Toward a Common Definition of 'Spirituality'
I start with the following:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/
It is a great article. I am inclined however to agree with one commenter who wrote: "Once the site of consciousness is located, the mechanism of consciousness may still be a mystery." Even after adding up all the neurons in the brain, could one expect consciousness (a rather amorphous term, but I will be getting to that later) and the other things that are said to go with it (an ego, personality, character, etc.) to be emergent properties of such a structure? I find it rather hard to believe.
I am inclined to lean toward Dr. Stuart Hameroff's hypothesis that the quantum-sized wave-particle entities in the microtubules of the cytoskeletons of neuronal brain cells are more likely candidates as consciousness generators. That would make more sense in that there would certainly be the kind of mechanism in place that would explain spontaneous creativity. Superpositions of quantum-sized particle-waves collapsing en masse could, arguably, result in brand new ideas, provided the collapse is translatable into what we call coherent, sensible thoughts; how the brain would make that happen, I could not begin to say. But it would explain the ability of some of us to create truly original paintings, etc., and also to decide spontaneously to do the most mundane things, like turn on the TV. Still, I am not quite there with Hameroff's theory just as it is; something is missing. Even with quantum wave functions collapsing in quantum-sized wave-particles in the microtubules of cytoskeletons of neuronal brain cells, even with quintillions (or more) of such events happening moment after moment in our brains, would it *still* explain consciousness? I remain unconvinced. I am inclined to believe that what Dr. Hameroff is on to is the means by which the brain interfaces with consciousness itself, not how the brain creates it.
As an analogy, think of the brain as a lamp. The wiring in your home is the assemblage of quantum wave-particles, microtubules, and cytoskeletons making up your brain cells which in turn make up your brain's neurons. The electricity carried by the wiring is consciousness itself. Without electricity, you still have the wiring. But it does not generate electricity, it only supports the means to deliver it to and make it useful by the lamp. A person in a coma, for example, may evince low electrical activity in the brain, or indeed high activity in it, in any of various places inside it. But he or she is not conscious, at least as we commonly think about it. And many people wake up after comas and have no recollection of what they may have thought about while in them. So if consciousness is generated by the brain, why are such people non-responsive and apparently, not consciously thinking, and then later, have no recollection of it? I am not a doctor or a neuroscientific researcher, so I am sure I could learn from others more in the know regarding the details of the brain's operational mysteries, even if some of these remain speculative. Please forgive my layman's pass on the matter if I simply point out that there are examples of people who show no signs or recollections of what we'd identify as conscious thought but nonetheless are still alive and whose brains show a respectable amount of electrical and cellular activity. There also seems little reason to imagine quantum mechanical activity among the many wave-particles that make up matter itself has slowed or stopped in the microtubules of their brain cells' cytoskeletal structures even when they appear to be unconscious.
So if throughout the brain (or more comprehensively, the central nervous system) there exists an unimaginably high number of interface points to something as yet poorly-defined that we call consciousness, as well as it being a regulator/controller of an individual's body, reactions, etc., then I speculate that the degree of a being's brain complexity relative to its ability to tap into this thing called consciousness would strongly influence how "conscious" the being is and what it can do with the raw power to generate not just thoughts but in the case of certain beings (including humans), thoughts that entail or require the self-awareness that consciousness presumably provides the ability to form. Possibly it is the design of a being's brain that allows it to be what we call self-conscious or self-aware, but as with all other thoughts humans or other beings may have, the power supplied by consciousness enables us to have this rather special category of thought. If the foregoing is true, it suggests the generalization that consciousness is critical to animals' creativity and provides the fuel for awareness needed to allow animals (including people) and possibly also plants and other life forms (using structures that fulfill a similar purpose to animal brain neurons) with the varying degrees of awareness they evince as enabled by each specie of being's brain or analogous organ(s). Predictably, a brain capable of supporting only simple cognitive functions would express a limited level of consciousness and/or intelligence (ghost crabs, for example, have very simple brains, and are yet surprisingly clever in their own way), but those beings capable of supporting advanced levels of cognitive functioning seem to display a lot of consciousness, self- and otherwise. Back to the lamp analogy, a small lamp able to handle low wattage can only glow with relatively weak lighting, but a bigger one capable of handling higher wattage can glow with a much brighter light -- provided it is designed to hold one. The source of energy is the same for both, just each lamp's capacity to show evidence of it varies based on its design.
