Pathways.   Everywhere there are pathways

There is an appropriate perspective that I would like to share at this juncture. It is a recognition that because of changing conditions, events, and parameters - that sometimes information is lost. Information that is irretrievable from direct extrapolation of remaining data, that only through analogies or other comparative source material may even a semblance of the original Types of information be reconstituted. This pinpoints the significance of continuous information pathways, previously available, but no longer, since collapse or disruption of the original information net.

At 17 I wrote a poem that bespoke this restriction. I was motivated by looking at a tree stump, studying its rings and garnishing all I could about it's age, the yearly weather conditions, gross insect infestations that might have left a trace, etc. I suddenly became profoundly aware that what I could not see, could not speak to regarding the life that this tree had lived, was how many birds had built nests in its limbs, or spiders or other insects had found shelter here. What bees had pollinated its flowers, what limbs had been wrenched off in a violent storm that affected its growth pattern for years to come. Information of events that had been integrally vital for the tree's thriving and survival.

... from: "Kaleidoscope" (1965),

"When leaves have long since turned their jasmine gold
and acorn - gone to oak - is rendered piece on fragile piece,
What worth is there now?

The vex of thoughts of how it used to be - the spider
on the limb, the bud in rain.
I cry: Anathema! There is no comfort from the thought that sands
forgot unnoticed blow on by.

Redemption marks the lone worth now - Remembrance.

The information channels that had carried all that other information was now unavailable...another Time/data set, and literally another angle(spatiality)....requiring being there, then, being able to literally spatially look "up" from ground level, through the limbs and leaves. A distinct, a different information channel, which was as simple as a "different line of sight" position - in space and time - through which my eyes could have registered what was going on when all those other events were occurring.

If we acknowledge that "time" and "space" are just as crucial in the establishment of "channels" that energies traverse, we can apply that understanding to help us comprehend anew some old...very old...ideas! Plato struggled with his contemporaries to come to terms with "awareness", with "cause and affect", with "numbers and near-unthinkable 'vastness'", with "social order", with the astounding recognition of "life" and of "death" (trying to understand why a body can be vigorous and "life"-full at one moment, and void of it, the next....what "causes" life...or any motion for that matter? What "force" is there that is the "essence" of a thing ... that makes it "be" what it is?).

One of the more powerful images Plato left to us was of a person crouched staring at the far-inner wall of a cave. Behind, in the cave entrance-way, was a person. He proposed that the images we see of the world are in a sense like the shadows on the wall. The "real" essence of what we see is in fact the un-seen energy-activating person in the doorway, who we can only know by the shadow on the wall. There is Real and there is Ideal. There is Form, and there is Essence. A reasonable expression and extension of perceptions. Eminently valid. Existence vs Transcendency.

But is that all that is going on there? No.

Form is not that disconnected from Function. We can now appreciate what Plato had-not. That there is some sort of unbroken continuum at work. That continuum being the very space of the cave. The clear air through which the "light-shadow" travelled...from the entrance to the wall. The light of the Sun ...interacting with the figure in the entrance...the results traversing space...interacting with the wall...reflecting to the eyes of the crouched figure. Throughout all of this creative created universe, "information" is transmitted and transcribed. Some might be packeted in quantums. Some might not. We need to explore the depths, the implications, the substance, of "information"......of "information transmission"

Plato had proposed that our only contact with the "ideal" world (behind us) was the shadows. He posited two (separate) distinct "realities". And while it is an image that always intrigued me...it bothered me too. Something about it was "incomplete". What might have been transparent to Plato was visible to me. It is what I just mentioned: he hadn't perceived the importance of the space (and time) between the Ideal and the Real. In a very subtle way, the primacy of his two "quantum type" nodes of existence are CONNECTED by the SPACE that the existential "shadow" travels through, before it becomes "visible" (realized). There is a "channel" for the information of the Ideal to pass through...it is the domain between the opening in the cave doorway and the wall, where it becomes "actualized". The "information" of the Ideal does not transcribe instantaneously from one point to another. There MUST be a smooth connected continuum path in order for information-transfer to be effected. Treating Light as the information format, if that space were a block of granite rather than a clear medium that allowed the information to transcribe from one place to another..no information would transcribe. Period. Ideal and Real are linked in an environmental continuum. Form and Essence may be distinguishable aspects, but they are inextricably connected...and define each other.

