Quotes & Sayings

We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater


Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write from the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Saturday, January 27, 2024

What Does It Mean to Live in Processual Hyperdimensional Worlds?

What Does It Mean to Live in
Processual Hyperdimensional Worlds?

by R.E. Slater

How do you go about explaining hyper-dimensionality and yet make it practical. Let's try...

Mathematicians, Physicists, and Science Fiction writers have together sought to explain space and time to us through their tools and trades of knowledge and speculation.

Below is a temporal explanation of 11 connected forms of temporal dimensions including that of our own 3 dimensional space.

Once completed, think through each dimensional paradigm as describing a living organic complexity infinitely related to itself, experiencing itself, and reacting to itself as a self-aware chaotic essence continual evolving to-and-from itself as it moves through an infinite chaotic cascade of concrescing events in its present super-state in which all component parts are continually adapting, evolving and becoming more than it was before some point in time. We have now described the world of Whitehead's process-based metaphysics of the cosmos.

R.E. Slater
January 27, 2024

Firstly, our perceptions of reality are shaped by the kinds of reality we live in and experience. Many of the dimensions shown below can be experienced by ourselves, as alpha beings. We might describe such people as being wise, learned knowledgeable, prescient, well-travelled, snd so forth.

But if we think of ourselves as affected-and-affecting living elements in a vast sociological-spiritual sea of personalized communities than as "simple" beings living out our lives in whatever temporal modes of physicality we find ourselves, then as alpha beings living in 4 dimensional worlds we might effectively heal and atone, revive and redeem, translate and ascend over today's many world realities of negative conflict and debilitating consequences caused by non-perspectival living to one's self.

A process philosophy, such as Whitehead's, when coupled with a grand processal theology vision can grant all ecocosmo-civilizations the great ability to find salvation in living with one another. That the very unity of solidarity in itself can heal and disrupt the evil and wickedness created by communities not leaning into life and love.

Further, religions such as Christianity becomes better informed when adopting its own processual form of faith. Likewise Judaism, Islam, and all world religions. A process-based-abd-informed faith and/or formation of pricess-informed habits of life finds deep reflection and "raision d'etre" when placed upon a succinct process philosophy emphasizing love and respect for all beings and living things.

R.E. Slater
January 27, 2024

Envisioning 11 dimensional spacetime

by R.E. Slater

Mankind typically has five senses and a recent sixth sense as designated by scientific studies. They are taste, smell, vision, hearing, touch and… an awareness of one's body in space. Yes, humans have at least six senses, and a new study suggests that the last one, known as called proprioception, may have a genetic basis. Proprioception refers to how our brain understands where our body is in relationship to space, and perhaps to spacetime, in the more general sense of things.

d = dimensions or dimensionality

ST = space time

Alpha 3d + 1d Time = 4d ST - If using our five/six senses we humans are 3 dimensional beings living in a 4 dimensional world per our senses.. We call this four-dimensional space - "spacetime" - as Einstein referred to it in his relativity theories of the very large.

Beta 5d - The purposeful (or random) sequencing of ST. Essentially a 5d being may play-back, pause, or play-forward life modes in a any chosen random succession.

String Theories vacillating frequencies

Gamma 6d - The superpositioning + random temporality of ST = A 6d being may observe "all-at-once life modes" granting to it the ability to re-live all, or part, of one's sequentialized  lifetimes at any point and all a once (e.g., ST as a non-linear compactification of scale and sequence).

Delta 7d - Here a 7d being may experience "the plane of absolute awareness of all possible worlds". This would be a superpositional + supertemporal multimodal dimensional experience where one might see all possibilities of one's life choices all at once in order to know and chart preferred outcomes. This would not be unlike an alpha time being such as ourselves when describing a mentor as a wise sage or prescient-type of guru. Which is to say that for every dimension beyond our own we still may ascribe a parallel experience. In so many words, we have inherited the Divine's superdimensionality in likeness but not in exactness. I will explain further as we go on....

The "Many Worlds Paradigm" of Multiverses

Epsilon 8d - Here, an 8d being may randomly chose a point of origin when applying superpositionality and supertemporality. That is, by changing one's "initial conditions" one will most likely produce drastically different outcomes leading to more favorable optimal results. An 8d spacetime is one which integrates chaos theory with experientially determinative results using agency and reflection. This then will allow --> multilocality, multitemporal corporeal travel to explore, experiment and experience infinite regressive possibilities --> resulting in gaining "exterior" perspectives via experiential knowledge.

Ex. The same  8d child/adult may chose to be born to different parents, to live in different conditions, to experience different opportunities, localities, eras, etc.

By application, a living 3d alpha being may live on different continents, under differing cultures and religions, and with later applying these experiences to one's life and ministries, business or community leadership to help lead a community towards some preferred lifestyle. This is most common with military kids, refugees, or missionary kids as they experience goodness or duress, serenity or hardship. All experience can be leveraged to better one's life or help another as opportunities allow. Which is another reason we should always be sensitive to assisting and helping where we can.

