Phil forum : Off-topic -- The Fifth Dimension

[Gnomon]

Spiritual mysteries refer to the idea of dimensions as a relational structure that is as much internally extruded into an additional aspect as externally. — Possibility

I am enjoying this dialog, in part, because I sense that you and I have similar aspirations. For example, I am trying, in my own idiosyncratic way, to legitimize the concepts of Metaphysics and Spiritualism, which were banished from scientific and philosophical discourse most decisively by Descartes. His Body/Soul division was later called "non-overlapping magisteria" by S.J. Gould. It gave science license to investigate all of Nature, except the aspects we are all most intimately familiar with : our own experiences & feelings & ideas. Yet those of other people remain shrouded in myths and "spiritual mysteries".

The so-called "Enlightenment" was a necessary correction to the Dark Ages. IMHO, It was justified in rebelling against the dogmatic magisteria of the combined church & state of the Holy Roman Empire. Since then, Empirical Science has gained dominance among the intellectual elite, while Spiritualism, in its many incompatible forms, still dominates the lives of the non-intellectual masses. Apparently, like me, you feel that this attempted amputation of Soul from Body favors one part over the whole system. But most attempts to patch the rift tend to favor one side over the other : Reason vs Emotion. Even the empiricist philosopher, David Hume, noted that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." But he was not advocating a return to the submission of individual reasoning to collective passions in the form of organized Religion. Instead, " All I insist is that it is fantasy to pretend that reason can provide the fundamental foundations for our hopes, ambitions or morality". My proposed patch for the Matter vs Mind split is the BothAnd philosophy.

Bernardo Kastrup, in the book I'm currently reading, is also on the same mission. But we are all approaching the goal from different directions. He even seems to have a concept similar to your Fifth Dimension. He observes, "since we all seem to share the same world, there has to be a broader cognitive space --- beyond just perceptions". He describes that "higher dimension" in spatial terms resembling yours in the quote above : "a cognitive space not only comprising, but also surrounding, perception". His "space" is also transcendent in a sense that you might agree with : "consensus experiences live in a transpersonal cognitive space, instead of an individual mind." You'll have to read the book to see how he defines his personal "consensus reality". Hint : it's not simply objective reality, or socially-constructed realty. Anyway, the point of the book seems to be that we know and discuss that transcendent reality in terms of symbols, myths, metaphors, and analogies. Kastrup seeks to reconcile the thousands of contradictory mythical narratives by discovering their essential commonalities, as suggested by Joseph Campbell, in Myths To Live By. I may not completely agree with his prescription for what ails the modern fragmented world. But we seem to be looking in the same direction.


Consensus Reality : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_reality

BothAnd Philosophy : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page6.html

[Gnomon]

your point about Neologisms is well taken, in that " all talk and no substance" is indeed a frustration tantamount to philosophical gibberish. Nevertheless, from my specific understanding, the context in which Gnomon posits his theories is where there is merit. — 3017amen

Thanks! The whole point of Enformationism is "paradigm busting", not merely saying the same old thing in strange words.

Unfortunately, I grew-up in the era of Modernism. So I missed the "corrections" of Post-Modernism. I once tried to read a book by Michel Foucault, but I got lost in his paragraph-long sentences. :joke:

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... rmation/p4


If I might butt in for a sec. — praxis

If you're going to butt-in, at least become familiar with the discussion.

It's unclear what you mean by 'spiritualism' but it's odd that you believe metaphysics has been banished from philosophical discourse — praxis

I have repeatedly contrasted Spiritualism with Materialism as antagonistic worldviews. FYI, I'm using "Spiritualism" in a broad sense, not limited to the 19th century table-tipping fad by that name. For those who have been living under a rock for the last century, I'll note that the "rift" between Science (physics) and Religion (metaphysics) has been a hot topic in philosophy since the Enlightenment. And the clear trend among philosophers has been to side with Physics. Or is that also Fake News? Are you just being contrary, or do you have something to add to the thread?

Spiritualism : the doctrine that the spirit exists as distinct from matter, or that spirit is the only reality.

