The Three Theory

[Fredrick]

Consider that the Cartesian Coordinate system on which our notion of three and only three dimensions is derived or based in, is really an entirely arbitrary artifice of 90 degrees or "right angles" that is a very useful way of modeling the construction of human inventions, gadgets, cars, houses, bridges, toys of all sorts; it is not necessarily in any way an accurate way to describe or to model the Forces of nature as they influence our lives, however.

And they totally ignore what are obvious influences, like density, pressure, charge, heat, taste, smell, sound and sight or any other informational type of densities.

Furthermore in practical practice, the three dimensions cannot even be taken as equals when applied to the "real" world. There is a huge difference in trying to move something three feet to the right and three feet up into the air or three feet down into the ground. You have to fight against Gravity to go "up" and fight a physical barrier of dirt and rocks and just massive obstacles to go "down" in actual real world application.

It just seems to me that if physics is the discipline of trying to describe the physical attributes of the world as we perceive it, that it (we) need(s) to revamp the basic parameters that we use as the intrinsic variables that contribute to our perceptions, i.e. our definition or understanding of dimensions.

Supposed three dimensional "Space" is certainly not homogeneously dense, so to treat it all the same in all directions is not a very accurate representation of how things are. Therefore, trying to use a three dimensional model that assumes that space and movement through space is equitable in all directions is patently absurd.

There is nothing a-priori that there has to be 90 degree distinction between the variables that influence the movement of an object from a starting point. You could just as easily have constructed a model based on a 60 degree separation, and, in fact, you would probably be moving in the correct direction to model the real world by doing so. Although I suspect that there are many more actual dimensions that could be represented mathematically as additional variables that would much more accurately model the true influences that affect the movements of Points of attention. (any point of interest or focus or concern or investigation or just reference)

A much better definition of a "dimension" that more accurately describes the real world might be: A unique type of force that influences the relative directional movement of an object from a mutually established originating reference point.

Such that: Dimensions represented as Vectors, 'a' through 'n', might be mathematically represented by:

(a^n) + (b^n) + (c^n) + . . . (n^n) = C (some constant as the resulting combined vector and/or spherical extremity of the set of all the variable solutions)

This allows for any number of unique variables that might influence the "movement" or path of an object, "Doe" (as in John Doe or Jane Doe).

This is also a part of the mathematics for my proposed ToE.

Humbly submitted for your comments, Aaron

Honorable greetings to you, Aaron.

I feel questioning the three dimensions is appropriate in this three thread. As you can tell this thread is filled with three or quasi-three examples, so it is a good fit. However, if you want to set up a dimension thread I'd probably follow you there; also because I am curious about how you envision your toe. And I agree that the word dimension is applicable to much.

I love your words on how the dimensional world is experienced, and while I can follow you to the 60 degree angle example, I would like to see the practical side of it explained. With perpendicular angles at least a clear distinction of direction has been created.

Looking forward to read more of your writing.

[Fredrick]

Which would be your two dimensions (directions?). Length and breadth? Then where would you fit in depth?

The way I perceive the directions is that there is some kind of doubling up going on that is self-contained within the directions (to some extent, the snake eats its own tail). While I am there all the way with you, Dipayankar, that reality is always based on the three directions, there is space for creating a copy of reality in a 2-directional mode that is fake/art, while there is no recreation possible at the 1-directional level (because there is no 1-directional level).

I think I can best explain the fields as taking point A and have a direction with a length to point B. Yet instead of seeing this as a static line, I only have the static point A with the non-static directional line moving around this spot A. In short, a circle with center A and radius of B. That is field One.

Field Two is also a circle that starts out with that same spot A at its center, and while the distance is the same as B, it is placed perpendicular on field One. So, we have A in the middle, and radii B and C perpendicular to each other, with B and C meeting twice.

I know that you can start to recognize the ball shape now, with two circles, one that is like the equator, the other like a meridian. Possibly, you may feel that a third field must be placed in this picture to complete it. However, the picture is already complete with just two fields. If we were to add a third field, it would still only be a second meridian, not something new.

While the fields can be considered static, the position to view the two static fields is not. So, if you want a meridian at a 90 degree angle, all you need to do is turn the globe along with the movement already delivered by the non-static directional line (of B) as described above. There is no newly created distinction between needing to turn the globe 90 degree, 45 degrees or 16.39 degrees; like a record Field One already contains the spin that repositions Field Two (and not itself). The basics have been covered by both fields already.


If I want to use the angles of the usual 3D, so not a globe but a cube as ultimate delivery, then just one square field would be 2D. Depth does not exist at this level, because anything that is experienced as dimensional at this 2D level is already fake/art. And that bring us back, I believe, to our common ground that reality can only be three directional. It is a conceptual delivery that cannot be broken down to a lower level of basics, except for the ability that we can conjure something on a lower level that is not really there (the dimensional movie, for instance). Therefore there is only a single reality, but is can get experienced in multiple ways and it may contain false images of reality.