Lamda 9d - A lambda being is presciently self-aware and their attuned to re-perspectivizing their life as it is enhanced when subsuming all possible initial condition matrices all at once. Hence, such a being may profoundly navigate the chaotic complexity of a living, processual universe with purpose, intentionality and precision. More simply, with this kind of knowledge and ability "every path becomes the right path" with knowledge, experience and perspective in which to gain optimal results for differing paths good or bad.
Ex. Essentially a 9d being is actively creating a library of all possible beginnings with all possible results. This resembles the god-like being in Star Trek Next-Gen and the cable series Picard known as "Q". A diffident, albeit obsequious, being who taunts and questions, teases, and mocks Captain Picard's human efforts to guide his crew, humanity, and alien life forms, towards a better tomorrow.

Q's younger and older selves moving
together through life events.

Q whispering into Picard's ear as either devil or angel,
Picard could never be sure.

Picard always had the choice to listen while also choosing
how to listen. Most times he never knew the end game.


Sigma 10d - Here, a 10d sigma being may also change their cosmological constants. That is, they are not bound to any one universe but have at their disposal all possible universes.

Similarly, we think we live in a finely-tuned creation where changing the charge of an election in the slightest degree, or the weakness of gravity by a little more or a little less, would no longer make our current universe habitable for our present species. This is not the case for a sigma being.

And though this may an argument for the strong anthropology principle I would rather not couch this observation in these terms but in terms of the weak anthropological argument which states that life resulted via evolutionary process because of that quality which God has give all living things in which to adapt and embrace one's  existing cosmological constants whatever they may be. Thus, God is not a determinative being but more of a wise being creating life with the capability to thrive wherever it may exist against all the odds that it exist at all.

Theologically, a processual cosmology allows for a positively evolving and pancessually adaptive ("many forms and modes") dimensional spacetime best described as a processually evolving creation/cosmos/cosmology.

Omega 11d - Finally, an 11d omega being has an infinite array of all possible worlds with all possible outcomes lending to an infinite array of perspectives. Importantly, one can no longer speak of "the impossible" because even the impossible exists in many infinite forms. This is the stuff of speculative science fiction, theology and philosophy. It is fun to imagined and though actually unobtainable for alpha beings it is in fact, the kind of universe we live in and are formed by, if we are beings at all. The quantum realm is the kind of playground where dimensional space may be found and where Whiteheadian process philosophy and theology demands its place.

- res

"What If You Could Access the TENTH Dimension?"
10D Explained
by Beeyond Ideas  |  Sep 29, 2023

Let’s unravel the layers of existence that redefine reality. From Alpha's linear perception of time to the unfathomable Omega, where every conceivable reality exists. 


00:00 Opening
01:08 Time as a dimension
04:28 Multiple time dimensions
06:19 The next level of twin paradox
08:10 α-Alpha (3D)
09:55 β-Beta (4D)
11:48 γ-Gamma (5D)
14:21 δ-Delta (6D)
16:44 ε-Epsilon (7D)
19:41 λ-Lambda (8D)
22:26 σ-Sigma (9D)
24:51 ω-Omega (10D)
26:21 The existential question

11 Dimensions Explained
What are Dimensions & How Many Dimensions are there?

Posted by Lalit Vashishtha 

What you will learn here about Dimensions. Here I will tell you what we mean by dimensions and how many dimensions are there.

Get ready to experience the amazing world of 11 dimensions. I request you to read this post till the end as it is going to be more and more interesting as we proceed.

What are the First 4 Dimensions

I know most of you are aware of first three or four dimensions. The first three dimensions are dimensions of space - i.e., "Length, width, and height." While the fourth dimension is the time dimension.

You will find it interesting that we have control over the first three dimensions of space which are length, width and height. It means we can freely move in space in forward, reverse, up and down directions. But we have no control over the fourth dimension, that is the time dimension. We are only allowed to travel only in the forward direction in the time dimension.

Even if we could fully control only the first four dimensions including the time dimension, we would become a person with supernatural powers because then it would be possible for us to travel freely not only in space but also in time in both directions; I.e. past and future as per our wish.

So just imagine, how powerful a person would be if he or she could control all 11 dimensions. Believe me, that person will actually be called The God as s/he would have the potential to do the things that you cannot even imagine.

So I think, now you are ready to enter into the fascinating world of 11 dimensions.

Let's discuss each dimension one by one.

Zeroth Dimension

Any object having Zero dimension has no length, no width and no height. A point is an example of zeroth dimension as it has no length, no width and no height or depth.

Now let's discuss the first dimension.

First Dimension

An object in first dimension has only one dimension i.e. the length. If we connect two points then we get a line having only one dimension. So a line is an example of first dimension having no width and no height but only the length dimension. Someone living in one dimensional universe, will only be allowed to move in the forward and reverse directions. There will be no existence of anything like left or right for him.

Now we will know what we mean by second dimension.

Second Dimension

Flat figures like a square or triangle are two dimensional objects. These two dimensional or 2D Objects have non zero area but their volume is zero as there is no height. They have only two dimensions, length and width. So these are known as two dimensional or 2D objects. A person living in a two dimensional space can only move on a plane.In other words he or she can only move in forward, reverse and left, right directions but not in up and down directions. So his life will be limited to a plane surface. Everything will be flat with zero height in such a universe. Some daily life examples of a two dimensional world are screens of televisions and mobile phones. Although they appear to be a three dimensional World but actually this world inside these devices is confined to a flat screen having no depth or height.