The Uneasy Revival of Metaphysics : https://philpapers.org/rec/DEGTUR

Healing the Rift : Bridging the Gap Between Science and Spirituality
https://www.amazon.com/Healing-Rift-Bri ... B002VH4QW8

Perhaps God informed you that this was a correction to an error? — praxis
No. It was just a personal opinion. Do you know what "IMHO" means? If you disagree with that opinion, start another thread. :razz:

You've created a false dilemma so that you can try to provide a false solution. It shouldn't be a surprise that no one is buying. — praxis

Are you also a Global Warming denier? :joke:

I suspect that Possibility is aware and concerned about this philosophical dilemma, for which the Fifth Dimension theory is a proposed partial solution. If the "Rift" is no concern of yours, please butt out.

PS___To turn your attention away from this thread, I could reference hundreds of book on the topic of "The Rift". Here's a short list : https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/sc ... s-religion

[Gnomon]

The analogy to spatial dimensions often leads to an oversimplification of what ‘time’ is, based on the misunderstanding that ‘space’ as a dimensional existence refers to a container instead of a multi-layered, complex conceptual structure of three, two and one-dimensional relations. — Possibility

Do you have some kind of image or diagram to illustrate the multilayered structure of space? The diagram below is a simplified interpretation of 3 dimensions, and could also illustrate the fourth dimension by moving the diagram from one point in time to another. String theorists have developed some computer renderings to represent their extra mathematically defined dimensions. Can your Fifth Dimension be represented in a similar manner? Or is it something else altogether?

0*t7zsxYRvj0QIIFa8.

Shape of String Space : https://news.wisc.edu/physicists-find-w ... imensions/

Objectively speaking, what we call ‘properties’ are more accurately ‘relations’ — Possibility

This sounds similar to my own notion that, fundamentally, Information consists of inter-relations --- not between Things but Possibilities --- that can be represented as geometric ratios. One of the "properties" of complex & integrated relationships is what we interpret as Meaning. Simpler patterns are merely mathematical, but can be used as syntactical Shannon Information to compute higher order patterns, that we can translate back into semantic meanings. This is just the beginning of new way to think about Information. But I'm afraid it will take someone much smarter than me to develop it into a structured concept that can be understood by the average person.

So to call them ‘mind pictures’ is to oversimplify the complexity of this relational structure between internal and external reality. — Possibility

Unfortunately, human understanding mostly takes the form of "mind pictures" : simplified icons analogous to "real" things out there in the world. If you want to communicate your own abstract concepts to others, you'll have to dumb them down into simplistic pictures of more familiar things.

[Gnomon]

I’ll be honest with you, though - my aim is not to legitimise any ‘isms’ or to go in to bat for the validity of metaphysical ‘woo’ or ‘spiritual mysteries’. — Possibility

My intent is not to "legitimize" those -isms as isolated traditions, but to integrate "woo" & "mysteries" into a whole system with empirical Science. Most scientists and atheists "dismiss" ancient metaphysical notions as non-sense. Yet I think the pre-scientific religious founders and philosophers were just as smart as modern materialists. They were simply using metaphorical language to describe transcendent concepts. Unfortunately, some of their followers took their metaphors too literally and dogmatically.

This is the point that Bernardo Kastrup is trying to make in his book, More Than Allegory. His previous "book is The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality." In other words, Idealism. Which is also the point of Enformationism. Neither of these is a rejection of Realism, but a reinterpretation of reality in terms of Quantum and Information theories. By combining the science of the mundane physical world with the myths of the sublime mental world, we may learn to dispel ancient mysteries without divine revelations.

Ironically, my first impression of your transcendent Fifth Dimension theory was that it attempts to validate "metaphysical woo", such as New Age notions of higher dimensions :joke:

There remains an affective and sometimes even political loading to your language which implies a blanket dismissiveness on the part of science, philosophy or fundamental religion to any collaboration between physics and metaphysics, — Possibility

That is the complete opposite to my intent. On this forum I am often critical of Scientism, but that's only in response to posters who are hard atheists, and dismissive of anything that smacks of religion. I, personally, am not religious at all. And I could be labeled "spiritual" only because I seriously entertain metaphysical notions that are anathema to physicists. BTW, FWIW, I am also completely a-political --- a militant moderate. My personal worldview is built upon cutting-edge science, not ancient religion.