This is not a new idea. It has been described many ways elsewhere, and the idea that consciousness is distinct from the being described as having consciousness and is a far greater, more expansive (possibly even infinite) thing, and wholly independent from any particular being has been taught for millennia in various religious/spiritual traditions. It has been the subject of constant discussion, debate, and numerous treatises and books, and the presumption that consciousness is indeed distinct from that which is conscious has been the inspiration for the creation of a number of human activities, such as meditation, some forms of prayer, voluntary waking sensory deprivation, etc. And yet, here humanity remains, still wondering just what exactly is it that allows us to think, walk, talk, act, invent, and so on. And if we're so special in this way, how is it that so many of us swear, regardless of what many scientists or religious leaders tell us, that all manner of living things can quite obviously think, experience emotional states, are self-aware to at least some degree, and can suffer much the way humans do (or if not as much, then still enough for us to extend our compassion to them and take action to alleviate their suffering). The case to be made that non-humans of many kinds evince traits we typically think of as reserved to humans that reflect self-consciousness is simply too strong to ignore. Just a few examples: dolphins, non-human primates, octopi and other cephalopods, elephants, canines and felines, to name just a few.1
By the foregoing, I want to assert for the sake of discussion that what people typically call consciousness can be treated as being distinct from that which evinces it, with the means by which living beings that are "hooked into" consciousness as a source of intellectual- and cognition-enabling energy still not being understood, even if some have theories. I mean hereafter to distinguish between the consciousness that an individual being experiences by use of a lower-case 'c' ("consciousness") and consciousness in the lower-case-'c'-"consciousness"-powering, infinite, and not necessarily bound sense with an upper-case 'C' ("Consciousness") -- though I want to be perfectly clear that I am not trying to substitute "Consciousness" for the theistic idea of "God", though others may choose to view Consciousness as the theistic God by another name, only a Consciousness that has its own will, ideas, interests (such as the fate of humanity), etc. Second, I assert that the varying degrees of consciousness evinced by different beings is due to the capabilities of the central nervous system (or similar organs in biologically less-organized animals/non-animal-kingdom beings) that allows them to interact with the power, for lack of a better word for it, that Consciousness provides, either as a property of itself or as itself.
Next, I want to re-define dimensionality, at least for the sake of this argument. People usually answer that there are three dimensions when asked how many dimensions existed as taught to them in school: length, width, and depth. This is because unless they studied physics or a related field, dimensionality is treated as an applied concept largely associated with geometry; measurements of space are the primary concern. But at the turn of last century, Dr. Hermann Minkowski came to believe that time was the fourth dimension and if treated as such in mathematical analyses of recent physical theories such as Einstein's special theory of relativity, these theories made sense and could be either confirmed or refuted since there was now a reasonable predicted measurement established against which experimental results could be compared. Since that time, experiments have been done repeatedly that show that the predicted behavior consistent with many such theories, including the special theory of relativity, actually bear out. So there would appear to be four dimensions well established by experimental evidence: length, width, depth, and time. But I suggest that when talking about states of physical being, the three spatial dimensions do not exist independent of one another. There is either volumetric space (i.e., all three spatial dimensions are present), or there is no space at all. Without space, there is nothing: no volume, no length, width, or depth as separate or in a combination of fewer than the classic three spatial dimensions, so no energy of any kind (including consciousness), as there is no container for it, at least insofar as it can be measured in the typical sense. If such does exist, it is in a state beyond ordinary understanding, though I imagine there could be an understanding that is unlimited by spatial measurements, speculative on my part though that is. Absent all three dimensions of space in the classic sense, there is a total absence of any space, and of all matter-energy, but also there is absent any potential for anything to come into being. Being that there is a total absence of anything and also no container providing the context even of potential physical being itself, to have anything less than the three spatial dimensions is to have a total absence of anything. Consider as follows:
If one starts with less than one dimension, or no dimension (notation: "0-d"), one is said to have a universe made up only of a point. A point is infinitely small, and has no substance or measurable length width, or depth. It is less than an imaginary thing since at least an imaginary thing can in some way be said to exist -- at least in one's imagination, as lacking in any substance as that is. (Despite imagined things having a kind of existence in the form of representation in the neural network of the imaginer's brain, the imagined thing itself doesn't exist, though it may resemble some real thing that exists in the classic 3 dimensions, such as for example a chair, wheel, etc. Here I am only conceding that a classically-defined point may be said to exist, but only in the abstract, since by definition it has no dimensions of final definition and so cannot be atomically defined, as there is always a way to view within a point a yet smaller point -- or to put it another way, there is no way by definition to come to an indivisible actual point in space since all dimensions of it are infinitely small.) If it is definable in a way readily understandable, it is defined by what it isn't: it is a complete absence of anything, including space, time, energy (since there is no space in which energy can exist), consciousness, matter, or anything else. A 0-d universe is no universe; it is the absence of anything imaginable and not imaginable, measurable and not measurable, real and unreal. It is infinitely less than nothing, since "nothing" is, after all, a concept. To speak of it or refer to it is to refer only to the idea of an absence of anything. The human mind is very accustomed to thinking in terms of actual objects or things, even abstract things such as ideals. It is a challenge to make reference to a total absence of anything both imaginable and not imaginable, possible and not possible, in existence and not in existence. So when I speak of a "0-d universe", bear in mind that the term is simply a short-hand reference to my description above of total absence.