Third Dimension

If we add height or depth to a two dimensional object, it becomes a three dimensional object. A Three dimensional object has non zero volume. A cube or sphere are geometrical examples of three dimensional objects. We live in a three dimensional world where we can move in any direction in space as per our wish. We are free to move in forward, reverse, up and down directions.

Fourth Dimension (Time)

Time is considered the fourth dimension. As I just told you that we live in a three dimensional world where we are free to move in any direction in space. But without the fourth dimension i.e. The time dimension, no events can take place. Without time dimension nothing will change in this world. Time is the way for three dimensions to change. It is the time dimension that allows the objects to change their position and location in space. Without time, the whole universe will look like a snapshot for ever.

As we are living in a three dimensional world, so we have no control on the fourth dimension, the time. We are forced to move only in the forward direction with time. But a person living in four dimensions will be able to go in any direction in time like past or future. He will have control over the time dimension as he is a person of four dimensions.

So these were the first four dimensions that can be perceived by humans. Now We are going to discuss higher dimensions that we can not perceive, although they exist.

So let's start with the fifth dimension

Fifth Dimension

As I just told you that we can not perceive dimensions that are higher than the fourth dimension because they exist on a subatomic level. These higher dimensions actually deal with the possibilities. But why we cannot perceive higher dimensions. Actually these dimensions are curled in on themselves in a process known as Compactification.

But how these higher dimensions are imperceptible. Let me explain it by giving you a simple example.

When we see a rope from large distance, we only observe it's one dimension that is the length. But any insect moving on that rope will also see other dimensions of the rope like its thickness. It will also observe the fine groves and roughness and circumference of the rope that could not be seen by a distant observer.

If a person were living in a world of five dimensions then he would be able to play with time in different ways. He could move either in past or in future. It would also be possible for him to be present at different locations at the same time. He would be able to do many jobs or can have many hobbies at the same time. He could be a doctor, an engineer, a cricketer, a poet and anything else at the same time, as he has full control over the time dimension.

Sixth Dimension

Sixth dimension gives more powers to a person living in this dimension. He can not Only move in any direction in time at his will but also can take many forms at the same time just like the quantum world. We know that the quantum world is the world of probabilities, where particles can be present at different places at the same time and can take different forms. So the sixth dimension gives more flexibility in comparison to the fifth dimension. In The sixth dimension we enter into the world of parallel universes I.e. The concept of multiverse. This dimension will allow us to see all possible presents, pasts and futures. But Every Universe present in this multiverse will have the same beginning as that of our universe I.e. the big bang. This is the limitation of this dimension.

Seventh Dimension

This dimension also, includes the concept of parallel universes. Seventh dimension contains infinite number of universes. So a Person living in seven dimensions can move in any universe and can have infinite forms of itself. The basic difference between the sixth and the seventh dimension is that, the infinite universes in the sixth dimension had the condition that they all must have the same beginning as of ours I.e the big bang.But the seventh dimension is free from this condition also. Seventh dimension can contain a plane of all possible universes with different start conditions. Universes present in this dimension may have originated from different possibilities.

Eighth Dimension

According to String theory, there will be no physical existence of any object that is present in the 8th dimension. So anyone living in this dimension would not be able to touch anything nor it can be touched by anything or anyone as nothing will have any physical existence. If you find it difficult to imagine, then you can understand it like the digital world that we are familiar with. The eighth dimension will contain a plane of all the possible presents, pasts and futures for all the infinite number of parallel universes that are stretching up to infinity.

Ninth Dimension

Ninth dimension is again very interesting and unbelievable. In the ninth dimension, it is possible for many civilizations or aliens to live at the same place and at the same time without seeing and feeling the presence other, I.e. being completely unaware of the presence of the other. If someone is able to see, then he might be seeing all the civilizations and Aliens living together at the same time at the same place smoothly, independent of each other.

A Person living in the ninth dimension will be able to move in any infinite number of universes, will have no physical form, will be able to move in all presents, pasts and futures of any infinite number of universes that are extending to infinity. One different thing that will happen in the universes of the ninth dimension will be, that these universes may have their own laws of physics and separate conditions and probabilities of their origin.

Tenth Dimension

This dimension will contain infinite possibilities and would be infinitely complex to understand for us. A person living in the tenth dimension will have infinite powers. That person would be so powerful that he would be no other than the God itself as he would be able to control space and time and every thing present in any infinite number of universes.He would have all the powers that are possessed by the person living in other lower dimensions that we have already discussed. The possibilities for this dimension are infinite. Even those things are possible in this dimension that are beyond your imagination.

Eleventh Dimension

Friends before describing the eleventh dimension, let me tell you that according to string theory there are 10 dimensions, while M- Theory says that there are total 11 dimensions. But According to Bosonic theory, total number of dimensions may be up to 26.

But scientists say that, because of self consistency, a universe cannot have more than 11 dimensions as they become unstable. Because of this instabilty they collapse back down into 11 or 10 dimensions.

So now let's come back to the 11th dimension.

In the eleventh dimension everything imaginable or unimaginable is possible. In other words you can say, that there is nothing that cannot happen in the 11th dimension.