The BothAnd Philosophy : From a philosophical point-of-view, I think the current “Mexican stand-off” in politics & religion results from a few extremists on left & right imposing their adamant Either/Or worldviews upon the more moderate masses, with the effect of almost eliminating the middle ground of peace & harmony. So, my proposed solution to the polarization problem is to adopt a moderate & inclusive Both/And attitude toward the world and its vicissitudes.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page2.html

So, in the end, your attempt to control meaning is futile. — Possibility

That sounds like a fatalistic Postmodern attitude toward communication of ideas. Like Marxism, it assumes that all human behavior boils down to brutal us-versus-them politics. I am optimistically searching for some common ground in the "Better Angels of Our Nature".


Transcendent : beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience. [ i.e. meta-physical or mental ]

[Gnomon]

Personally, I’m of the opinion that we should proceed as if there was NO ideological divide, — Possibility

That is the point of the BothAnd philosophy.

The BothAnd Philosophy :
Philosophy is the study of ideas & beliefs. Not which are right or wrong – that is the province of Religion and Politics – but which are closer to universal Truth. That unreachable goal can only be approximated by Reason & Consensus, which is the method of Science. In addition to ivory tower theories, applied Philosophy attempts to observe the behavior of wild ideas in their natural habitat.

The BothAnd philosophy is primarily Metaphysical, in that it is concerned with Ontology, Epistemology, & Cosmology. Those categories include abstract & general concepts, such as : G*D, existence, causation, Logic, Mathematics, & Forms. Unlike pragmatic scientific "facts" about the physical world, idealistic Metaphysics is a battle-ground of opinions & emotions.

The BothAnd principle is one of Balance, Symmetry and Proportion. It eschews the absolutist positions of Idealism, in favor of the relative compromises of Pragmatism. It espouses the Practical Wisdom of the Greek philosophers, instead of the Perfect Wisdom of the Hebrew Priests. The BA principle of practical wisdom requires “skin in the game”* to provide real-world feedback, which counter-balances the extremes of Idealism & Realism. That feedback establishes limits to freedom and boundaries to risk-taking. BA is a principle of Character & Virtue, viewed as Phronesis or Pragmatism, instead of Piety or Perfectionism.

The BA philosophy is intended to be based on empirical evidence where possible, but to incorporate reasonable speculation were necessary. As my personal philosophy, the basic principle is fleshed-out in the worldview of Enformationism, which goes out of the Real world only insofar as to establish the universal Ground of Being, and the active principle in Evolution.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

* ref : Skin In The Game, by Nassim Nicholas Taleb; researcher in philosophical, mathematical, and (mostly) practical problems with probability.

This probably results in a tendency on my part to reject spiritualist language. — Possibility

I too, avoid the use of spiritual language (mostly metaphors for transcendence), except as necessary to re-define them into 21st century concepts, compatible with the best of modern science.

[Gnomon]

I recognise the need to re-define old-school belief systems, and I think Gnomon is aware of my affinity with his theory and this aim in particular. I don’t believe the way to achieve this is by coining new terms, though, but by broadening awareness and removing limitations on the isolating and ignorant definitions of existing terms. — Possibility

You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. Critiquing and de-constructing out-of-date terminology is my way of "broadening awareness" and eliminating "ideological biases".

Note : I don't often use Postmodern terminology, but in this case it seems appropriate.

[Gnomon]

Please let me know where I have been using ‘old spiritual terminology’, and I will try to clarify — Possibility

Sorry, that was a generic "you" in the quote. I wasn't saying that Possibility was using spiritual terminology.

Actually, my problem here is that you (Possibility) are using mundane terminology in an unconventional sense. I have repeatedly asked for your own personal definition of what the "Fifth Dimension" is, and how it relates to me. I even quoted several scientific definitions, that don't seem to apply to your theory. So, it seems that you are expecting me to grasp your totally abstract meaning intuitively. But my meager talent for intuition needs some grounding in reality. And that's the role of metaphors. Not to be taken literally, but to be intuited figuratively. Now, after all these wordy posts, I still don't know what the Fifth Dimension is, or does --- just that it's out there somewhere, measuring something.

I don't understand your visceral distrust of definitions, but I'm guessing that it may come from the Postmodern philosophy taught in colleges since I graduated back in the fading Modern era. Concepts that are left undefined are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in many ways, not necessarily how the author intended. To me, that's like a farmer scattering a bunch of uncategorized seeds, with no concern whether they will grow into corn or weeds. Unfortunately, the freedom for each reader to "construct" his own meaning results in a Tower of Babble.

