Platonic Dimensionalism

Here's an insight I just had (seriously).

Perhaps higher dimensions are 'curled up' after all. I had contradicted statements made by some string theorists that higher dimensions are in fact curled up on their vertices somehow.

But now I think I understand the concept. It involves a higher dimension of perception, but not necessarily a higher dimension of matter.

What is involved is that a line may become a circle, which is perceived as a line in its center, but becomes circular and narrower, and fades away on both sides.

In this way, a triangle might have a bottom as well as a top made of three parts. You think that's the third dimension, but it's also the fourth-dimensional view of the second dimension!

Similarly, a square might be a sphere if the lines have no where to go (e.g. in Cartesian Space), or it might become fragmented. The rational answer is that it, too must be a three-d figure when projected into the four-d realm.

And the same for every other shape!

The perceptions we observe, if they are 2-d projections in the 4-d realm, must be mere pictures if we ever live in 4-d.

Planes on the other hand will be like what we know of 3-d, except they will have properties instead of depth. I think that is the conclusive answer.

Lemmas / Neo-Platonism

Incorporating a new sense of evolution (base aesthetics).

TOP
Archetypal Reality: Best form, condition, feeling
even against all assumptions.
(As-is, As-happens) practicality, coherene, justice.

Law: Principal pattern, order, epiphany.

Systems: Logic, idea-of-a-thing (idea without ignorance).

Language: Psychology, best explanation, deference.

[/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\Invisible line of anthropology /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/]

Aesthetics (takes into account all levels, often fails).

BOTTOM

PLATONIC MOMENTS IN THE LIFE OF NATHAN COPPEDGE

(1)

What we have conceived of resembles Plato's system...

Yes, there is a class of immortals, a class of tacticals, and a class appeased by passion.

Now, surely we will try to integrate these parts, if we are to find harmony.

How, for example, could I integrate 'immortality' with 'tactics'?

We have already described the immortals as being more thoughtful than the others.

At least, they are concerned with something less transient.

For example, I said that 'tactics' is required because of neediness.

If we ignore long-term tactics, that seems to be the case...

Now, if I am eternity, I certainly have a weak enemy, whom I try to agree with.

Obviously.

And this 'enemy' would be called 'modularity' I suppose.

Modularity is an enemy you could duel with, to try to establish harmony.

The end result would surely be more dimensional!

For sure!

And if I am not a god, then surely I would wish to be more dimensional!

I am in agreement.

What people want appears to be a dimensional world, as I suspected!

That is what you have suggested, but what are our options for a dimensional world?

Of course, what we mean by a dimensional world is a world that is easier and more interesting!

Wouldn't everyone inevitably migrate towards such a world?

Except for those unfortunates who do not conceive of a life of peace!

I suppose soldiers would seem unfortunate, because they expect war.

War is obviously not what we mean by this form of evolution.

Then what are the weaknesses?

The weakness of reality appears to be fantastic 'unreality'.

How so?

Well, death and everything that brings death is ideally unreal.

How could we oppose desire?

We might define a world as a place for appreciating both.

What if unreality is the gentlest concept that can be applied to our reality?

That seems obvious, now that I think of it!

What if unreality is the most meaningful concept that can be applied to our reality?

Then we would inevitably migrate to somewhere more interesting!


----Nathan Coppedge, "The Telos".

(2)

"We find causation meaningless, so objects are real! Of course! Even if they participate with our minds, that doesn't mean that the objects or the mind have to be absolute! Nor does it guarantee that we don't have a mind. To prove a mind does not require proving a complete mind, for according to relativity, any kind of mind is, in some way, a mind. Therefore, whatever has an opinion that it is a mind, is in some way, officially, a mind. For any sort of mind is capable of meaningful translation, even if the perspective that translates is not the original mind. The mind itself is a kind of object, even if there is no standard to objectify it. The absence of standards is never reason enough to prove that something is without reality."
---Nathan Coppedge, June 2015.

(3)

*It may be noted that the implication here is that all experiences are perfect which are not conceptualisms, which is perhaps a crutch, but a good one, particularly when it is noticed that perfect pain is distinguished from perfect pleasure, and some terms may be lightened by critical evaluation. E.g. if experience is ‘best defined’ to be perfect, perfect pain now means something absurd or paradoxical, like all evil things. Pleasure, on the other hand, must become complex to realize its potential, or must be treated as something universal or inherent. If pain must be present and cannot be evaluated, this is simply the occurrence of a metaphysical paradox which says that pain is paradoxical in spite of the fact that the perfect world has not been achieved. Small critical details (‘errata’) remain with the least solvable problems. The most obvious solutions to those problems, on the other hand, announce themselves via their importance in language, or as happenstantial virtues----things that only have ‘ultimate’  importance in the perfect world. ---Nathan Coppedge, The Dimensional Phenomenology Toolkit (italics mine).

Black Holes Mean a Return to Platonism?

[Note: I think it is understood that some Neo-Platonists don't believe in God, then the term is used to mean a reference to a hierarchy of knowledge that exists in reality, or simply any major difference of realities that can be transgressed].

I have been musing, as the saying goes, that all Western intellectual accomplishments are similar to footnotes to Plato. Maybe this extends even into nuclear and quantum physics. Maybe, fundamentally, there is a fundamental definens of thought, that runs deeper in Plato than in his followers. Sometimes, it may even run as deep as a psychological insight about the nature of ideas.

A case in point is the nature of black holes. Continually there has been an un-graspableness about them, creating ideas that it might be possible to time-transport through them, or that they embody a different "dimension" of chronology, or even space, that they might be a kind of waiting room or Phantom Tollbooth, but it seems that many of these ideas are incidental compared to the reality of black holes. At least, that is how it would be if black holes were real.

So it returns to Platonism. Either we are idealistically creating ideas that materialize in the world, in some sense judging ourselves according to various religious traditions, or there is a simple matter of not being able to quite observe reality---that something remains much like a distant wall of the cave, which we cannot quite comprehend. What waits or weighs (not, I think, awaits, as though we are moving towards them) behind a black hole? Perhaps some knowledge beyond the realm of knowable and computable physics. Or perhaps, to the idealists, some genuine knowledge, that has eclipsed beyond the realm of things known today to human kind. Otherwise it seems certain that even Plato would not find it upon the surface of a wall.

[Notably, Douglas Adams, in his Hitchhiker series, mentioned a wall of unfathomable scale, a kind of mathematical difficulty, existing in space, as a kind of definition of knowable physics; Perhaps, sometimes, such a wall would not become a black hole, perhaps there will be at some time a Copernican revolution in architecture, or at least this is what Adams seemed to be joking about, or ironically impugning]