Thoughts on the arrow of time and a suppositional origin

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

Dimensionality accrues itself in the phase of infinity, excuse me, infinities stacked upon infinities. The 4th spatial dimension: this is where space, becomes spacetime. In the previous dimensions, we have the origin of the zeroth: consisting of no height, no width, no length, etc. The first dimension consists of length solely. The second, if one's remembering the concepts so steadily driven into our young, malleable minds: planar equations are all consistent of the base l times w formula. Now, consider this. A 2 dimensional window. Now, there is no actual space within that window, but rather, the illusion of space, constructed via the conscious, emits itself in a holographic type, systemic format (personal theory, but we're about to start going backwards here in a bit,) this can EASILY be perceived (and understood, partially (requiring further cogitation as to understand fully)) via viewing one's avatar situated upon the gaiaonline backdrop.

Now going back to the first dimension. Linear. Purely, linear. I can't even think of that s**t (spatially), so I'm not expecting you to either. Though using the concepts derived thereof as to suppose the possible scenarios originating the ALWAYS PRESENT arrow of time, we can, in flow of the present deduction, move forward. Imagine the 4th spatial dimension as being a relative 1st to the 6th, with the 0th being our present awarenesses and the basis for all of existence. (because the zeroth is simply a point. so imagining a point moving across a line that's the relative 1st to the 6th 4th spatial wavelength, wherever the troughs and crescents hit in the 5th spatial dimension, that's what our 'experience' consists of. (If we're to use the same logic of jumping from the 0th to the 1st, or the 1st to the second, the 5th consists of an infinite amount of 4ths, because something without height cannot create height without stacking itself infinitely (close to and) upon itself.

So for the 2nd dimension to exist, it either consists of A) Infinite stacking of the first . Or B) Is only relative, with spaces existing between each 1st dimension, and 'seemingly' connected, perceived only via entities existing outside of and beyond that 1st dimension. Considering how atoms never touch, aside from the case of nuclear fusion, makes sense, right, also creating the juxtaposition of text, makes...well, more sense.

Continue? Goes into how we branch out after death into higher or lower spatial dimensions, how it's ALL connected to the zeroth, and how time itself may be illusory using relativism of the 3rd in relation to the 5th and 6th. (Can move up, down, left ,right, imagine that, but with like tangential timelines in the upper spatial dimensions. (I've been thinking...perhaps way too much lately)

Anyway, I love how a God, and an Initial Causative Force started all of this.

The fact of its omnipresence, it existing in all of us, (or is it that we're existing inside of it? (zeroth) makes me UBER happy. I love God, man. Man I love God.

Anyway, what're the ED's thoughts on the arrow of time and space, God n' stuff?

[the reverend silver]

Whoa. Whoa, man. Whoa.

[CuAnnan]

Word salad nonsense.

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

fun giraffe

isn't the first dimension automatically the 3rd dimension?

....................



howda whosa wot

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

the reverend silver

Whoa. Whoa, man. Whoa.

And then there's sound. emotion_kirakira



YouTube suggested videos. >_>

[Aporeia]

Calling dimensions 1st and 3rd or numbered like this is actually a great misconception of how this all works.

Let's arbitrarily define 26 dimensions, dimension A - dimension Z

Our observable space is composed of 4 dimensions, 3 are observed as length/width/height, and one is observed as time. There are other dimensions that are skewed to us that we are unafiliated with. These are not "higher dimensions," these are unconnected dimensions.

If we are universe ABCD, another universe may be composed of EFGH, in which case EFG operate exactly like ABC, and H operates exactly like D.

Then, if you want to get into more exotic ideas, you may get a universe composed of CDEF, sharing two dimensions with us, or more/less depending on the configuration. This gets weird when in that in cases of shared dimensional lines, that universe may not experience our dimensions the way we do. in CDEF, C may be a spacial dimension like length, but D might also be spacial for them, whereas we experience it only through the passage of time. They may be able to see D as we see A B or C, and we could never do so.

If you want to get exceptionally wild, you can assume static dimensions exist in the mix, so universe ABCD could really be universe ABCDEFG, but movement on E F and G are static and unchanging, so we would never notice they even exist unless we collided with something else in the E F or G directions.

Perhaps we really are just ABCD, but we contain objects that exist beyond our dimensions. If object ABCDX is moving through X, and collides with an object that rebounds it in the directions of ABC, or even D, we suddenly observe spontaneous motion that warrants absolutely no explanation within the grasp of empirical science.

Suck on that.