Considering the length dimension, one gets an infinitely long string of points, going out in two directions, no point diverging in line from any other on that infinite line. (That is, the line is perfectly straight.) That, too, is imaginary, and represents a total absence of anything, just like the point, or a 0-d universe. To put it mathematically, a point is said to be quantifiable as 0 by any unit of measurement in any way conceivable. Now, a line of points stretching infinitely in two directions is infinity, or INF. Multiply 0 and INF and you get 0. That is because INF is shorthand for an endless number of repetitions of "+0" after the first 0 is written. So 0 x INF is also writeable as: "0+0+0+0+0+0..." without end. The sum of this representation of the relationship between 0 and INF is 0. Next, consider width and you still get 0. Now you have two dimensions made of an infinitude of non-existent points, as each are infinitely small. You have an infinite plane made up of nothing. So, what can it hold? Nothing. It has no depth. There is no room in it to hold anything. It's as spatial as 0-d space, which is to say, it isn't at all. So this logic applies with classic 2-D space as with classic 1-D space: 0 (a point) x INF (length) x INF (width) = 0. Every time you were told in school that the square, circle, etc., drawn on a chalkboard had only length and width, you were being benignly lied to for the sake of convenience. Anything that actually exists, even the radiation that strikes the back of a TV screen, has depth. I am thinking of the old CRT models, but if you want to consider the modern plasma screens, think of the electromagnetic pulse waves routed through the back of them. These cause the screen to generate images by energizing its back surface, these images made up of yet more radiation, this time coming to the viewer through the screen's front surface. The depths of things like that, or chalk dust particles, or ink lines, may be very, very small, maybe some things measured to only a few Planck lengths, a distance still only theoretical, but regardless, to bear in mind is that all things demonstrable in physical reality have depth; if something exists anywhere in space, it has depth, width, and length. So while it is convenient to say there are three spatial dimensions, and I am not suggesting that for ordinary matters people stop doing so, in terms of dimensionality and states of being, space as we understand it, even at the quantum level, is volumetric and only volumetric. If we find ourselves in some kind of zone of investigation where we are certain that there is an absence of volumetric space, then by my definition, we are somehow observing something not participating fully or exclusively in 1-d/2-d space. (Predictably, I call time the second dimension, or 2-d; that's next.) So, I define what is typically called the three dimensions of space as being just one dimension: volumetric space, or "vspace" for short. I will also label vspace as the first dimension, or 1-d. 0-d is still 0-d, since despite the fact that a 0-d universe is nothing in its most absolute sense, it is thoroughly distinct from 1-d as a concept. And in the name of taxonomic completeness, I feel I should be scrupulous and start literally at nothing. But more than that, acknowledging 0-d as a "dimensional starting point" and vspace as the next dimension will figure into my discussion more significantly later.2
The next dimension I name is time. Time has been considered the fourth dimension for years now, but for my argument, I refer to it as the 2nd dimension ("2-d"), having argued that the three classic spatial dimensions constitute a single indivisible dimension, vspace (1-d). While we can observe that time is affected by vspace and vice versa, it ought to be considered its own dimension. Simply because dimensions influence one another, or rather, our perceptions and measurements of them show that they seem to, this in no way suggests they are both horses of the same color. The reason I draw a line of dimensionality between vspace and time is because as my discussion regarding vspace above argues, one cannot have anything less than the 3 classic dimensions of space present in order to have space that can hold anything of any kind, or indeed even to exist. Any universe made up of nothing but space that is dimensionally less than vspace is as existentially qualitative as a 0-d space universe, which is to say, it does not exist. And in order to have the dimension of time, one must likewise have the dimension of vspace, since temporality is expressionally dependent on the presence of vspace. (How can time be said to exist in a context without even the possibility that there may be something that can change state to show that causation, the fundamental manifestation of temporality, is present? To debate that idea that time can exist without a means of expressing causality available even in the abstract is not much different than arguing in favor of a 0-d universe actually existing.)