So, I remain, yours truly, Confused. :brow:


To Define : 1. state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of.
2. mark out the boundary or limits of.

Postmodernism themes :
1. The rejection of ultimate sources of meaning and truth.
3. Language is not something that reveals, but constructs.
5. The inherent instability of meaning.
6. The Death of the Author/Artist.
12. The inevitability and productivity of tension, confusion,contradiction, and ambiguity.
https://webs.wofford.edu/whisnantcj/his ... ernism.pdf

PS___Number 6 above helps me to understand why you accuse me of being a haughty strutting Auteur.

[Gnomon]

try not to think of metaphysics as something synonymous with spiritualism — praxis

That correlation wasn't my idea. Aristotle's Metaphysics has been associated with Religion and Spiritualism for thousands of years. For the purposes of my thesis, I have a completely different interpretation of what Aristotle was talking about.

Spiritualism is a metaphysical belief that the world is made up of at least two fundamental substances, matter and spirit. ... It is also a term commonly used for various psychic or paranormal practices and beliefs recorded throughout humanity's history and in a variety of cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritualism_(beliefs)

Meta-Physics : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html


It's not that I disagree with your opinion, rather I'm curious about how you arrived at it, given the curious way you present the opinion as a 'correction'. If you say there's a correction it implies that there's a plan or grand design that the correction helps to fulfill. I'm not aware of any teleological destination that the enlightenment helps to achieve. — praxis

My comment was a general impression, not an assertion based on historical research. But, FWIW, I do believe that there is something like Teleology at work in the world. This is not a Christian teleology as proposed by Hegel, but a scientific teleology based on the upward curve of Evolution. The key difference from Christian teleology, is the inference from evolutionary history that the world was not designed fait accompli in the let-there-be Genesis manner, but it was Programmed as an ongoing self-developing system. The mechanism of the program is basically Darwinian, but updated to include Quantum and Information processing.

Enformation :Ironically, it was Science, not Religion, that revealed the teleological tendencies of the natural world -- that it is evolving in a positive direction.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html

Cosmic Progression : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The problem is that your focus on this rift doesn't address these issues. — praxis

I doubt that you have any idea what my focus is on this topic. You'd have to read the thesis and subsequent blog posts to get a good idea of how I address the Rift. My posts in this thread have been mostly responses to criticism of specific details, not the whole concept of Enformationism.

my impression is that Possibility is doing philosophy and you're doing something else. — praxis

What I'm doing is not academic philosophy focused on a narrow topic. Instead it's a general universal Theory of Everything, and is based primarily on post-classical 21st century scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory and Information Theory. More to the point, it's my personal worldview, and philosophical principle. It's not a religious narrative for the masses, or a scientific paper for specialists. It's my layman's understanding of how the world works, and my role in it. Is that philosophy?

[Gnomon]

to avoid misunderstandings — praxis

A philosophical forum is full of "misunderstandings". That's the point of ongoing dialog : to learn how other people interpret our words, and to either change our words, or to change their minds. But both words (concepts) and minds (belief systems) are hard to change. Yet, as philosophers, we keep stubbornly trying to change the world with words instead of with swords.

Assuming that what's positive for human beings is positive for everything, how can we be sure that evolution is going well for us? — praxis

I don't assume that the point of Evolution (the Program) is to make things better for us homo sapiens. In the overall scheme of things, we may be merely one brief experiment among millions of trials & errors. But, at this point in time, we seem to be the only species with knowledge of Good & Evil, and awareness of Past & Future. That's why human Culture has assumed that Nature is not looking-out for us, and the gods are unreliable, so we have to look-out for ourselves. Modern science has taken over the role of ancient deities, by working miracles (e.g. vaccines) specifically to make evolution go better for our kind. We are our own Chosen People.

Moral Progress : Cultural evolution seems to work with the same trial & error principles as the natural kind, except that human Will (and reasoning) is the primary cause of Cultural Selection. And Steven Pinker has found that human cultures are actually progressing morally and technologically. Moral progress was the topic of his previous book : The Better Angels of Our Nature.
http://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page73.html [note 4 popup]