When I speak of "information channels", then, in mathematical and other contexts, I really mean the total "openness" of space and time and generally defined domains. The field-domain through which information has the potential to exist, is there as the foundation, for all the possible channels, of its ffunctional existence. Specific phenomena and events then dictate where, how and what kind of information gets transferred. There is information in the very being of Space. There is information in the very being of Time. And we shall eventually be able to formulate those distinct aspects into the language of mathematics.

I am a spatially oriented sentient being. And I hereby propose several ceptual propositions that will unify and coordinate everything I've spoken to. It is connected to redefining Space and Time continuums as information-continuums. This is the domain of obvious information that we have been working around, and next to , for generations, but have missed the vital connections that make it all available. Of course, this has been the only and the exact substance of all previous discourse throughout history. I am not being arrogant and saying that I understand these things and no body else did or does (lock me up and throw away the key if you ever hear me even intimate that). But I am expressing a new appreciation for it all. A true new paradigm, that reaches back to all previous efforts, and gathers them together, with a hopefully clearer vision of existence.

The next step is to examine standard relational space/time formulae with less than strict presumptions. Just look at the equations, without applying meanings to the terms.

                                        Area = distance x distance (an "orthogonal relationship")
                                              " = dd = d²
                               speed <s> = dt (distance times time)
                      acceleration <a> = dtt = d t²
                                      Force = ma = m t²
                                     Energy =         mc²

What do we see? For one thing, we see a notation "t". Sometimes it is "a", the translation for "t" times "t". Under usual circumstances, we treat the value as a dimensional vector component in a continuum (per, Area = distance squared). EXCEPT. When we treat it as Time. Then, because we can't think of any other way to handle it, we call it a scalar. Whether "t" or "t squared" or "t cubed". We put on conceptual blinders and call it scalar. But this breaks a primal thema of "consistency". So:

I posit retaining "vector" as the quality of the "value". It is easy enough to group together a set of vectors, do some calculations, and get a "net vectoral value". We then apply that to a system under study, and see where the system, generally, is going... and how. Suppose we sought to find the reverse set of data! Is it possible to look at a single vector and retrace its components? The answer might be a resounding 'no'; that such a set is too infinite to specify, except - I propose - for the fact that we have some other clues to guide us towards some possibilities.

The time-vector in all relativity calculations (xt, y, z) could be such a singularly usable and functional Lorentzian "net vector". If we start with the infant premise of 3 spatial dimensions, even though we can rotate and translate coordinate systems such that a "net vector" is seen as a Lorentzian "simple vector" in one dimension only with the other dimensional values are set at "zero" (xt¹, yt⁰, zt⁰), if we do not do that translation/rotation (to make number crunching easier) then each orthogonal spatial dimension can be assigned a velocity value (temporal dimension value) for an object moving through space. That is, all spacial dimensions could reasonably have a companion time dimension component. The corrected notation would then be (xt¹, yt¹, zt¹). This might require us to make a readjustment in writing relativity equations but it would be more in keeping with phase- space notation.

The use of t⁰ for the y,z vectors is exactly where the Pi-Theorem was tacitly invoked to re-enforce the age old perception that Time must be a simple monotonous phenomenon of some kind. It was assumed that Time was something singular regardless of whether written as t = 0 or v or v² or vⁿ. It was thought as obviously erroneous to consider Time as some combination of separate factors. A situation reminiscent of Whorf's remark about not being able to label "blue" separately if all the world were "blue" had occurred. There had not been any differential or variance to indicate a fragmentation or variable frame so no special differentiation was thought necessary. Those naive assumptions no longer hold. If notation models reality, reality must model notation.

A thought experiment might help make the situation clear. Imagine three infinitely powerful engines tied together orthogonally (at right angles to each other). Power one up until you reach near light velocity. Do the rest, in turn. An interesting mental image results. Nothing restricts activity in each direction. Something is going on. Something relevant to the existence of several time dimensions.