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

Aporeia

Calling dimensions 1st and 3rd or numbered like this is actually a great misconception of how this all works.

Let's arbitrarily define 26 dimensions, dimension A - dimension Z

Our observable space is composed of 4 dimensions, 3 are observed as length/width/height, and one is observed as time. There are other dimensions that are skewed to us that we are unafiliated with. These are not "higher dimensions," these are unconnected dimensions.

If we are universe ABCD, another universe may be composed of EFGH, in which case EFG operate exactly like ABC, and H operates exactly like D.

Then, if you want to get into more exotic ideas, you may get a universe composed of CDEF, sharing two dimensions with us, or more/less depending on the configuration. This gets weird when in that in cases of shared dimensional lines, that universe may not experience our dimensions the way we do. in CDEF, C may be a spacial dimension like length, but D might also be spacial for them, whereas we experience it only through the passage of time. They may be able to see D as we see A B or C, and we could never do so.

If you want to get exceptionally wild, you can assume static dimensions exist in the mix, so universe ABCD could really be universe ABCDEFG, but movement on E F and G are static and unchanging, so we would never notice they even exist unless we collided with something else in the E F or G directions.

Perhaps we really are just ABCD, but we contain objects that exist beyond our dimensions. If object ABCDX is moving through X, and collides with an object that rebounds it in the directions of ABC, or even D, we suddenly observe spontaneous motion that warrants absolutely no explanation within the grasp of empirical science.

Suck on that.

Ah oui, j'ai compris que vous dites. C'est tr'es diffe'rent avec les accents et sans eux sur mon...keyboard. Et en vie.The lingual-conceptual juxtaposition aided in my uh...comprehension. The accentual interpretations, . (Most American foreign accents are TEH LULLZZZZZ)

The point I'd iterated, well, if you've seen a tesseract then it's easier to infer what it is that I'd meant by point A: That all dimensions ARE connected, and possibly infinite stackings of each other.. because the zeroth has no actual 'mass', I compared it to consciousness. Existent, but occupying no space.

I'm way too tired for this right now, but cela se poursuivra! surprised

[Aporeia]

Intuitive Maelstrom

Aporeia

Calling dimensions 1st and 3rd or numbered like this is actually a great misconception of how this all works.

Let's arbitrarily define 26 dimensions, dimension A - dimension Z

Our observable space is composed of 4 dimensions, 3 are observed as length/width/height, and one is observed as time. There are other dimensions that are skewed to us that we are unafiliated with. These are not "higher dimensions," these are unconnected dimensions.

If we are universe ABCD, another universe may be composed of EFGH, in which case EFG operate exactly like ABC, and H operates exactly like D.

Then, if you want to get into more exotic ideas, you may get a universe composed of CDEF, sharing two dimensions with us, or more/less depending on the configuration. This gets weird when in that in cases of shared dimensional lines, that universe may not experience our dimensions the way we do. in CDEF, C may be a spacial dimension like length, but D might also be spacial for them, whereas we experience it only through the passage of time. They may be able to see D as we see A B or C, and we could never do so.

If you want to get exceptionally wild, you can assume static dimensions exist in the mix, so universe ABCD could really be universe ABCDEFG, but movement on E F and G are static and unchanging, so we would never notice they even exist unless we collided with something else in the E F or G directions.

Perhaps we really are just ABCD, but we contain objects that exist beyond our dimensions. If object ABCDX is moving through X, and collides with an object that rebounds it in the directions of ABC, or even D, we suddenly observe spontaneous motion that warrants absolutely no explanation within the grasp of empirical science.

Suck on that.

Ah oui, j'ai compris que vous dites. C'est tr'es diffe'rent avec les accents et sans eux sur mon...keyboard. Et en vie.The lingual-conceptual juxtaposition aided in my uh...comprehension. The accentual interpretations, . (Most American foreign accents are TEH LULLZZZZZ)

The point I'd iterated, well, if you've seen a tesseract then it's easier to infer what it is that I'd meant by point A: That all dimensions ARE connected, and possibly infinite stackings of each other.. because the zeroth has no actual 'mass', I compared it to consciousness. Existent, but occupying no space.

I'm way too tired for this right now, but cela se poursuivra! surprised

You're wrong on most points.

There is no "zeroth" dimension. There is a state of having 0 dimensions. That means you lack length, width, or height, and of course time. That does not mean you lack mass- however. Dimensionality does not imply mass, nor does a lack of it assert a lack of mass. Having zero dimensions implies merely that the "object" is timeless, motionless, sizeless, and immutable in relation to the only thing it can be compared to, itself.