But I entertain further the possibility that vspace is itself a form of energy, explaining the phenomenon of vacuum energy (and a possible explanation for the existence of the vacuum catastrophe that is still an on-going confounding mystery to cosmologists if not also of embarrassment), with other forms of energy existing within it, the same way that the strong nuclear force and gravitation can co-exist, exerting influence on the same bodies at the same time. While I do not necessarily believe that the Big Bang Theory is an accurate description of the genesis of the universe, if true it would mean that the current Planck Epoch description that says that gravity is the most likely to first have become distinct as its own measurable force as compared with the other fundamental forces of the universe isn't accurate; that if the BBT is correct, it would be vspace itself as a force that is most likely to have become distinct from all other forces in the universe. But nonetheless, I am still not ready to believe that. This is because if vspace is a force and if it is the fundamental "unifying force" of all other forces, in essence giving rise also to these forces since these forces exist in a sense within it, then they would still have to share of the same common nature -- in fact, all things would have to, whether they be called matter or energy. In short, viewing any force in the universe as truly distinct from any other would be the same kind of misconception people had when they thought electricity and magnetism were two different forces. All the universe's forces, if I am right, are simply expressions of the same common force but shaped into different forms of influence via some as yet undetermined mechanism(s), in the same way that cellular life comes in a multitude of different sizes and forms but it all still follows the same basic systems of construction, organization, and regulation, though we're still at a loss as to understand just why some cell lines evolve in one direction and others in another when there does not appear to be a clear causal mechanism at work.
That vspace is expanding should no longer be confounding if it is understood itself to be a form of energy, or a force, no different from electromagnetic radiation, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc., some of which behave expansively while others attractively/contractively. Likewise the nature of the many physical constants which seem to be not-so-constant when vspace is measured under varying physical conditions no longer remain so mysterious once they are seen from the perspective of all being expressions of the influence of vspace as a force rather than when viewed from the typical point of view of vspace being merely a great-big-empty inside which forces, matter, and energy exist. Matter is largely made up of energy itself, accounting for much of its mass, as Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence formula (E=mc2) reveals; the strong force at the center of atomic nuclei account for nearly all of atoms' mass, even when counting the mass of their electrons, which is very small as compared to protons and neutrons. While as yet unproven, I would not be the least bit surprised if the remaining small amount were not also shown also to be energy, showing that in the end, matter is simply energy that has been slowed down/corralled in a way yet to be understood. But whether or not vspace is another form of energy/force not unlike others (which would, by the way, help further the effort to uncover the holy grail of physical force research: the unified field, since if vspace could be viewed as a force, the unifying force that supports and gives rise to all of nature's forces would be traced to vspace itself), it still needs a context in which to exist. That context is time.
As discussed above, vspace must be present to define a universe minimally for time also to be a dimensional property of that same universe. Now if a universe has vspace but lacks all matter and energy or indeed anything else known or not, imaginable or not, able to exist or not, if that universe is a total and complete vacuum (whether or not vspace is a form of energy is irrelevant for the sake of this argument), time may still be said to exist in it if it is possible for events to occur in it. That is, that universe may still have as part of it the property of time, but just nothing in it to act as a demonstration of the passage of events. Since such a 2-d universe allows events to occur, at some point, some kind of event may still occur that allows a great deal of time measurement to be made at some point in future by beings capable to making such measurements or perceiving events.3 But the most important distinction between vspace and time is that the two are qualitatively different; the classic dimensions of width, length, and depth are all horses of the same color, all participants in spatial dimensionality. Time is not in the same category as vspace; vspace supports the quality of existence while time supports the quality of the change in state of anything that exists by whatever means, even if those changes in state lack what we may see as having a rational causative nature.