Remember, most importantly, that we are carrying with us as hypothesis an assumption that information kineticly and smoothly moves across, around, and through several dimensionally considered domains, and, that we will eventually have to deal with comparative translation of that information - how it is maintained and/or how it is altered - and what happens under specific conditions. But for the moment we are concentrating on establishing multiple time-dimensions as a possibility - and assigning (or noting) special characteristics Time might have that would be in keeping with current conceptions of universal forces and mathematics. This notion will have great importance later on when we talk about wave collapse, a phenomenon at the core of quantum mechanics. Physicists cannot clearely explain it. I submit that the impass is because of reliance on a singular temporal component. Time still flows even though their current mathematics tells them that time stops when some wave portions come to rest, to a complete stop. The only way to resolve this is to acknowledge several time vectors.

At this point in the discussion though I am focussing on challenging the relativistic conclusion that "space" is bent by force phenomena. I observe the same events, but I choose to see space in the more fixed Cartesian sense, and re-assign malleable topological qualities to several time dimensions. Such that a topological n-dimensional region of temporal domains has a continual elastic interaffective quality, which inter-relationships set the "paths" (nee channels) through which energy/matter can travel. That the activities we see as arising from interactive temporal parameters, in the new perspective, could have limited us in the "language" of the old perspective, to assigning those functions to only spatial contortions. I want to reiterate that I am not eliminating the idea of a "bending" event. Observations have born out Einstein's Special Relativity. But developing a line of thought that allows for multiple temporal continuums, with characteristics that might accomplish the same observations, is exceedingly reasonable. I would even suspect there to be a profound "dimensionality" connection between this linguistic adjustment of Mathematics and such observed phenomena as holography and electron tunneling discovered by Nobel laureate Brian Josephson.

Lets take a moment to look at current cosmology for encouragement for this proposed new line of thought. Of all the soul-stirring phenomena we've discerned in the cosmos, the most outrageous are Black Holes (and their extreme example, the so-called Big Bang... that I prefer calling the "Shinn-nu Event"...when all motion <space & time> began). The gravitational intensity connected with Black Holes is so intense that it retains in its sphere of influence every wave and particle that passes interior to the "event horizon". In vernacular trying to express the extremity of this power, it's said that "not even light (!) escapes the gravitational pull". The only problem is that something does escape! Very capriciously and freely! Gravity escapes.

Notwithstanding the brilliant work by Hawking - whose ideas, parenthetically, are tantamount to determining a route for information transfer so as to give us a glimpse of activities on the inside of that event-horizon boundary - the scientific world at large has been reluctant to focus on this other anomaly. There are ingenious and well reasoned projects underway to measure gravity "waves"... the expressions of that felt force. All of this having been indicated by existing interpretations of the mathematical paradigm. The first difficulty is indicated by Theorem Theta of the Special Theory of Relativity. It states that any general Field Environment is so pervasive that any changes in it would equally change the observer and observing apparatus, as well as the object of observation, so that even if a variance-change occurred, it might never be perceived because an equal change in the apparatus would hide, by compensation with, the general field event.

The other difficulty is more vexingly obvious. If Gravity is a "thing" and gravity affects "things" then how is it that Gravity affects everything in the Universe ... except itself! One of the possibilities is that Gravity is not a "thing", per se, but is an architectural gradient arisable from some other aspect of existence. It must be active only where energy has been compressionally coded into "mass". It must be an internally-oriented gradient no matter how much is present, and must be field-blendable no matter how many "mass-bodies" are in proximity with each other. It must be affective from its locus out to infinity. There are a few other requirements, but these are the principle ones.

If we rule-out "energy" per se, then we turn to the other "components" of existence...space, time. Spatial structure is paradigmed as inert while Time is the aspect we attribute kinetics with. It might be possible to realize an integral and true information-Temporal-architecture, that can effect and accommodate all existing observed phenomena.

In point of fact, the proposal that there are in fact multiple time dimensions is not so outlandish. They are already being used in everyday physics and genetic biology! There, though, they are treated as "artifacts" of mathematical manipulation, in the same sense that  (Ö-1) is an artifact-of-existence. Multiple temporal dimensions are called the momentum components of "phase space". Objects, particles, groups, etc are categorized by the values for location (3 factors) and velocity (3 factors) in a singular expression 6N. Rather than being artifactual factors of numerical/conceptual manipulation, I accept their presence as true and actual...both as experience & as mathematical description.