If we take a single direction and describe it as a single direction then the snake eats its own tail. Because that single direction must already contain the three directions. The real direction (in 3D) has a real starting point and that starting point is by definition 3 directional. Reality cannot be broken down into three parts that by themselves cannot exist.

If we want to circumvent this and describe the single direction as a concept then we only need two directions. But remember that a concept is a false image (though often very beneficial); a concept is just a delivery of our reality that can exist within our reality, but is not reality itself.

Ultimate conclusion: to explain reality as containing parts we have to use parts that do exist; fields do exist. A single field exists on the condition that it is fake/art. And while we cannot put our teeth in it, it is there and we use these false images all the time.

Our quest is to understand the difference between what reality is and what our fake/art descriptions are of that reality. If we don't see that our descriptions are limited then we can easily get lost in details about something that does not exist.

[JamesANicholson]

Honorable greetings to you, Aaron.

I feel questioning the three dimensions is appropriate in this three thread. As you can tell this thread is filled with three or quasi-three examples, so it is a good fit. However, if you want to set up a dimension thread I'd probably follow you there; also because I am curious about how you envision your toe. And I agree that the word dimension is applicable to much.

I love your words on how the dimensional world is experienced, and while I can follow you to the 60 degree angle example, I would like to see the practical side of it explained. With perpendicular angles at least a clear distinction of direction has been created.

Looking forward to read more of your writing.

-------------------

Good-day to you, Fredrick,
I agree with the fact that the perpendicular angles are the easy clear "choice" for practical application in engineering and other such applications. My only point was that it is/was nevertheless an arbitrary selection to represent how to designate the relative positions of "points" of of interest one to another and not necessarily the only way to model the influences of forces on a central point, which is perhaps a more true to nature way of defining the causal "dimensions" that are the foundation of the material world.

We are so used to thinking in terms of that classic Cartesian coordinate
system that we get easily brain washed of any other way of considering how reality might be structured mathematically especially.

But even with Perpendicular "dimensions" you will have three dimensions of definition of an object's perimeters (defining the shape of the object) and three more dimensions of movement (within each frame of orientation, e.g. around a star, then three more for the movement around the Galaxy and probably three more for movement around the 'visible' universe and who knows just how far this could actually go?) In other words, to truly describe the very accurate position of your appointment with "so and so" at time "such and such" a time, all of these variables would would have to be taken into account as part of the "address" including floor number and room number, city, state, street, country, continent, planet, galaxy, universe Etc. unless it would be possible to establish a super structure frame of reference that even the universe was moving through relative to some outside even more stable "landmarks." which might still be only relatively super-stable.

If you only operate locally, of course you can just factor out the wider variables much in the same way that locally you often do not need to dial the Area code when making local phone calls. The area code would be like another dimension of the phone number. And if you were calling from a foreign country you would need to add additional variables or dimensions to call the same number from a greater distance and statistical population.


That was a bit of a ramble, but do you see what I am saying about Dimensions not necessarily having to depend on a perpendicular restriction?

I am enjoying this discussion, though.

Best Regards, Aaron

[Fredrick]

I am, too, Aaron, and I agree with all you are writing. I have no problem with using 3D, not only because everyone else does it, but also because it is the shortest way to pragmatically deliver a position. But you correctly show the crux of the matter when using 3D: there is no super framework to place every possible coordinate in an overall related position. Possibly, our universe could turn out to have features that makes coordination possible, such as our earth spinning, creating a North-, a South pole and an equator in the process that make for a coordination system. Naturally, the location of the zero-meridian (Greenwich) is arbitrarily chosen, not on grounds as found with the enlightenment, but on who had the most power at the time the convention took place.

Important to understand how and why I am communicating here on this three thread on the TOEquest site, is that I want to deliver the/my toe, and my words are all about the toe. I want to communicate about the basics, and your remark that 3D misses a super structure indicates vital information. 3D is not a delivery that is in concordance with our quest to find the toe, because 3D is ultimately static (even when placing time as 4th D in the picture); the toe must — at heart — also incorporate the non-static aspect of our universe if it is to be used for describing the toe. 3D cannot be used because of the mentioned flaw.

The two fields I used in my reply to Dipayankar contain both the static and the non-static aspects, and the basics of our universe are brought back to the smallest amount of possible parts. Both fields are indeed static, yet the overall picture is not static because both fields also contain the non-static spin (either of B or of C). Again, just one field is fake/art, but two fields together are our reality in a nut shell. I do not know if you noticed it, but there are some nice QM qualities to this picture.

[dipayankar]

Hi Fredrick, I got your concept of the globe, when you you come to the cube, you introduce the element of fake art, does it mean that the 2D is projecting itself to create the 3D??

The way I perceive the directions is that there is some kind of doubling up going on that is self-contained within the directions (to some extent, the snake eats its own tail). While I am there all the way with you, Dipayankar, that reality is always based on the three directions, there is space for creating a copy of reality in a 2-directional mode that is fake/art, while there is no recreation possible at the 1-directional level (because there is no 1-directional level).

I think I can best explain the fields as taking point A and have a direction with a length to point B. Yet instead of seeing this as a static line, I only have the static point A with the non-static directional line moving around this spot A. In short, a circle with center A and radius of B. That is field One.

Field Two is also a circle that starts out with that same spot A at its center, and while the distance is the same as B, it is placed perpendicular on field One. So, we have A in the middle, and radii B and C perpendicular to each other, with B and C meeting twice.

I know that you can start to recognize the ball shape now, with two circles, one that is like the equator, the other like a meridian. Possibly, you may feel that a third field must be placed in this picture to complete it. However, the picture is already complete with just two fields. If we were to add a third field, it would still only be a second meridian, not something new.

While the fields can be considered static, the position to view the two static fields is not. So, if you want a meridian at a 90 degree angle, all you need to do is turn the globe along with the movement already delivered by the non-static directional line (of B) as described above. There is no newly created distinction between needing to turn the globe 90 degree, 45 degrees or 16.39 degrees; like a record Field One already contains the spin that repositions Field Two (and not itself). The basics have been covered by both fields already.


If I want to use the angles of the usual 3D, so not a globe but a cube as ultimate delivery, then just one square field would be 2D. Depth does not exist at this level, because anything that is experienced as dimensional at this 2D level is already fake/art. And that bring us back, I believe, to our common ground that reality can only be three directional. It is a conceptual delivery that cannot be broken down to a lower level of basics, except for the ability that we can conjure something on a lower level that is not really there (the dimensional movie, for instance). Therefore there is only a single reality, but is can get experienced in multiple ways and it may contain false images of reality.

If we take a single direction and describe it as a single direction then the snake eats its own tail. Because that single direction must already contain the three directions. The real direction (in 3D) has a real starting point and that starting point is by definition 3 directional. Reality cannot be broken down into three parts that by themselves cannot exist.

If we want to circumvent this and describe the single direction as a concept then we only need two directions. But remember that a concept is a false image (though often very beneficial); a concept is just a delivery of our reality that can exist within our reality, but is not reality itself.

Ultimate conclusion: to explain reality as containing parts we have to use parts that do exist; fields do exist. A single field exists on the condition that it is fake/art. And while we cannot put our teeth in it, it is there and we use these false images all the time.

Our quest is to understand the difference between what reality is and what our fake/art descriptions are of that reality. If we don't see that our descriptions are limited then we can easily get lost in details about something that does not exist.

[Fredrick]

I got your concept of the globe, when you come to the cube, you introduce the element of fake art, does it mean that the 2D is projecting itself to create the 3D??

No, 2D is real fake/art, and with real I mean that it exists within our materialized reality (of 3D). People make art that can be perceived as 3D even when it is just 2D. As such, 2D can be considered a part of our reality and can therefore be used in a framework to build up our reality from parts. I hope you can read that I am just describing reality here, and not some special situation from which you need to learn the deeper meaning.

It's the problem with 1D, Dipayankar, that even as a medium it does not exist. There is no experience of reality possible with 1D. It is a phantom phenomena that's simply not there. The framework of 3D is a castle in the sky. This doesn't mean that the framework of 3D should be abandoned; it is far too handy in daily use; but just like words are handy, that doesn't mean you can eat the word bread.

The single important reason to mention that 3D contains a phantom aspect is the fact that our theory of everything can then not be build (which is the main reason we are communicating on this site). Yet, when building up a dimensional reality starting out with fields, we are able get to the theory of everything. That's my whole point: we have a reality, and we can break it down into fields. Period. We cannot break reality down into directions, because directions are not independent aspects, but intrinsic parts of the whole. No one ever saw a single direction all by itself. Fields, fake as may be, can be independent aspects.

P.S. Did you notice the QM qualities of the two fields in the dimensional globe? 3D is inherently static, and while the street we live in may appear to be somewhat static, too, the real universe we also live in is definitively not.

[dipayankar]

Which means inherently that 3D is more of a psuedo dimension... I agree at quantum levels it is more of 2D, but the electron cloud moves in 3D.

No, 2D is real fake/art, and with real I mean that it exists within our materialized reality (of 3D). People make art that can be perceived as 3D even when it is just 2D. As such, 2D can be considered a part of our reality and can therefore be used in a framework to build up our reality from parts. I hope you can read that I am just describing reality here, and not some special situation from which you need to learn the deeper meaning.