According to M-Theory the smallest thing in the universe is not atoms, electron, higgs boson or quarks. The smallest thing is much smaller than all these subatomic particles. Actually the smallest thing in the universe is "Strings". You may think, why I am explaining the strings here? Actually strings vibrate in the eleventh dimension that we are going to discuss.

Everything present in every universe of every dimension is made up of Strings. All the atoms, subatomic particles, muons, quarks, Higgs bosons are made up of Strings. You will be surprised to know that according to M theory, everything in the universe originated from the 11th dimension not from the first, second or third dimension.

What are these Strings and how small they are?

In Physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings.According to the string theory all fundamental particles are actually tiny vibrating loops of string. Various properties of particles like mass and charge are determined by the vibrations of the one dimensional string like entities. The String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.

Now let's come to the size of the string.

The size of the string is about 10^-33 cm. Let me tell you that 10^-33 cm is actually millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter. Confused?

Ok, let me explain it to you in simple words.

To give you an Idea let's compare the size of a string with the size of an atom.

If an atom were magnified, to the size of the whole observable Universe, then a String would only be the size of a tree!!!

So friends these were the 11 dimensions according to the M theory. I hope you enjoyed this post and learned many new things.

* * * * * * * *

From Quora

Historian of theoretical physics.Updated 5y

Originally Answered:

The best way to understand dimensions is to start with smaller dimensions than three and work up very slowly so that the analogy is clear. An overage of detail is needed to eliminate confusion. Patience will pay off. Furthermore I hope to point out that a spatial version of Tarski’s undefinability exists in consideration of dimensions without any reference to formal set theory.

1) Creating a space to hold things and defining the relationships.

A zero dimensional object is called a point but a single dimensional “array” used to store it can have infinite points. The array is the actual "dimension" which contains the point objects. (an array in programming looks like this: arrayname[#]) Given that a point has no dimension and is not measurable, it is a bit misleading to insist that a collection of dimensionless points is somehow measurable. In fact, the relationship of the points to each other is utterly undefined until another dimension is defined. An infinite number of them could all be in the same place or they could be randomly arranged in some higher dimensional space. The point is that the dimension or array is a "space" which is kind of like an infinite set of containers. If a higher dimension does not exist, however, our concept of arrangement between them is something we add via imagination because of our concept of a linear arrangement of a number line that we label those boxes with, but that relationship cannot exist in a 1D reality. In a 1D reality there is no spacial relationship between points. Just like higher dimensions, our pre-conceived notions accidentally add things to lower dimensions as well. There’s no collision or direction because there’s no way to define a direction without something for the “line” to traverse. Therefore the following is visualization is misleading without higher dimensions. What it does convey is that we use sets of containers called arrays to store and label things like bits of empty space of whatever size we decide to use for a unit size.

Once the higher dimension is defined, however, (two dimensions) then the relationship of the points (places or bits of space) in that higher dimensional structure is also somewhat automatically defined by cartesian coordinate systems. Suddenly, because there is an external reference, measurability becomes more meaningful. If they were labelled in numerical order then they now exist in a line. There are also now unlimited number of possible locations along a line that a point can exist and the relationship between the points in this higher dimensional reality is numerically labelled in a two dimensional array. (arrayname[x][y]) This is to say that what we think of as lines, can now actually exist since there is some higher dimensional reference. Our labeled boxes for holding points may be labeled along x because that’s what we do for cartesian coordinates, but a general line can go across both x and y axis. The habit of cartesian coordinate systems adds something that isn’t really there for a 1D reality. Without that y axis, the “line”(or collection of bits of space) could be thought of as piled up in one place or tied in a knot and there’d be no way to differentiate because the relationship is undefined. It would all be imagination without that higher dimensional reality to contain and define it.

This means that going from one dimension to two defines a real structure which, filled or not, has unlimited "slots" for the lower dimension. To restate it, while unlimited number of points could have existed in the single dimensional structure before the extra dimension was added to view it from, no relationship between them could be clearly defined. IE The relationships of a dimensional structure we use to keep up with things, cannot have real relationships unless there is a (somewhat hidden or intimated) higher dimensional reality to view it from. We should think of the one dimensional array as the "space" of one dimension and while we might think of it as an infinite line, that straight structure called a line cannot exist without the next dimension. It is arbitrary that we would usually stuff the previous single dimension into the two-dimensional array at the bottom and lay in out orthogonal to the y axis. (arrayname[x] gets put into arrayname[x][0])

Consequently, once a second dimension is added, the "space" of two dimensions now exists whether or not you fill it with lower dimensional objects such as points. Or same-dimensional (2-dimensional) objects such as lines. (unlimited x and unlimited y) This additional dimension now allows us the very first "shape", a line, but it also simultaneously allows numerous lines to exist upon different axes.

A crucial digression on the borderline between dimensions: Above it looks as though I’ve called a line a 2-dimensional object by mistake. A line is conventionally considered a 1-dimensional object. I find this convention to be misleading because points are called zero dimensional. This is a little like timekeeping in that the spaces between divisions can cause a little oddness. So long as one has lives 10 years and 2 seconds that lifetime can span 3 different decades.

Within the conventional terminology, there is the acknowledgement that an arrangement of 0 dimensional objects is 1 dimensional but involves two dimensions. (0th and 1st)

When I called a line 2-dimensional, it was not my intent to confuse, but to bring to mind the reliance upon the second dimension for a line to be in any way line-like. It is crucial to understand this borderline between dimensions and keep it in mind when attempting to grasp the real meaning of dimensions.

