has an answer and a Dustin who lived in that time that was very much like myself. Though that goes outside of the subjective context that I wanted to stay in. Let’s say I was born when I was, and remain in this general area of causal space, namely my broad set of choices.
When I was first born and brought into this world, did I look left or right (or did I not turn my head at all)? The truth is that I looked both left and right (and I didn’t move my head). However, my subjective perception only realized one of those outcomes. This is one of the many divisions in my set of choices (divisions happened right from conception, and maybe even before). As my life continued I was faced with options. I thought I had a choice as to which option to take, however I did not, for there is no freewill. In actuality every decision to these choices was made, and again my subjective perception only realized one of those outcomes. As you can see, this creates an infinite number of outcomes and paths, which creates a subjective multiverse.
There is a short science-fiction story written by Robert Charles Wilson titled Divided By Infinity which shares this very same view of a multiverse. In fact, I adopted the idea after reading this story. In the story there is a theory about immortality that is discovered to be true by the main character. Stated simply, it says that we can not die since there is always an outcome to an event that would result in our life being saved. When I step out in front of a large truck and get struck and killed instantly, there exist an infinite number of outcomes in which I didn’t die, where I jumped back at the last moment, didn’t attempt to cross the street, or didn’t even leave the house that day. So, as the story dictates, we don’t die since we simply follow the path of life rather than death, however an infinite number of “us” do die. All the outcomes that resulted in my death are still deaths, so I died an infinite number of times, but there were an infinite number of outcomes to begin with, so I merely divided by infinity (there’s the title of the story).
The story gets even more complex and says that our perceptions around us become stranger and stranger as we become more and more less likely. Becoming less likely simply means willingly doing things that put ourselves in the potential of having outcomes that result in death, which is pretty much doing anything isn’t it? I’m not sure if I agree with this theory or not, but the story was certainly entertaining, and I figured I’d end with mentioning it, since Robert Charles Wilson did inspire me to contemplate a real Multiverse.
__________
Fabric of Reality
Psychedelic Contrail Vision and Apparent Motion
FTL and Near-FTL Displacement
Post-Death Photosphere Phenomenon
1. The fabric of reality is woven together with an infinite number of tiny loops called strings. These strings are all connected to each other in a large tapestry. Relative to us, these strings and the tapestry are stationary and do not move. In actuality this string tapestry expands along with the Universe and lies over the curvature of space/time.
Each individual string, or string cell, can have a simplified value of either being “on” or “off.” When “on,” the string vibrates, and depending upon the vibration of the string, the mass will be different. In actuality these strings can have a theoretically infinite range of frequency, and the more energetic the vibration the more massive the string (energy = mass). When a string cell is “off” it has no mass.
Apparent motion to us in actuality is cause and effect interaction between these stationary string cells. When a body with a mass takes up space/time it also is composed of a cluster of string cells all vibrating at a uniform frequency to maintain the stability of the matter that the body is made up of. When this body “moves” through space/time it is actually turning off existing string cells, and slowly turning on neighboring string cells to change its displacement. As long as the vibrations remain constant as this transition occurs the body “moves” through space/time.
This is the apparent motion of matter. There is no real motion and instead just a complex rule of causation (see: cellular automata, i.e. Conway’s Life) that determines which string cells will turn “on” and how fast they will vibrate (as well as which cells slow their vibration and eventually turn “off”)
2. The psychedelic experience can actually show us this apparent motion. It can be seen by observing the apparent (and now perceived) contrails that are “attached” to any body that moves through space/time. Take some LSD or psilocybin and wave your hand around and observe it.
3. FTL (or Faster Than Light) and near-FTL displacement can be achieved by maintaining the causal quantities that make up a physical body (or mass or cluster of matter) and then applying those quantified values to a new location in space/time. In theory this would bring the body’s existence suddenly into being, and the body would “pop” without warning into the new location. If I were to apply my unique wave pattern and string cell vibratory rate to another part of the super string tapestry I could, in theory, arise into being in that new location (of course my existing section of the tapestry best be turned off lest I want a duplicate of myself running around, see “Evil Will Ryker”).
4. Seeing a bright light at the end of a tunnel may not be all that crazy after all. If we could look far enough out into the Universe (and by looking a distance, we also look back through time) we’d reach a point where all we’d see is a bright white light. This is the photosphere of the Universe, the point where the Universe went from opaque to clear, also the point at which the lambda max was at 400 nm (violet light) and traversed through the spectrum very suddenly into the visual light range (sudden flash of white light). One sees this when they die because their conscious mind (which exists in causal space) experiences no time (they are no longer tethered to a physical body, nor do they need to adhere to space/time) and they “move” to the expanding edge of the Universe (to the photosphere). The conscious mind remains here, until the closed Universe turns in on itself, the expansion becomes a big crunch, and the Universe oscillates into its next existential phase. The oldest part of the Universe is at the edge of its expansion, while the youngest is at its center-most point.
posted by Daniel Jean-Gabriel @ 07:32
0 comments
