The fifth dimension

Dimensions in modern science mostly refer to spatial dimensions. Some consider time as a dimension, some consider gravity as a dimension and the search is on for many other dimensions, everything is up for debate. To note though, all of them are only spatial dimensions. To note also, any location in space is considered to be adequately represented by 3 dimensions and hence modern science has moved on for the search for higher dimensions. The unanswered question is “Are 3-dimensions enough to represent a location even in space”? To understand and explain the “yes” or “no” to this question, we need to understand what dimension really means? In modern science, typically dimension is a measure of some property such as length, depth and so on. But, even as I write this I wonder, how are length, depth and so on even defined if there is no reference? Can we for e.g., distinguish between length and depth? Would interchanging them make even an iota of difference to the measurement?

If space is viewed concept purely consisting of properties of “distance and direction” associated with a container for locating observables, then, maybe 3 individual pieces of information can uniquely represent the location of an observable in the container. But then, does it? It should be remembered that individual pieces of information has to be relative to some origin. For e.g., when we talk about Sun, while we can say that it is 150million km from earth, it is important to note that the reference point is earth. But then, earth by itself is not at a fixed location. Given that the earth revolves around the sun in an elliptical path and rotates on itself, can we then with any accuracy indicate the position of Sun even if the reference is earth? Even with earth’s relative position, we find that from one time slice to the next time slice, it is quite possible that the distance and direction are varying. Even if it is very small comparatively, it does make a difference. So, the question arises, what does the 3-dimensions of space really indicate?

IF, we can stop time and view the frozen space component alone, and IF, we can take space within an enclosed container such as the space within earth, and IF, we can locate a reference point within this container and allocate it a co-ordinates of (0, 0, 0), THEN and only then can we allocate 3 individual pieces of information with respect to that origin to locate observables. Now, if we take away the first assumption that it is frozen space, then to these 3 pieces of information we have to add an additional piece of information indicating the time slice at which the space was frozen to measure the 3 informational pieces, which then becomes 4-informational pieces of information and hence 4-dimensional. But, we cannot go away from the restrictions of enclosed container and having an origin for even the 3-dimensions defined. So, how accurate are this type of dimensions? Is it even conveying anything to us? As with every other concept in modern science, concept of dimensions and their measurements seems to have many restrictions and a use only when we utilise it within the world enclosed by the bounds of material earth and use it to create material technology related to and within the confines of this world around us.

If space is just an “appearance” of something else, as is promoted in the various ancient science literature, then we need to ask ourselves, what pieces of information are needed to locate anything? As I have indicated in “Understanding transformation“, we need to study that “underlying something” which appears as space to us or that underlying something that appears as matter to us. Dimension, also has to be defined w.r.t that underlying something rather than w.r.t to this appearance of space or matter. To define something related to the appearance will only build over that appearance. So what we call concepts only help us build technology over the appearance but not understand the inner workings of the appearance. It should also be asked, when studying something which is that underlying, can a concept such as dimension be purely a concept that locates an observable? Then, what about that which we cannot observe in the current state of understanding present in modern science? Are we not limiting our study to a very narrow spectrum, even though we are talking about a very broad concept such as a dimension which affect each and every “something” that forms reality? When viewed from this perspective, and taking the “definition of existence” into consideration, a broad definition of dimension can only be:

“dimensions are pieces of information i.e., data that represent quality of change of the path that can be recognised and stored”.

As we saw in the “defining existence“, existence is establishing a self-path of series of changes based on some logic that gets established as the series of changes occur. Hence, defining dimension as quality related to change, ties the definition of dimension tightly to existence and does not look at dimension as an independent concept, which is very necessary. Change the definition of existence and the associated dimensions should also change. Now, we need to ask ourselves and answer the question, what are the qualities that can be associated with changes that define existence? They, then become the primary dimensions.

When we consider change, the primary necessary element is “energy” or “shakti”, without energy, there can be no movement in terms of change. Thus “energy” becomes the first primary dimension of change (What is energy is a topic for another blog). The next quality needed when a movement of change is considered is the distance and direction of change. When we talk about direction here, it should be realised that there can only be two, a forward and a reverse w.r.t the logic that is established. The direction is not the direction as we define in space, but this direction established transforms to directions in space that we observe. The distance is the amount of changes progressed as opposed to the distance as we see in space. But, this distance and direction now is the next dimension called “akasha”. Subsequently, we need to ask ourselves how does progress occur. For progress there needs to be a “pull” in the forward (kRshTa) or reverse (apakRshTa) directions and the forward direction pull has to overcome the pull in the reverse direction. This pull now becomes the next quality of the change that forms existence and is the next dimension called “balam”. The next quality of change is “uncertainty” or “noise” or “tejas”. As I have described in “Surya Siddanta: An emergence of empirical reality“, the “series of changes” shifts to “series of becomes” as it goes from just being a change to being actually established into an individual existence. During the process that takes it from that non-existence to existence, there is an uncertainty associated with the changes as to whether they change will become or not. This then is the next quality of change related to existence and hence the next dimension i.e., “uncertainty” or “tejas”. So, the four dimensions we measure when we look at change that forms an existence are “shakti”, “aakasha”, “balam” and “tejas”. These are the primary dimensions and any change can be qualified by these.

So, what is the fifth dimension? To answer this, we need to ask ourselves, “how does change appear to us as this reality around us?” Why does change not just appear as that original change of nature of truth that it is? To answer this question, we need to ask ourselves “What is the primary necessity for change and a movement of change?” As I have indicated in the book “Surya Siddanta: An emergence of empirical reality“, a movement of change is not possible until there is a reference. So, we have come back to the original problem of origin that we had with the dimensions that we had with spatial dimensions. But, here, since we have tied dimensions to existence, we have an underlying concept to which to tie it to, thus origin becomes the start of existence, the series of changes from where that a self-path of changes started getting established. It is from this series of changes that logic gets established, it is from this logic that a pull is established as the direction of movement and a distance established as the amount of change that has occurred. Thus this becomes the origin, but for movement and a change to be detected, we need to have stored the previous value against which we need to compare the current value detected, to detect change. Thus the Surya Siddanta defines that a smallest change that can be detected and stored (smara) is “viNADI” which is 1/6th of a “pRANa”. Anything other change does not play a role in our reality. This stored data now acts as a reference against which path, logic and other analytics and conclusions can be drawn. Thus, reality that we see around us is the result of analytics of the data in this storage creating an appearance from this storage.

For e.g., the space that we observe is a result of a contiguous appearance of the network created by connecting various thoughts into bhUmi. Individual matter that we observe is a contiguous existence of an observable(eight consequent existence of a thought node in the network) establishing a path in the bhUmi. Thus, this whole reality in which we exist is the fifth dimension. Anything defined as dimensions within this is purely building over the original fifth dimension.

%d bloggers like this: