Tuesday, June 18, 2013

What's Beyond "Everything"?

I've always argued that by the time we get to the tenth dimension there's no need to keep counting past that, because "there's no place left to go": but the fact is that many people embrace M-Theory's idea that there are eleven dimensions, one of which is "time". So here we are, visualizing ten spatial dimensions, plus an eleventh dimension as the point of indeterminate size that we start from, the point that moves within those other dimensions to create change from state to state, and that is what we can equate to the moving point that we know of as the "arrow of time".

No Place Left to Go
Here's the question though: if we've described, through logical application of simple principles, a way to get to "everything", then what created the everything?

I prefer to think that there is something within this everything, a universal creative force that is an emergent property within the information that becomes reality. Whether we call this force (which is the spark that drives all living things, from a primitive bacterium to you and I, to want to continue) "God" or some other word makes no difference: this organizing pattern exists, there is a specific pattern that causes our unique universe to exist, there are specific patterns elsewhere within the multiverse that cause other completely different universes to exist. Call those patterns whatever you like, changing names doesn't change their existence. The idea that the multiverse allows for the existence of what some have argued is a highly unlikely combination of factors to create the universe we find ourselves to be in has always been central to my way of thinking about the dimensions.

Likewise, consciousness can be looked upon as an emergent property, but I disagree with those who say only humans have consciousness: I think all living things have their own degree of consciousness. In the same way I think some human beings are more conscious: more immersed and engaged in their reality, more aware of the other possibilities that exist outside the moving "point" of their tiny space-time window... than others.

Are There Really Fourteen Dimensions?
Earlier this month there were news stories about a new "theory of everything" that encompasses fourteen dimensions: here's a brief article which includes links to other more in-depth reporting. How's this for an interesting thought: with this project I've always argued that "time" is a way of thinking about change from state to state within any dimension, and that's why it works to acknowledge there are ten spatial dimensions plus time. But it's also useful to think that for our unique situation, living in a universe with physical atoms and molecules that are embedded within a 3D membrane, there is definitely something about our own experience of time which makes it appear to only be a function of 4D space-time. Would my dimensional analysis make any more sense if we accept that we have our own unique viewpoint of that concept of "time"? Perhaps it's better if we acknowledge the fact that from our perspective time and space are most definitely intimately intertwined.

Where does that lead us? Suddenly we find ourselves with a way of thinking about ten spatial dimensions plus the moving 4D point we call the arrow of time. Is this a way to accomodate fourteen dimensions? Perhaps. By counting our 4D Minkowski "Block Universe" space separately (since that is what our unique experience within the multiverse reveals itself to be, as its own self-contained structure), the whole discussion of temporal vs spatial dimensions might be less confusing for some: in doing so, the ten spatial dimensions all become nothing more than patterns of information that are orthogonal to one another, and our movement is just that: movement through those patterns of information. Moving through a map doesn't change the map, but moving through a map does provide different experiences as we move from position to position.

Everything
Still, no matter how you slice and dice it, the concept of "everything" remains as our goal line. So to the question of "what's beyond everything?" I would say the answer is this: nothing. For more about how that connects to the underlying symmetry from which our universe or any other springs, here's one of my favorite videos from this project: Imagining the Zeroth Dimension.

Enjoy the journey!

Rob Bryanton


7 comments:

Chris Pearson said...

I would like to suggest that even the things we believe as inanimate are also conscious in their way. Of course, one requires a suitable definition of consciousness. But, if we can go to a very basic level, consciousness may be considered that organizational factor inherent in even the most fundamental physics. It could be called "operational" information. Many theorists attribute reality to a language, especially Chris Langan's CTMU. You could go so far as to consider it a computer language, which it probably looks the closest to. People need to flip their mind over, don't you think? I mean, physics went and dove into reality not long after it managed to gain the majority of popularity in counter to rampant superstition and religious zealotry, at the time. Now, they've come back with how consciousness is the root of reality, and it's a whole lot weirder than our math can seem to handle any more. Welcome to the New Subjectively Objective Reality, right? I will cease any further ranting, because I think most will pick up on the direction I'm going with this.

TheRealJeff Hall said...

Hi Rob.
My "Dimensions of Consciousness" project (which runs in parallel with some of your blog) offers a new paradigm for consciousness which is predicated on the principle that "everything" is a product of consciousness. John Hagelin, who helped develop the first (SU5) 10-dimensional unified field theory takes this view and he describes consciousness as "the ground of all being".

If this idea is correct then we need to understand how a pebble, planet, blade of grass etc can participate in this field of consciousness. My project proposes that consciousness is a spectrum, analagous to the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS). Human beings participate in the spectrum at the vibrational level of "self awareness" - just as we participate in the EMS at the frequency level of visible light. We should get away from the concept of defining consciousness purely in terms of the human perception of it.

Keep up the good work!
Regards
Jeff Hall
(@TheRealJeffHall)

C. said...

I wonder - if the Everett model is correct - whether each branch would stem from this one as clones but for small discrepancies, or could there be meta-nodes/realities where most data is consistent with this universe but for minor variants existing like little pocket universes in a larger whole - like small whirlpools in a larger whirlpool... it'd take less energy to run it I suppose then an infinite set of minor variant clones. Anyway, thanks for a great blog - From a fellow composer.

nihal said...

hi mr.rob ,as a first year degree student in physics,and this is my research area,i have a small thing to inform you. 'one thing is sure,that is worm hole exists. Because,entering different worlds means travelling by different dimension is possible only in two possiblities. One is wormhole and the other is speed of light. As we cannot achieve light's speed,wormhole is only the way'.

nihal said...

also,there is a great evidence in muslim faith (as iam a muslim,i am hearing it from childhood) that humans are created of soil and angels with 'light' ,there is a related story with adam and light tooo...also in the fasting period,muslims believe that,prophet muhammed travelled to 7th sky for some reason,but there was one peculiarity. He used a vehicle,which moves at a speed of light. In my view this is the first evidence,i got,which tells that "light is the most speedy". Plz refer to my blog: www.221b.in ,as i said am a young student,there are enough mistakes.

Jim Spell said...

Question...

Would it be fair to describe the 0th Dimension as a quantum state?

If our standard (1+) dimensions are one option and "nothing" is the other option, the base for this would have to be both or neither: the "direction" of the first dimension goes from nothing to a point, but that still has to exist somewhere. since "something" and "nothing" are both quantifiable "things" (for lack of better terms), it suggests that perhaps they must first exist in an unknown state.

Observing this 0th quantum-dimension creates the other dimensions we know. Of course, we then get into the rabbit hole of the nature of a self-observing universe, but that's a different can of worms all together.

Anonymous said...

https://www.academia.edu/7347240/Our_Cognitive_Framework_as_Quantum_Computer_Leibnizs_Theory_of_Monads_under_Kants_Epistemology_and_Hegelian_Dialectic

here you go

Tenth Dimension Vlog playlist