And no, all dimensions are not connected. Some dimensions are parallel, and are mathematically impossible to "connect" because at no point can they ever intersect. Other dimensions are skewed, and are not even parallel.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

This is why wannabe intellectuals and drugs are a bad combination.

[Lady Vizsla]

That's some serious metaphysical shiznit lol

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

Aporeia

Intuitive Maelstrom

Aporeia

Calling dimensions 1st and 3rd or numbered like this is actually a great misconception of how this all works.

Let's arbitrarily define 26 dimensions, dimension A - dimension Z

Our observable space is composed of 4 dimensions, 3 are observed as length/width/height, and one is observed as time. There are other dimensions that are skewed to us that we are unafiliated with. These are not "higher dimensions," these are unconnected dimensions.

If we are universe ABCD, another universe may be composed of EFGH, in which case EFG operate exactly like ABC, and H operates exactly like D.

Then, if you want to get into more exotic ideas, you may get a universe composed of CDEF, sharing two dimensions with us, or more/less depending on the configuration. This gets weird when in that in cases of shared dimensional lines, that universe may not experience our dimensions the way we do. in CDEF, C may be a spacial dimension like length, but D might also be spacial for them, whereas we experience it only through the passage of time. They may be able to see D as we see A B or C, and we could never do so.

If you want to get exceptionally wild, you can assume static dimensions exist in the mix, so universe ABCD could really be universe ABCDEFG, but movement on E F and G are static and unchanging, so we would never notice they even exist unless we collided with something else in the E F or G directions.

Perhaps we really are just ABCD, but we contain objects that exist beyond our dimensions. If object ABCDX is moving through X, and collides with an object that rebounds it in the directions of ABC, or even D, we suddenly observe spontaneous motion that warrants absolutely no explanation within the grasp of empirical science.

Suck on that.

Ah oui, j'ai compris que vous dites. C'est tr'es diffe'rent avec les accents et sans eux sur mon...keyboard. Et en vie.The lingual-conceptual juxtaposition aided in my uh...comprehension. The accentual interpretations, . (Most American foreign accents are TEH LULLZZZZZ)

The point I'd iterated, well, if you've seen a tesseract then it's easier to infer what it is that I'd meant by point A: That all dimensions ARE connected, and possibly infinite stackings of each other.. because the zeroth has no actual 'mass', I compared it to consciousness. Existent, but occupying no space.

I'm way too tired for this right now, but cela se poursuivra! surprised

You're wrong on most points.

There is no "zeroth" dimension. There is a state of having 0 dimensions. That means you lack length, width, or height, and of course time. That does not mean you lack mass- however. Dimensionality does not imply mass, nor does a lack of it assert a lack of mass. Having zero dimensions implies merely that the "object" is timeless, motionless, sizeless, and immutable in relation to the only thing it can be compared to, itself.

And no, all dimensions are not connected. Some dimensions are parallel, and are mathematically impossible to "connect" because at no point can they ever intersect. Other dimensions are skewed, and are not even parallel.

Uh...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-dimensional_space http://secretaryofinnovation.com/2011/06/29/cosmology-corner-the-zero-dimension-quantum-universe/comment-page-1/ (I'm actually quite happy that the latter article iterates many of the points that I'd inferred, reasoned and thought of personally.)

The only misconception that one could make in the second article is that space and time are separate in any format. They're not separate. The 4th spatial dimension was coined as 'spacetime' via Albert Einstein. Time and space are inseparable, as time could not exist without space. Mass is the occupancy of space, the zeroth dimension occupies no space, One dimensionality cannot be perceived, but only experienced via a 3 and fourth dimensional being as we move forward in a 'straight' line; and subsequently, , via the zero dimensional awareness, become aware of that linear movement, which in and of itself has no width, has no height. Being comprised of a multiplicity of zeroths.

Again, infinities stacked upon infinities. (Though as was also written in the initial post: considered the same point (of parallels and relativism)) One can view infinity numerically: as in a particle sense; or ethereally, in the essence of an infinite 'essence.' Matter vs. Substance.

[Intuitive Maelstrom]

Old Blue Collar Joe

This is why wannabe intellectuals and drugs are a bad combination.

The Great Autismo

So we take a zero and we go-
0 - 0 = -∞ to -1, 1 to ∞
0^0 = -∞ to -1, 1 to ∞
0/0 = -∞ to -1, 1 to ∞
Then we blast off into autismic oblivion.

[********]