Recapping: In the case of going from one dimension to two, simply adding one additional dimension not only defined relationships between 0th dimensional objects like points but also allowed for relationships between conventional two dimensional objects like triangles and one dimensional arrays (lines) can now be curved and have an additional relationship to themselves. We gained not only lines but other shapes such as triangles etc. This idea of additional new relationships between different parts of a line is an important concept moving forward.

Let’s simplify for a moment and just consider dimensions without all the requirements and dependencies and in-between things.

If we intend to extend from dimension to dimension in a way that makes sense, then we can use our first concept of the first dimensional space as an infinite number of points leading to an infinite length straight line as one dimensional space to see that an infinite stack of these lines creates the second dimensional space.

EG: Think of making a line along the very bottom of a page from tiny points and knowing you can do this forever on a page that has no side edge. Now think of making the next line on top of this one and the next on top of that etc. You know you can keep doing this forever and you have now described an infinite plane or two dimensions. (bear with me, while obvious, you'll want to hold this idea in your head for going from the third dimension to the fourth)

This infinite stack which is called two dimensions can now also be stacked. Though two-dimensional space is an infinite plane, sometimes it's easier to conceive of as a sheet of paper. With this concept it becomes easy to think of a stack of paper that can be infinite.

We now have infinite points stacked into an infinite line for the first dimension, infinite lines stacked into an infinite sheet for the second dimension, infinite sheets stacked into an infinite cube for the third dimension. (and you're seeing where this is going)

What we must now realize is, that upon adding a second dimension, it became easier of us to think of a whole universe that is 2-dimensional. An infinite plane is a two dimensional universe and the infinite cube is a 3-dimensional universe.

Just like when we added the second dimension we created a new form of relationship between one-dimensional objects, upon adding a third dimension we have created a new form of relationships between two dimensional objects. Previously with only one dimension we had only one line constrained to be in a stack but then with the second dimension there could be multiple lines with multiple relationships.

When there were only two dimensions there was only a single sheet constrained to be in a plane. Upon adding a third dimension multiple sheets could exist with not only relationships to each other but with relationships to themselves. IE A sheet not only has a rotational orientation but it can now be curved back upon itself.

If we now add a fourth dimension we have created a space with room for infinite three dimensional universes. Consequently we have now also created new relationships between these three dimensional universes such that they can have an orientation and additional relationship to each other. They can now be curved back upon themselves.

This idea of creating an infinite set of sets (adding another dimension) continuously allows new types of relationships to appear (or be defined) with each additional dimension added. An additional dimension allows a set to be bent back upon itself.

Simplifying the 4th dimension.

Given that time is conjoined with space in special relativity, there are some strange conventions that have to be employed to represent rearrangements of the 4th dimension, so lets just start with collapsing spatial dimensions.

We can think of a 2D plane at a sheet of paper with it’s various points and shapes being swept down to the bottom of the page and squashed flat along the bottom line and we’ve compressed 2D into 1D. We can think of doing this for a whole stack of papers and we’ve compressed 3D into 2D.

Now it is crucial to note that when we think of a 3D universe we are thinking of a single moment in time and therefore the universe we think of is already 4D. A 3D array can only hold the information for one single moment of time and would require a 4th dimension to store all the copies of the universe that exist moment after moment.

So, now with our 3D universe compressed to a sheet, we can stack these sheets together to represent a 4D universe. Just like a sheet shape within a 3D plane is not constrained to one axis, we can now define a moment as a slice through that 4D (multiple compressed 3D) universe.

So far this is all pretty easy until we add relativity.

The illusion of time:
past, present and future all exist together

Now, however, upon adding relativity there is a requirement of a 5th dimension.

This is not apparent in the video above, but before relativity the universe was already 4D. A single moment was 3D and there were multiple moments. Upon adding relativity, however, a single moment is fundamentally 4D. One cannot speak about space without mentioning time. Location is dependent upon time.

What this means for the discussion in the video above is that the “loaf” of spacetime they show is only one possible configuration of all the moments. Modern interpretations of relativity state that there is no preferred frame of reference therefore entirely different versions of that loaf are equally valid as the one presented.

When we consider the alien on the bike and the man on the park bench we think of them as definitely directly across spacetime from each other. This relationship, however, cannot be established since another frame’s idea of simultaneous would place them at an angle to one another across the loaf in one direction while another would place them at the opposite angle.

That is to say, there are multiple valid arrangements of the loaf such that if we consider forward time to be x, in one case the alien starts out in front of the man on the bench (further along x) and in another valid arrangement, the man on the bench is in front.

So if we try to think of being simultaneous with another location’s future, how do we determine where the starting point to move forward from is? The relationship is undefined. If there is no singular true and valid arrangement we are actually slicing from then another dimension is required to store all the various but valid alternative configurations of our 4D loaf of the universe.

To cut across a 4D universe a 5th dimension must be added just like to have a line, a second dimension must be added.

Godel and mutual dependencies.

This problem above is an expression of Godel incompleteness and Tarski’s undefinability in yet another form. There are many structures such as lines that we do not think of as actually a comparison or interaction between things and we therefore lose sight of the need for another “thing” to compare or interact with.

