Phil forum : Off-topic -- The Fifth Dimension

[Gnomon]

Yeah I got that loud and clear. Still not entirely sure why, though. — Possibility

Because the term "Fifth Dimension", is associated in my mind primarily with the New Age of Aquarius notion of a transcendent level of consciousness. Since you evaded my requests for your own personal definition, that's all I had to go on. Except for the various other scientific or pseudo-scientific applications of that terminology, that I linked to, and you shrugged off. So, what is it : Woo or Science? Or both???

What is the Fifth Dimension? : https://andreaoneness.com/fifth-dimension/

You portray spiritualism as hard done by or oppressed by science in general, — Possibility

That is how Spiritualists view themselves : as punching bags for science. (I am not a Spiritualist). So, I can also sympathize with materialist scientists, who feel besieged by god-fearing Fundamentalist Christians and Muslims. (I am not a materialist) I can argue for or against both sides, because my personal philosophy is BothAnd.

Science vs Spirituality : Fritjof Capra explores how Science and Spirituality can be fused in an integrated system that returns us to a sense of oneness with the natural world.
https://upliftconnect.com/science-and-spirituality/

If you’re NOT trying to control meaning, then I think your approach might be misguided. But you did say that was your aim with neologisms. — Possibility

But, I AM trying to control the meaning of words that I use to express my personal worldview. Is that approach misguided? If I fail to convey my meaning, what's the point of the message? Did you think I was trying to define Ultimate Truth?

New meanings require new words : Neologisms are often driven by changes in culture and technology,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neologism

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".

[Gnomon]

"Can our personal information survive? — 3017amen

I have given some thought to that question. And my answer is "maybe". When your body turns to dust, the information associated with that matter is dissipated, like Entropy. But, if G*D, the Programmer, has some good reason to recompile your personal information pattern, you wouldn't "survive", but you could be re-incarnated. But, since I don't have a plausible revelation of G*D's will, I'm not banking on having a second chance to get my life right. For me, it's now or never.

When Descartes, in a thought experiment, arbitrarily divided metaphysical Soul from physical Body, it was based on the observation that they are of different "natures" (properties). But, in the real world, Mind/Body is a unit. Physical properties and Metaphysical qualities combine to form a dynamic whole system : the person. A similar science-fiction thought experiment was the Transporter of Star Trek. In theory, it scanned your personal definitive information, and converted it into computer code, which was then beamed across space in the form of energy. Then the impersonal energy was translated back into personal information, and thence back into a physical form. NIce! However, in more than one episode, the writers explored the mind-bending question : is the reconstituted body really my Self/Soul, or a new person altogether?

[Gnomon]

I think it would be sufficient if you simply learned what most understand metaphysics to be and consequently used the word appropriately so as not to cause needless miscommunication. — praxis

Again you missed the point of my unconventional worldview. I think "what most understand metaphysics to be" is either Super-Natural, or an impractical abstraction from natural real-world Physics. The medieval definition of "Metaphysics", emphasized the essential distinction between Body and Soul. Later, the modern interpretation of the same word, has placed Mind/Soul under the general category of matter-based Physics. But, my definition of "what lies Beyond Physics" is, I think, actually closer to what Aristotle had in mind when he divided his encyclopedia into materialistic Physics (science) and mentalistic Metaphysics (philosophy). The ideas discussed in volume II were focused on our human concepts & attitudes about Nature and Culture. Hence, what I mean by "Metaphysics" is the mental aspects of the world, including Cultural Evolution as contrasted with Natural Evolution. To use old words for new concepts would lead to complete "miscommunication" of my intent and meaning.

Since you seem to prefer conservative traditional philosophical terms, your definition of "Metaphysics" can be found in conventional dictionaries, as Ontology, etc. But, since my radical worldview is proposing a new paradigm of reconciled Science, Philosophy, & Religion, I've had to translate those broad abstractions into specific modern metaphors. For example, what the priests called "Spirit", and scientists call "Energy", I call "EnFormAction".
[ Note : the smilie icon above could mean "I'm cool", or "blind", or "arrogant" depending on context and preconceptions. I use it to mean that "I mean no offense" ]


Metaphysical vs Supernatural : the metaphysical derives from laws of nature, the supernatural derives from outside laws of nature. Thus, for example, one cannot use gravity or electromagnetic fields or strong force to study the attributes of the supernatural. The metaphysical examines "what exists", the physical "how it exists", the supernatural "what exists outside existence". I do not see this as a dualism between philosophy vs religion but between existence vs nonexistence.
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/m ... al.129313/

Meta-Physics : Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, between substance and attribute, and between potentiality and actuality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

[Gnomon]

Clearly, it is not your aim to be understood, however, and that is in part why I say that you're doing something other than philosophy here. — praxis

I don't know what philosophers you've been reading, but the most famous thinkers also seem to be the hardest to understand. That's because they are breaking new ground, instead of recycling old ideas.

Why do you think I'm posting on a philosophy forum? I assumed that most posters would be familiar with digesting difficult concepts, and open to novel ideas. Unfortunately, old philosophical paradigms die hard. So, I don't expect the concept that "Information is the new Atom" will become common knowledge until long after I've gone to the big forum in the sky.

Philosophy is supposed to be difficult :
https://www.theguardian.com/books/books ... ay-english

Max Planck : “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

[Gnomon]

But humans are not identical, and our potential differences are many and largely unknown. — Possibility

You seem to be focusing on our differences, but communication requires an emphasis on our commonalities. However, communication of novel concepts in Science and Philosophy is seldom presented in the vocabulary of the masses. Instead, it is first directed at those who are already well-versed in the technical language of a particular field.