At this point, it makes sense to summarize the dimensional concepts as laid out above:
0-d permits of nothing in any sense and is mentioned for the sake of taxonomic completeness (a theoretical non-existent point)
1-d supports existence of anything that can exist and requires no other dimension for its expression (vspace)
2-d supports changes in the state(s) of anything that can/does exist and requires 1-d for its expression, though its absence from any 3-d would not preclude it from being present in another 1-d universe to some degree (time). [As strange as that may sound, consider that the way time manifests itself in our experience may not be the only way time can manifest itself in a 1-d universe. In the same way that merely because nearly every home that is built on Earth is rather cube-like, that does not mean they all have to be nor indeed are all homes designed after that fashion. Likewise because our universe appears to express time a certain way (causation is experienced more or less predictably in one fashion and appears not to vary, except in occasionally unpredictable ways when the activities of energy and mass in very low amounts are observed) doesn't mean time isn't expressed differently either elsewhere in our same universe or in another, since after all, who is to say there is not more than one universe even in a pedestrian sense.]
The most significant part of this definition of dimensionality is that each higher dimension offers an infinite number of new possibilities and anything existing within the next higher dimension is for all practical purposes infinitely greater than anything in the next lower dimension. Anything in 1-d, even if fixed and without any way to change, exists. This is an infinitely better (qualitatively) state to be in than to lack any existence nor any chance to exist (that would describe 0-d). 2-d is infinitely better than 1-d since anything that exists in 2-d has, compared to anything that exists in 1-d, an infinitely greater number of ways to manifest itself, to influence its own existence, and otherwise avail itself of a mode of existence that is as infinitely greater to anything in 1-d than is anything in 1-d as compared to anything in 0-d (which would be "no-thing" at all). To consider the idea of a conscious being existing in any of these dimensions, obviously nothing could ever exist in 0-d nor is there any chance for it to do so since 0-d by definition cannot support any kind of existence. As for 1-d, no living, thinking being could actually exist in 1-d, at least not as we understand such, as there is no chance for any life processes to occur, not even the smallest quantity of movement, energy, or state change permitted. But before the reader argues that there may be such a thing as non-corporeal life, let me say that 1-d could not support that either, since non-corporeal life would still need the quality of time to support its being alive. Unless of course, it didn't need time, or space, or a body. Which brings me to 3-d.
3-d is what I describe above as Consciousness. It is a dimension wherein there is no limitation due to time and vspace; there are infinitely greater possibilities in 3-d than in 2-d. In 3-d, there is no requirement for 2-d, though 3-d can interact with 2-d the same way that 2-d can interact with 1-d. Unlike the modern notions of dimensionality extending beyond 4-D (with the 4th dimension in the classic sense being time) that views the fifth dimension (5-D) as a universe filled with alternate paths of 4-D universes stretching out for infinity, co-existing alongside or perhaps sharing the same space as our own (via a kind of "super-space", or space-above-space as we understand it, not unlike the quantum physical notion of "super-position"), this view of the next dimension (3-d) simply says that as beings operating in a 2-d universe, in the same way that time (the 2nd dimension in my taxonomy) enables the first dimension (vspace) to interact with itself internally, likewise 2-d beings can interact with what we call intent and/or self-awareness within our 2-d universe. Non-conscious beings or things can interact in a 2-d universe if the influence of 3-d (Consciousness) is absent, like asteroids simply crashing into one another in deep space, but they lack any degree of self-awareness and mercifully, any capacity to suffer. The matter though of how different dimensions intersect remains mysterious. Presuming for a moment that vspace is indeed a form of energy along with everything else, perhaps the base or unifying energy form of all energies in the universe, is vspace and all it contains "expanding into" the dimension of time rather than participating in temporality? Is that why time can only move forward by our reckoning and experience, but never backwards? If there was some part of the universe wherein vspace was neither expanding nor contracting, then would time travel forward or backward be even theoretically possible at least within that part of vspace where it was not expanding or contracting? Would our present concepts of causation behave in a reverse fashion if vspace were contracting and not expanding? For the time being, these questions remain speculative even as to the validity of their suggestion.