Imagine if there was nothing in the universe but two people. Each can say of the other “you are above me” and they might both be considered correct or incorrect because the answer is undefined without an external reference.

What we think of as a river cannot exist if we remove the water. That’s just a dry depression. It cannot exist as water alone. That could be a cloud or an ocean. It is only by the interaction of the water and the depression that a river arises.

There are many instances in which we metaphorically attempt to keep the concept of a river while removing one of the components it is made of. This leads to various problems in logic and attempts to make judgement about things which are undefined.

* * * * * * * *



The Flat Perspectivalism of Creatio Ex Nihilo Worlds...

The Flat Perspectivalism of
Creatio Ex Nihilo Worlds...

by R.E. Slater

In the writing of books and theories there is no end...
but without a beginning there can be no middle nor end;
Such is the thinking in the Land of the Living, mortal and
perishable, prone to imaginations of all sorts. Speculating
without end, forgetting the past to conjure the present,
forging the future from what once was but now is.

- re slater

Speaking generally, then specifically...

In science, it is not uncommon to alter one's thinking, if not one's beliefs, for that of a more-real form of existential reality than the one previously held on too. To understand chemistries you must accept the reality of the unseeable molecule. Similarly with mathematics, standard numerics take on newer, more helpful forms in calculi and non-linear algebraics. The same can be said of Newtonian physics when enlightened had moved rapidly to Einstinian relativities and Heisenberg-Planck-Bohr's Quantum worlds of imagination to reality.

In science all thing change... especially one's perspectives.

Hence, once learning of a previously unknown creational position within the set parameters of my former theology I had immediately grasped the newer, unknown position and as quickly - if not by necessity - rejected what I had been taught for what I was coming to rethink and reperspectivize.

What was this?

Life Is About the Struggle for Perspective -
Not the Simple Consigned Accretion of Acceptance

To rethink life's institutionalized moralities requires a bit of radicalized effort. This occurred for me far later in life than I care to admit. Most likely in my mid-fifties when breaking away from pre-scientific evangelical world to the post-evangelical reperspectizing of my Baptist beliefs when conjoining metaphysics to my earlier youth of science and math.

Such a "mid-life crisis" isn't a bad thing... in fact, though greatly disruptive in it's personal experience, I now think back on that "dark period" of my life as rare opportunity not often utilized by society to afford myself of a positively transformative experience when seeking to expand my faith towards worlds of beauty and wonder.

I still believed in God but I was beginning to see a non-Baptist view of the world and religion I couldn't see within my enculturated bubble.

I had learned science and mathematics from public school and three years of rigorous university training but then rebooted to learn my metaphysical philosophy and existential reality through my Baptist faith of church and institutional studies. That is, I obtained a BA in psychology with a minor in bible; and a Masters of Divinity degree (120 graduate credit hours in biblical theology with a minor in pastoring) along with hundreds of hours in various field ministries.

At religious school, just as I had at university, we talked about a lot things related to contemporary world and bible-world. And I tried just as hard back then to think in contemporary forms of world events and statisms when attempting to reconcile beliefs with reality and imagination.

Whether I turned to science or to religion something was missing. But life being what it was I couldn't see the forest for the trees, as the adage goes.

However, a self re-enforcing and referential existential bubble is a bubble however helpful, comforting, or nourishing it may be. For myself, coming from a quasi-religious home I had to first find a religious beginning. Thus after three years at university I turned to a qualified bible school for continuing education in theology. Though I didn't realize this at the time I was seeking a new metaphysic which was both worldly and religious after the fashion of my own thinking.

Then, like any true explorer of truth and reality, I needed to expand my existential borders-and-edges to embrace what I hadn't learned and experienced from within my own geographical and institutional settings.

...Yet this was a standard personal practice gained from holding multiple perspectives gained by extensive travel, book learning, and talking with people and listening to their experiences. Even in my youth I lived through non-standardized, rapidly transformative personal experiences. Which meant that even though when viewing myself externally from the outside everything looked staid and normalized to external eyes. my interiority of self was ever a cascading tumult of conflicting ideas and recognitions which I was quite content to hold in tension without resolving any for the simple reason that I didn't wish to. I felt too young to the immense task at hand.

And though I relied on a vast number of guides I still hadn't decided for myself in which direction I needed to go. I was waiting for that next holistic moment of explosion and reintegration which might provide a sufficiency of thought and experience my soul was seeking. Faith wasn't enough. Nor science. I needed a new world of holistic healing and sensible faith formation. I found it at last through process philosophy and theology.

This takes a bit of doing, and truth be told, may not ever be accomplished if one's religious world is sufficiently extensive and comforting in the first place, as mine was. But when profoundly collapsing into a stage of uncertainty and doubt I had at last found a productively existential way to reimagine a more expanded form of religious metaphysic than the ones I had experienced or contemplated. One which expanded all present forms, charters and beliefs of existence while simultaneously questioning them in a positively helpful, if not deconstructive, then reconstructive, form of re-educational process.

Learning to Unlearn to Relearn

In my adult maturity, and with the advantage of many years, I was able to translate and transition from a Westernized perspective of religion and dogma to a Process perspective of religion acting more philosophically when unbound from its dogmas.  This demanded an inner constitutionality of mindful growth and understanding which could not have occurred if my earlier systems hadn't collapsed in-on-themselves borne from all the external stimuli pressing down upon it.