It’s not that I’m distrusting definitions - it’s that concepts, being patterns of experience, are inherently uncertain and variable, — Possibility

So you just give-up on putting your ideas into specific words, and rely on ESP? When you present specific ideas in vague general ("uncertain & variable") terms, a few people may grasp your meaning intuitively, but you'll never know for sure if they grokked your meaning or made-up their own meaning. In Shannon's Information Theory, successful communication can be verified to make sure what was received is what was sent.

You’re assuming that you can determine my exact meaning from a definition: — Possibility

Of course not. All I can hope to do, is throw a lot of mud on the wall, and hope some of it sticks.

But you’re beginning with a narrow perspective of the concept. — Possibility

It's called analysis of complexity into simple components. Are you opposed to analytical thinking? I understand that your notion of a Fifth Dimension is a broad concept. But couldn't you break it down into smaller chunks, that babies like me can digest? I still think your Multidimensional worldview may be compatible with my Information-based worldview. But your presentation has been so deliberately vague and non-committal that I can't be sure what you're talking about. Is it a spiritual plane, or a physical dimension? Please give me some "narrow" bites that I can masticate with sore gums.

For example : What do "each of the scientific definitions of ‘fifth dimension’ " have in common? How do the spiritual notions of Higher Dimensions differ from the mathematical definitions? Who are some published authors, Scientists or New Agers, that have presented ideas similar to yours?

[Gnomon]

called a troglodyte. — praxis

So, you're stooping to calling me names again? Are you saying I'm Stoopid?

What's the difference between a bit of information and a bit of an atom again? — praxis

I could try to answer your question, but I'm a Neanderthal, and I don't speak Postmodern Babble.

PS___Since you're so smart, can you explain to me what Possibility's Fifth Dimension is? What's the difference between the Fifth Dimension and the Sixth Dimension?

[Gnomon]

I’ll read about it though. — praxis

Since you seem to be offended by my eccentric approach to Metaphysics, how would you describe, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread?

[Gnomon]

Sixth dimension metaphysics, from what I could briefly glean, holds that awareness, connection, and collaboration is inherent to everything, in an apparent attempt to unify everything from morals to the behavior of photons." ____Praxis

I just wanted to try and clear this up before we go any further. — Possibility

Although I'm still in the dark about "constructed emotions" and such, it seems that the general gist of your Multidimensional theory is similar to my own worldview, in that Consciousness (awareness, connection, & collaboration) is "inherent to everything". But the details and implications may differ.

So, I'd like see how you would summarize the Information Theory that I've been defending in this thread, in your own words.

[Gnomon]

Meaning, perhaps storage of other EM field's of consciousness exist in yet another Dimension. — 3017amen

Did Wheeler use terms like "other dimensions" in his musings on " matter, energy, and information"? Did he associate Information with physical Electro-Magnetic fields?

Since you don't seem to be offended by my unusual worldview, I'd like to see how you would summarize, in your own words, the Theory of Information that is the topic of this thread.

[Gnomon]

That indicates that there's something wrong with your concept of metaphysics. — praxis

Yes. It's different from your traditional definition, which you have never stated explicitly. And you've never explained exactly what is "wrong" with my information-based definition, except that you don't like it. Is that due to gross prejudice, or to spelled-out reasons?

My definition is intended to draw a meaningful distinction between Physics and Metaphysics, as a first step to understanding how "Information" can be in both camps. Is your preferred definition more like Kant's or Aristotle's?

Kant's Metaphysics : Kant proposed an alternative metaphysics, which retains an a priori element, but confines it to objects of sense-experience.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi151old/KANTMETA.HTM
[ Note : My alternative definition is more like Aristotle's, in that it is limited to mental reasoning (metaphysics) rather than sense experience (physics). ]

Aristotle's Metaphysics : Aristotle himself described his subject matter in a variety of ways: as ‘first philosophy’, or ‘the study of being qua being, or wisdom, or theology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris ... taphysics/
[Note : which of those topics is limited to sense experience? You can sense a physical being with your physical senses, but how do you know anything about the abstract concept of being qua being?]

Metaphysics and Being Qua Being : So too, he said, are there many senses in which things can be said to exist. Thus, it seems, there can be no science of existence and of universal causes, and so there can be no metaphysics. . . . Aristotle's solution is to demonstrate that there is a single, 'fundamental' sense of 'exist' from which the other senses derive, and that that sense of 'exist' is the subject of metaphysics.
https://sites.google.com/a/acrewoods.ne ... -qua-being
[ that "fundamental concept of being qua being is what I call BEING ]

BEING : In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Meta-physics :
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
1. Often dismissed by materialists as idle speculation on topics not amenable to empirical proof.
2. Aristotle divided his treatise on science into two parts. The world as-known-via-the-senses was labeled “physics” - what we call "Science" today. And the world as-known-by-the-mind, by reason, was labeled “metaphysics” - what we now call "Philosophy" .
3. Plato called the unseen world that hides behind the physical façade: “Ideal” as opposed to Real. For him, Ideal “forms” (concepts) were prior-to the Real “substance” (matter).
4. Physics refers to the things we perceive with the eye of the body. Meta-physics refers to the things we conceive with the eye of the mind. Meta-physics includes the properties, and qualities, and functions that make a thing what it is. Matter is just the clay from which a thing is made. Meta-physics is the design (form, purpose); physics is the product (shape, action). The act of creation brings an ideal design into actual existence. The design concept is the “formal” cause of the thing designed.
5. I use a hyphen in the spelling to indicate that I am not talking about Ghosts and Magic, but about Ontology (science of being).
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html