Finally, I come to the matter of a common definition of spirituality. I suggest that if a creature could be alive and be aware in a 1-d universe, its notion of infinity is the addition of time (2-d) to its universe. Time offers an infinitely greater set of possibilities in which a 1-d universe being can partake. To such a being, a 2-d universe would represent freedom and an unfolding of knowledge and wisdom not imagined in its wildest dreams. It would not even consider 3-d since after all, once the infinite dimension it would love to partake in has been identified, why seek further? And could a 1-d being even start to understand 3-d if it can hardly fathom the infinity of possibilities 2-d offers? It would in its imagination stop at 2-d, and perhaps wisely so, since madness for it may well lay at the end of any inquiry beyond 2-d. But at some point, somehow, this 1-d being would deduce that in some way, 2-d has interacted or is interacting if only superficially with its 1-d universe since at some point, its 1-d universe had to have come into existence. (The mystery is: How?)
Allow me to suggest that we are very much like that theoretical 1-d being, only we are not so theoretical. We are 2-d beings capable of occupying vspace and experiencing time in the form of cause and effect. We can, therefore, think, given the right physiology to do so. And this, we have. But the physiology is not enough to explain it. So we can imagine something powering our ability to think. This is what I'd like to suggest is Consciousness.
A 1-d being striving to make contact, somehow, with a 2-d universe, is for its universe, a spiritual being. It is trying to rise above its mundane circumstances and perceive of a universe of infinitely greater possibilities and a treasure trove of perspective that would allow it to understand fully its nature and relationship between its surroundings and its own self. After all, with the benefit of time as a dimension, its ability to think/reason will be infinitely greater, to do things, infinitely greater, and so on. It will have transcended its mere 1-d physical form and assumed a 2-d form, a form of constant fluidity and change -- if it can somehow get itself into a 2-d universe, or just even catch a glimpse into it.
As 2-d beings, I suggest that Consciousness (3-d) represents an infinitude of greater possibilities for us: unbound to 2-d bodies and unrestricted by time and vspace, we would, if 3-d beings, be in an infinitely better place than 2-d beings, just as 2-d beings are in an infinitely better place than any theoretical 1-d being might be. Striving for an entry into 3-d, or to get some glimpse of it, or to act in the knowledge that we share a common Consciousness (some religions have this admonition already but in so many words; example: the "Golden Rule" in Christianity), is what I'd like to suggest is humans' pursuit of spirituality. And so my common definition of spirituality is this: Any effort one takes to experience or gain an insight into the nature of the next highest dimension, or to behave in a way in one's dimension commensurate with the implications around such an insight.
Now what 3-d beings might need to do to meet that definition, I could not even begin to say. After all, what is 4-d? No idea. Down that path lays madness. :)
FOOTNOTES:
1 To play it safe, some people think keeping their teeth away from anything with a brain or something close to it is the way to deal with the uncertainties around the matter of non-humans' capacity to suffer, which as most psychologists think, requires self-awareness to some degree. (Automobiles, for example, have no self-awareness; thus when they overheat, break down, or are crushed in a junk yard after years on the road, no one feels bad for them since they have no self-awareness and by the word's definition, cannot suffer.) Some large religious groups have included this concept in their "best practices" lists. A few include Buddhism, most Hindu sects, some Christian traditions/monastic orders, and others I am sure I don't know about. Outside of religious traditions, abstention from eating meat or using animal products has been pursued by such notables as Pythagoreas, Albert Einstein, and many others who did or do not seem to be primarily guided by religious convictions, even if like most people they have or had them to some degree. Some of these people may be swayed to vegetarianism/veganism more by their own health concerns rather than compassion for non-human animals, but it often plays at least a small part in many people's decisions to forego meat/all animal products in their diets.