As I have spoken to this experience many times I wish to now transition to the topic at hand... one which couldn't be allowed if I hadn't first been transformed spiritually to allow such questions and reasonings....

Let's Talk About Nothingness

This is the idea of nothingness and whether the universe had a beginning.

As stated earlier I would not have considered this perspective if I had not first allowed the question to be entertained. What was the question? Did the universe have a beginning or was it ever as it is... in cycles of evolving, devolving, over and over again and again, infinitely in progression and regression?

Come to find out, my presumption of creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing) was a conjecture, an assumption, made by the senses and not by the sciences.

For many reasons we cannot fault the ancients of their a priori logic. But now that we have the means via quantum physics to examine the universe in which we live we may now state with more assurance that something cannot come from nothing but rather something ever comes from something.

Known as creatio continua we may now state that "our" universe is old. So old that it never had a birth and never will have a death. Radiant energy - however dense, dispersed, or defused - cannot be lost, just reconfigured in the quantum sense of things.

Just as no man is an island but finds identity and purpose in movement and relationships (sic, Alain Badiou's Being and Event metaphysic) so too can Whiteheadian metaphysics say without Being there can be no Event, and without Event there can be no Being.

That is to say that the universe always was and is and will be... that the universe is always becoming over against a state of nothingness.

We ascribe such god-like traits to God but what if God gives to pre-creational energy a nominal sense of being and in response the universe gives to God its initializing response of events. Then can we aver that the Maker of heaven and earth has quite properly, if not essentially, given to pre-creational energy it's sense of identity and purpose in relation to God's idea of things "to be and become"?

Process theology captures such a metaphysical relationship in its paradigms of processual novelty, continuum, resulting response, and organic complexity. Without saying the universe is sentient we may aver as sentient products and quotients of the universe's complexities that there is in some sense a latency - if not an extreme latency - within the universe in which we may ascribe a panpsychic quality of things most likely gained from its Organizer we claim as God.

A panpsychic experience or interiority which is best described via Whiteheadian process panentheism. Not a pantheism... panentheism. That is, the universe is not God... but something responding to God which gives to the universe it's destiny and meaning. Hence, a "panentheistic" universe responds to God's Otherness when infilled by God's inherent essence and image.

Hence, the burden of all energy, including organic life itself, is infused by the quality of God's likeness without being or becoming God itself. Divine Infusion is thus ascriptive to the very process of being and becoming.

As God is... so does creation aspire, yearn, and groan within itself towards an immortal, viable, nourishing, and benevolent life force. Whereas death defeats such possibilities in whose/which response life dies when losing purpose and meaning for mere survival and not thrival.

But in the Divine's "life blood", divine infusion (or the imago Dei of the God) may bring forward unending, continuous redemptive forces with loving, benevolent effect. This is what creatio continua (always-is creation, or "creation continually") can mean in a theologically metaphysical sense when understood to morph and evolve through its ages of revolutions against any death-like response and events attempting to disrupt and discontinue it's panentheistically-driven divine process of birthing life after life after life.


R.E. Slater
January 27, 2024

Was The Universe Born From Nothing?
Jan 28, 2022

00:00 Introduction

04:56 The World Of Probabilities

12:05 The Quantum Of Cosmos Present

24:21 The Quantum Of Cosmos Past

31:20 The Quantum Of Cosmos Future

36:04 Looking Through The Singularity

* * * * * *

Unperspectival, Perspectival, Aperspectival:
Exploring Jean Gebser, Lesson II

by Cyntia Bourgeault  |  November 24, 2020

Jean Gebser’s cultural home base was the world of art. He was a personal friend of Pablo Picasso’s, and examples culled from art history dot the landscape of his The Ever-Present Origin, illustrating almost every significant point he makes. It’s not surprising that his master interpretive lens, perspective, should itself derive from the domain of art.

Yes, perspective. Just like you learned in elementary school art. When you first began drawing pictures, probably as a preschooler, Mommy and Daddy and your big sister were always bigger, no matter where they appeared in your picture, because that’s what they were! Then someone taught you about foreground and background, and you learned how to make things at the back of the picture smaller to show that they were farther away. You learned to turn your house at a slight angle on the page so that you could show two sides of it at once. You may or may not have consciously realized that you were learning how to proportion the various bits and pieces in relation to a hypothetical point on the horizon. But your drawings got more orderly, and they began to convey a sense of depth.

That’s exactly what we’re talking about here. Perspective. But now applied as an organizing principle for the field of consciousness.

According to Gebser, the five structures of consciousness we met up with in my November 18, 2020 post Stages Versus Structures: Exploring Jean Gebser, Lesson I (you will find the link is at the bottom of this post)—archaic, magic, mythic, mental, and integral—can be grouped into three larger categories, or three worlds, as he calls them: unperspectival, perspectival, and aperspectival. While the nomenclature may at first feel intimidating, it’s actually quite easy to master if you keep your elementary school art days in mind. Unperspectival is how you drew before you learned about foreground and background, when everything was all just jumbled onto the drawing sheet. Perspectival is the drawing sheet once you’ve learned to arrange it in relationship to that hypothetical point on the horizon. And aperspectival is what ensues once you’ve learned to convey several perspectives simultaneously, as in some of Picasso’s surrealistic artwork where he simultaneously shows you the front side and back side of a person. A heads up: in Gebser the prefix “a” always conveys the meaning of “free from.” Thus an aperspectival view is one that is free from captivity to a single central point of reference.

