An Ontology of Dimensionality

This section follows on from The Phenomenology of Immediacy.

The notion of a spatial paradigm implies that space serves as the basis upon which we interpret the world. If this means that the actual mechanism for perceiving space is adopted by the mind to project thought, then a close look at this mechanism could reveal how to unlock the fluid paradigm. The remainder of the paper therefore looks at how conceptualization renders temporality and how it could be reworked to represent reality in a way that alludes to the extraordinary experience of immediacy invoked during transcendence.

Our perception of space serves as a model for concept formation by distinguishing a space from the planes that surround it. The result is a thought structure in which a concept is set in a context. Accordingly, the concept of space is characterized by the difference between a plane and space. The planes set the context for the idea of space. The same is true of a plane. The edges of a plane provide a context by showing the line where the plane ceases to be a plane. The difference between a line and a plane is what the concept of a plane is based on. To visualize a line, we give it ends. Each end of the line is a point and together they serve as the context for the line. They show the difference between a line and a point, and in this way they define the point at which a line ceases to be a line.

The spatially derived model of reality is thus built up of a point, a line, a plane, space and time: a point having no dimensions, time having four. An implication of their being numbered is that successive dimensions build on lesser dimensions; for example, a line as a series of points. So, each dimension can be 'placed' within dimensions higher than itself, but not lower than itself. However, while this is clear for each of the dimensions leading up to the three dimensions of space, it is not so clear how time 'contains' its lesser dimensions.

As I see it, we misinterpret motion and, as a result, interpret reality in terms of time and space. We see motion in relation to the space it occurs in. Space provides a sense of motionlessness - a sort of reference to show how motion differs to it. For example, we typically regard motion as a change of position, a reference to something fixed. But as a consequence, motion is seen as a movement in space when it is actually a movement of space - a space in motion.

Since this is how we experience our surroundings, this is what is internalized, to re-emerge as the thought structure for the concept of time. We subsequently understand the passing of time to be in relation to the present moment, as if the 'now' has no duration. We supposedly experience a string of nows. However, it is only for sake of the concept that the passage of time differs to the present. The contrast does not reflect reality, but the setting of a context.

What this interpretation of time fails to take into account is that successive dimensions merge. They are not discrete. Each dimension carries within it the dimensions lesser than it. The solution, outlined below, is to remove the concept of time and replace it with motion.

The most basic relationship the observer has with his surroundings is the registering of his own presence. This is not a spatial relation but, rather, one of motion: movements in the scenery correlating with the observer's own motion. If we use this as a model for conceptualization, the object becomes fluid rather than spatial, with the difference becoming one with itself. So, instead of focusing on how the dimensions differ to each other, as with concepts modeled on space, we should consider how they differ in themselves. This reveals that the essence of a point is its location, the essence of a line is its alignment, the essence of a plane is its form, and the essence of a space is its density.

In considering how a motion differs in itself, one is tempted to describe it in linear terms: i.e. the path it follows. But this is not its essential quality, since a line has just one dimension, not four. Neither can we narrow it down to its location, form or density, though that which moves certainly has these characteristics too. But all these things being equal (imagine two identical movements side by side) there remains one characteristic which belongs solely to motion: its speed. This is how motion differs in itself - making speed the essence of motion.

The variable of speed is beyond the ordinary conception of motion, so we tend to regard it as inconsequential. But motion in the sense of speed is precisely how it ties in to reality. This can be observed in the shape of a wave. It is not simply that the form would not exist without motion, but that the variable of speed determines the variety of curves in a wave. A wave behind a rock in a stream is a good example of this principle: the water flows through the wave while the form expresses the various speeds at which the water is moving.

The whirlpool is a particularly good example because the dimensions are seen to be variables linked in a unified system. There is the alignment of its axis, the form of its surface, the matter it draws inward and, since a vortex rotates progressively faster toward its center, the variable of speed. Placing a tiny pointer in a whirlpool can show the part played by motion. The pointer remains parallel to its original alignment, despite being carried around and around. This indicates that motion, rather than content, determines the form.

Having reinstated motion as the fourth dimension, it becomes apparent that time is also a generalization of change. Just as we tend to regard motion in terms of its lesser characteristics, so too do we have an inferior perception of that other form of change called growth. Since growth depends on but is more than motion, it might be the 5th dimension. And what is its essence? How does growth differ in relation to itself? Wouldn't that be through evolution?

Of course, it must not be overlooked that the dimensions are not separated in reality. They exist as interrelated aspects of the whole. But, to understand how they interrelate requires that each dimension of change be distinguishable. Subordinating them to the concept of time ignores the crucial point that each dimension finds its expression in change and that change is, moreover, what holds them together.

The concept of time fails to account for the diversity of change, since the division of time and space implies that change is restricted to the 4th dimension. However, assuming that change is the very essence of reality, rather than a mere aspect of it, it follows that the essence of each dimension is how that dimension changes. By setting each dimension in the context of change, the concept of time subsequently loses its significance as one of the dimensions, as such, separated from space.

String Theory recognizes at least ten dimensions through abstract formulae, but does not associate these with our being. Of course, the theory is only concerned with physical forces. But, has it missed something by interpreting reality in terms of the spatial paradigm? The extra dimensions are certainly described in spatial terms-they are said to be wrapped up in curled up space. According to String Theory, that is why we can't see them (Green, B. 1999). However, if they are higher than the familiar dimensions of space and time, we should not expect to see them, just as we would not see the three dimensions of space from within the two dimensions of a plane.

Philosophers have disputed the mind-body question for millennia. However, in recent times, neuroscientists have entered the debate, armed with empirical evidence. This has given rise to various branches of investigation aimed at merging the two traditions. However, prejudices are bound to carry over from one to the other, provoking retaliation and invigorating debate. So, it is a potentially volatile mixture that might even give birth to a whole new approach to the issue of existence. This essay contributes to the debate, with a potent observation concerning spatial perception and how it influences conceptualization. It suggests that transcendence is a legitimate experience, as well as a fundamental principle defining a paradigm shift. Just as the meditator needs to transcend spatial perception to achieve a deeper sense of presence, the scientist needs to think in terms that go beyond the spatial paradigm to achieve a deeper understanding of existence.

Epilogue

When we still the mind, we become aware of a door forced shut by thoughts. As if by magic, the door opens to reveal the spiritual realm. We desire to enter it, but soon discover that we can't. This frustrates us, because it seems that the physical and spiritual worlds are incompatible. But this is not true! We are the door, and our task is to be open, so the spiritual world can enter the physical world.

Download essay.pdf

Bibliography

Greene, B. (1999)
The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
Norton

Newberg, A.B. & D'Aquili, E.G. (2001)
Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief
Ballantine Books

Okri, B. (1998)
A Way of Being Free
Phoenix