A thought experiment. Imagine a mass existing in space, far from all other masses, and with no ostensible velocity of motion (relative to center-of mass) in any direction what so ever. It is uniformly dense and spherical. The region it exists in is currently described as a gravity well with a smoothly diminishing strength as you mentally consider loci chosen farther away from the center-of-mass. If we assume that space is not malleable - because that is actually the tacit assumption of Lorentzian transformation ... that no changes will occur to an object, even if it is repositioned anywhere in space (!) - what do we have left to ascribe those forces to-or-from? Primally, time (nee times) is the one topic left to develop.

Recalling the ceptual premise that a "variance" of any sort is information, if we start with the idea that in this currently imagined system with no net motion that three time scales in three dimensions at right angleto each other remain equal. With no differences in the scaling variable, the only variances we can consider are "distances' from the c-o-m. I then propose to think of the Mass as presenting and displacing co-extant time-fields extending in all directions from its center-of-mass <c-o-m> in a smooth yet onion-like laminar way. Where the laminae are uniform distances along a spatial measure. The values co-reference temporally vectored continuums. Multiple temporal vectors additively sum to singular net-vectors at any given locus. And, that these net-vectors produce Hooke's Law elastic tensor fields. We call this 'elasticity' the .... "Gravity gradient".

If a satellite with motional inertial energy were to orbit this fixed Mass, it would travel around the focal Mass in such a way as to maintain equal net-temporal-values relative to the central Mass. A temporal path-of-least-resistance, a net-equal-value Path, is then scribed for its orbital motion. Einstein referred to it as a path between two points in the space-time continuum that represents - relative to the specific interacting masses - a route of minimal stresses. A geodesic. All masses deform (uniformly stress) the space-time in their regions away from the center of mass (with variants produced because of local densities). At some place or places in the space which is significant to those interacting bodies there exist a group of locations which represent the lowest comparatively stressed regions for "both" or "all" masses interacting. Those locations - considered one at a time - are the LaGrangian stability nodes. Those locations - when considered collectively - are the geodesic. Temporal densities diminish smoothly as we move away from a c-o-m, and therefore transdimensional variances at any given distant loci are reduced, and felt-forces diminish. Kepler's conic dynamics of orbital bodies sweeping out equal temporal "areas" can be appreciated as a substantively real phenomenon, not a mathematical analog.

Because a satellite is spatially "solid", it exists across a quantity of imagined temporal laminae of the central Mass. The satellite is thereby also subject to temporal variances across its mass and its own temporal- domains, and these time variances (nee information; nee forces) are what is observed as tidal forces. And, per orbital motion, angular momentum values are constantly smoothly shifting to remain net-equal (temporarily disregarding friction and other energy/information 'bleeding' away from the system) vis-a-vis the several temporal co-ordinates of the central Mass...the Euclidian-time-lamina/ae.

When several co-orbital bodies are considered, LaGrangian stability loci are those points where the n temporal dimensions of each mass cancel. Projecting how temporal fields might look as they extend back toward each body, I would suspect that these points are important prime information transfer points and that they are spatial conduit loci for the temporal tidal forces between bodies.

As I discuss all this, I realize that a very important aspect has been left unsaid. We recognize the limitations of c the speed of light regarding energy/information translocation. Yet we have no problem perceiving the universe and all space as unrestricted /functioning domain. I propose that time (with a capital T) has the same unrestricted quality/capacity. It, like space, is the domain through which energy,mass,information,light exists. But Time is fundamentally smooth and unrestricted. When there are transdimensional variations, or mass/spatial variations, the result are real Forces. The several forces we work so hard to describe, define and understand and unify. "Gravity" being the prime expression of multiple temporal dimensions.

We can turn now to discussion of general transdimensional relationships, seen as the translation between information sets. Why orthogonal systems are information-consistent, and how Cartesian to polar is really information condensation; taking a domain with exponential values other-than-one and translating it to a value where the exponential value equals-one.

Because our mathematical notation assigns dimensionality to whole-number exponent power, if we are to maintain thorough consistency, then when such formula values cancel out to become "zero" even that whole number value should represent a dimension. We can't willy-nilly say that such-and-such a thing 'exists' when it is convenient for us to think of it that way, and then doesn't when we're not sure how to define or use it. An "X" domain, with variable multiplicable "extent" (a) and dimensional aspects "n" , make up a few of the several aspect qualities of a domain. Historically, we developed our concepts of dimension, by starting out with the real-living-in-world activity of simple counting - done millennia ago. Number lines and continuums developed from that. Irrational, negative and transcendental numbers filled in all the spaces of the continuum and so did "zero".