  • The Unperspectival World embraces the archaic, magic, and mythic structures.
  • The Perspectival World hosts the mental structure.
  • The Aperspectival World is the still-emerging integral structure.

Each of these three perspectives is properly called a world because it comprises an entire gestalt, an entire womb of meaning in which we live and move and make our connections. Each has its own distinctive fragrance, ambience, tincture. Each is an authentic pathway of participation, an authentic mode of encountering the cosmos, God, and our own selfhood. Each has its brilliant strengths and its glaring weaknesses. Compositely, they evoke “the width and length and height and depth” of our collective human journey into consciousness.

I am aware that I am walking the razor’s edge as I choose my words here, trying to escape the gravitational field of perspectival consciousness that would lock this all back into the evolutionary timeline. It is true, of course, that these three worlds broadly demarcate the three major epochs of Western human cultural history: ancient, medieval, and modern. But it’s always been a bit dicey to try to hold these timelines too tightly or to limit structures of consciousness to specific historical eras. We have stunning exemplars of the mental structure breaking through in ancient Greece and Israel, and the mythic still lives among us today in much of the American heartlands. Gebser’s model deftly sidesteps these all-too familiar cul de sacs by reminding us that the “worlds”—and the structures they encompass—are phenomenological, not developmental. While they appear to join the flow of linear time at specific entry points, they have in fact always been present and must continue to be present, for they are part of the ontology of the Whole.

Gebser’s visually oriented presentation allows him to make one additional very important point. From a visual standpoint, perspective is really a matter of dimensionality, and dimensionality is in turn a function of degree of separation. Gebser builds on this insight to draw powerful correlations between the emergence of perspective within the structures of consciousness and the emergence of the egoic—i.e., individual—selfhood so foundational to our modern self-understanding.

In the unperspectival world everything exists in guileless immediacy (remember preschooler art?). There is relatively little separation between viewer and viewed, the external world mirroring a self-structure that is still fluid and permeable. This is the world of “original participation” (as philosopher Owen Barfield once famously described it) where the cosmos is at its most numinous and communicative, and the sense of belonging is as oceanic as the sea itself.

As we enter the perspectival world, the double-edged sword begins to fall. The same growing capacity for abstraction that makes possible the perception of proportion and depth also—by the same measure—increases our sense of separation. We stand more on the outside, our attention fixed on that hypothetical point on the horizon which organizes our canvas and maintains the illusion of depth within a flat plane. Order is maintained, but at the cost of a necessary distancing and a strict adherence to the artifice that makes the illusion possible in the first place. Deception enters riding on the back of that abstractive power, as “original participation” gives way to a growing sense of dislocation and exile. That is essentially our modern world: “oscillating,” writes Jeremy Johnson in Seeing Through the World (pg. 58) “between a powerlessness to control the forces unleashed by the perspectival world on the one hand, and a total self-intoxicating power on the other”—in a word, “between anxiety and delight.”

It is my own observation here (rather than either Jeremy’s or Gebser’s) that the perspectival contains an inherently deceptive aspect since it is intentionally creating a sleight of hand—the illusion of three-dimensionality within a two-dimensional plane. But if I have not wandered too far off the mark, the observation gives me some strong additional leverage for emphasizing why resolutions to the perspectival crisis can never emerge from within the perspectival structure itself, and why the much-hyped “integral emergence” cannot simply be a new, improved version of our old mental habits—not even a vastly increased “paradox tolerance.” We need to get out of Flatland altogether.

For me, that is what aperspectival is essentially all about. It is an authentic transposition of consciousness from a two-dimensional plane to a sphere. Within that sphere, inner and outer world come back together again, and a sense of authentic belongingness returns. Numinosity returns as well: the felt-sense of a cosmos directly infused with the vivifying presence of Origin. Selfhood once again becomes fluid and interpenetrating even as presence becomes more centered and intensified.

The perspectival is at best a foreshadowing and at worst a mental simulacrum of authentic aperspectival three-dimensionality. The real deal can indeed be attained; in fact, it is now breaking in upon us whether we like it or not! But the cost of admission is not cheap: it entails the overhaul not only of our fundamental attitudes, but of our entire neurophysiology of perception.

I hope to circle back to this point in due course. For now, the most important thing to keep in mind is that in the Gebserian system perspective is not simply a point of view; it is a completely different world of seeing, unfolding according to its own protocols: its own core values and ways of making connections. To truly take in another’s perspective is not simply to take in another’s “position” and arrange the pieces dialectically on a mental chessboard. Rather, it is profoundly to take in another world and allow that world to touch our hearts and wash over us deeply until it, too, becomes our own. It is to listen in a whole new dimension. And I believe Gebser would argue that this dimension only truly opens up with the inbreaking of the aperspectival structure.

*Jeremy Johnson’s book: Seeing Through the World: Jean Gebser and Integral Consciousness, is available from the publisher, here at Revelore Press.