It's the problem with 1D, Dipayankar, that even as a medium it does not exist. There is no experience of reality possible with 1D. It is a phantom phenomena that's simply not there. The framework of 3D is a castle in the sky. This doesn't mean that the framework of 3D should be abandoned; it is far too handy in daily use; but just like words are handy, that doesn't mean you can eat the word bread.

The single important reason to mention that 3D contains a phantom aspect is the fact that our theory of everything can then not be build (which is the main reason we are communicating on this site). Yet, when building up a dimensional reality starting out with fields, we are able get to the theory of everything. That's my whole point: we have a reality, and we can break it down into fields. Period. We cannot break reality down into directions, because directions are not independent aspects, but intrinsic parts of the whole. No one ever saw a single direction all by itself. Fields, fake as may be, can be independent aspects.

P.S. Did you notice the QM qualities of the two fields in the dimensional globe? 3D is inherently static, and while the street we live in may appear to be somewhat static, too, the real universe we also live in is definitively not.

[Fredrick]

Which means inherently that 3D is more of a psuedo dimension... I agree at quantum levels it is more of 2D, but the electron cloud moves in 3D.

Dipayankar,

I like it that we agree to a large extent on this. But I see a remark you make here that makes me write the following:

If 3D is a man-made construction that functions really well in our human thinking, while reality is only reality plus the option to create fake/art in that reality, then we need to be careful about how to communicate about spatial concepts, especially if these concepts exist at the edge of ordinary conceptual thinking.

I think I can use the simple example of 1, 2, 3, 4, E, F, 7, 8, in which we can both recognize that E and F do not really belong to this line-up, though they may indeed represent 5 and 6 in an alphabetical numbering. If put to the test, one person may even insist that E is indeed the fifth part, etc. It is vital to see that we are communicating then in two different concepts at the same time which can easily lead to confusion.

I think we can both communicate well when using the idea of 3D with each other, because we are both really familiar with it. Yet when communicating about the theory of everything we must make sure not to confuse one spatial concept with information from the other spatial concept. They are not identical, while covering the exact same ground.

In other words, there are two ways to be correct, but these ways will not automatically be correct within the other's version. So your words that the electron cloud moves in 3D is then unexpected after your words that QM is more 2D. It is not incorrect, but it is easily confusing to describe our reality using parts of both concepts at the same time.

[dipayankar]

In case of electron clouds, it moves in waves which describes length and height. However since it is a clound, there would be depth also. Hence the electron clound would be 3D.

Dipayankar,

I like it that we agree to a large extent on this. But I see a remark you make here that makes me write the following:

If 3D is a man-made construction that functions really well in our human thinking, while reality is only reality plus the option to create fake/art in that reality, then we need to be careful about how to communicate about spatial concepts, especially if these concepts exist at the edge of ordinary conceptual thinking.

I think I can use the simple example of 1, 2, 3, 4, E, F, 7, 8, in which we can both recognize that E and F do not really belong to this line-up, though they may indeed represent 5 and 6 in an alphabetical numbering. If put to the test, one person may even insist that E is indeed the fifth part, etc. It is vital to see that we are communicating then in two different concepts at the same time which can easily lead to confusion.

I think we can both communicate well when using the idea of 3D with each other, because we are both really familiar with it. Yet when communicating about the theory of everything we must make sure not to confuse one spatial concept with information from the other spatial concept. They are not identical, while covering the exact same ground.

In other words, there are two ways to be correct, but these ways will not automatically be correct within the other's version. So your words that the electron cloud moves in 3D is then unexpected after your words that QM is more 2D. It is not incorrect, but it is easily confusing to describe our reality using parts of both concepts at the same time.

[Fredrick]

In case of electron clouds, it moves in waves which describes length and height. However since it is a cloud, there would be depth also. Hence the electron cloud would be 3D.

Dipayankar,

Following your description, everything is 3D. I am not trying to make the point that 3D is incorrect or does not exist; I know the concept quite well like most people, because I grew up with it, too.

However, the dimensions I am referring to belong to a field concept. In the field concept there are two fields (each with a length and a width), and together combined they deliver length, width, and depth.

In case of the electron cloud, it moves in waves which take place in a field of length and height. However, since it is a cloud, it moves through the combination of fields, because there would be depth also. Hence, the electron cloud would be two dimensional fields.

To explain it best, here they are once more, separated:

A/
3D contains three directions of height, width, and depth. In this concept a single direction is considered a dimension. Or...

B/
2D+ contains two fields, each with a height and a width. Attached together, they cover height, width, and depth, just like on only needs two eyes to see the additional depth. In this concept a single field is considered a direction.

They both explain the exact same reality, just like one can say the exact same thing in English and in Chinese.

My point in light of the Theory of Everything is that A is static and is not a natural fit for the toe. Only concept B can deliver the toe.