Since X to the zero power is "one" it was possible to create, as was done, a concept of "dimension" based upon something which is countable, by way of a measurable extent between 2 points along a continuum. By relational definition "X" to the zero power will not in any way affect the rest of the factors of calculation, and, it can be "situationally" disregarded. This was unfortunately done starting in 18th century with reliance on the fore mentioned "Pi-Theorem" of mathematics. The Pi-Theorem stating that if some component of a calculation stays unchanged throughout - such as by assuming a value of "one" - it can summarily be dismissed throughout...as non-existent(!). The approach may once have had its practical and acceptable uses, but it restricted consideration of important "compress-coded" information.

"Countability" is only one part of the essence of what we really mean when we talk of "dimensions". It is currently said that n factors will locate a dimensionless "point". Again, to be really true to the fundamental ideal of a "consistent" universe, to say that a set of dimensionless "things" do not have "dimension" when alone and yet, attain "dimensionality" when clustered, is ludicrous. What we are building toward is a smooth continuum of dimensions, where the exponent-expression is also a smooth continuum, and, is the better source in which to ground our concept of dimensionality. Just as it is unthinkable to have a number line without "zero", just so the exponential dimensional number value continuum must have a "zero" value with real existence and natural dimensional function in our mathematics. Consider the general expression "Axⁿ". The "a" factor of measurable length or extent for a domain "X" is an "adjectival modifier" of that f(X) domain.

"Dimensionality" resides not in the 'length measure' (such as: "2", as in "2 times 2"). "Dimensionality" resides in the "something" that the "2" specifies "how many of". By the Calculus, and other mathematical functions of derivatives, a domain is /functionally co-referenced with exponential notation-meanings regardless of variations of the "adjectival modifier" component. By conceptual extension, it is most appropriate to call a point-loci "dimensional" in and of itself. It is reasonable to propose that expressions which might randomly assume values at some instance in the process, that become exponential expressions having an ad-reductio value-state of "zero", do not vanish in the literal sense. Rather, the "information" is transcriptionally re-coded and compressed.

Axⁿ----> Ax⁰("point" now definable as "zero^th dimension")

~~ ~~

Conversely, expressions should generally be adjustively receptualized.

177x⁴ + px³ - 8.4x - 5 = 0 is 5-dimensional, not 4
(even though the highest exponent is "4").

It should be written (or thought-noted) as

177x⁴ + px³ + 0x² - 8.4x¹ - 5x⁰ = 0.

N dimensions can therefore be more than just whole number values. At certain junctures it is proper to have just a handful of distinct "dimensions". In other contexts it is proper and necessary to have smooth domain - such as in fractal calculations. In fact, to break from the old way of thinking I have renamed dimensions: <<fluences>>. I want people to subconsciously perceive and automatically appreciate these domains as fluidly smooth continuums which can have dynamic kinetic qualities...compression and expansion; to ascribe true mathematical malleability to fluences, because now we are going to fly though them temporally in several directions, and in conceptual continuity!

The important cept:

If we use an exponent to describe a condition of "dimensionality" in one formulation...we must be descriptively consistent ... and thus use it to describe a state of "dimensionality" no matter how it is structured or written.

{{ As an aside, what becomes interesting (and a lot of fun to toy with) is that mathematical "functions" : multiplication, division, roots, etc. become visually graphable with distinct regions of operation. In fact, it opens up a whole new panorama of how special forms of these operations interconnect. Platonic shadows taking on tangible form, if you will. Higher order Aleph infinities (Cantorian and non-Cantorian sets), is another perspective. Higher order integrations across fluencial groups opens up even another fascinating area of study.

Also, a "point" becomes the ultimate "event horizon," parallelling cosmological "black holes". It is a region which has no "inside" even though we ascribe it a real existence. We cannot determine anything smaller than a "point" - which would seem to indicate there is no content or information "inside" (because then we would have tinier "points " to reference) - yet, as with a physical event horizon, we can recognize situations where we see information going there and going "in". Sometimes we simply call it "coding". Scientists assume it happens in the physical world quite easily. There is no reason to restrict such a relationship mathematically. It is in fact the most appropriate thing we can do as we fine tune and invent mathematics.}}

[end Part 11]   2025 Copyrights ceptualinstitute.com