2 By way of observation, consider that if there could exist a one- or two-dimensional (in the classic sense) being, length and width can only be ascertained with certainty when seen from the point of view of a being existing in vspace. After all, how would a classically one- or two-dimensional being be able to keep track of where each side of a one- or two-dimensional object was as it moved around only in a single or a two-dimensional plane? A two-dimensional object could rotate, so how would a two-dimensional being be able to know for sure what it was shaped as? The exact shapes of things would remain a mystery since the being could not rise above the object and look at it. (For millennia, sailors and cartographers struggled to draw accurate maps of the Earth's land masses and seas. Only after humans invented flying machines did cartography really make the progress it needed to create maps with the kind of accuracy we routinely expect of them. Until that time, travelers and sailors needed to make use of hard-won skills and experience and infer things as best they could where the maps failed them.) For us, it would be like trying to determine the change in position of an object in our universe without the benefit of being able to experience cause and effect and eventful changes, or perceive of same (i.e., to experience time and what it demonstrates to us). Related ideas were brought up in a novella entitled Flatland, which caused many people some years after it was first published to indulge a fashionable interest in topics such as time and dimensionality.
3 Though the cause of it be mysterious since such a universe would lack anything occupying it in any way prior to the event fostering such an event's occurrence, it is still possible in the abstract sense, since while it appears as if our universe (which obviously has the dimensional property of time) demands that all events have causes, it may not be necessarily so. If the Big Bang Theory is correct, the question remains: where did all the super-condensed plasma energy that suddenly exploded nearly 14 billion years ago come from? If what we know today as our universe did not exist in any form with the kinds of physical laws we now observe operating in it (or having the dimensional property of time), then to ask what caused the Big Bang and where did the high-energy plasma (or whatever it was) that exploded all those years ago is pointless. But if time was a property of the universe which somehow pre-existed the sudden Big Bang which may have had no actual cause as we can understand it, to imagine that the property of time doesn't actually entail a requirement for causes to exist in order for what we call events to occur is both liberating as well as a bit scary. After all, what's next? A second Big Bang to add yet more stuff to the universe? And who's to say the one that it is said happened over 14 billion years ago wasn't the first? Another could have happened, say, 5 billion years before that, but a very long way away, so that nothing it blasted into the universe has even reached our side of the street yet (and even if it did, it'd probably not be much compared to the one we think blasted all the stuff that makes up our local supply of matter -- including the matter that goes to make up our very bodies). And if the Big Bang did include in its productive influence the creation of vspace itself (as some suggest), then what is vspace expanding into (if indeed it is)? If time itself was part of the Big Bang's creative force, then without a cause-sustaining mechanism like time to support it, just how could it have happened? For these reasons and others, I am personally skeptical of the Big Bang Theory being the final say in the matter of cosmology. While I can't deny that a Big Bang may have indeed happened all that time ago, the matter of causation and the context in which vspace and time exist is still unexplained. But to be fair, the theory itself does not attempt to do so. It merely offers a hypothesis and suggests some of the observations scientists have made, in particular astronomers and astrophysicists, appear to support this theory.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neuronal-superhub-might-generate-consciousness/
It is a great article. I am inclined however to agree with one commenter who wrote: "Once the site of consciousness is located, the mechanism of consciousness may still be a mystery." Even after adding up all the neurons in the brain, could one expect consciousness (a rather amorphous term, but I will be getting to that later) and the other things that are said to go with it (an ego, personality, character, etc.) to be emergent properties of such a structure? I find it rather hard to believe.
I am inclined to lean toward Dr. Stuart Hameroff's hypothesis that the quantum-sized wave-particle entities in the microtubules of the cytoskeletons of neuronal brain cells are more likely candidates as consciousness generators. That would make more sense in that there would certainly be the kind of mechanism in place that would explain spontaneous creativity. Superpositions of quantum-sized particle-waves collapsing en masse could, arguably, result in brand new ideas, provided the collapse is translatable into what we call coherent, sensible thoughts; how the brain would make that happen, I could not begin to say. But it would explain the ability of some of us to create truly original paintings, etc., and also to decide spontaneously to do the most mundane things, like turn on the TV. Still, I am not quite there with Hameroff's theory just as it is; something is missing. Even with quantum wave functions collapsing in quantum-sized wave-particles in the microtubules of cytoskeletons of neuronal brain cells, even with quintillions (or more) of such events happening moment after moment in our brains, would it *still* explain consciousness? I remain unconvinced. I am inclined to believe that what Dr. Hameroff is on to is the means by which the brain interfaces with consciousness itself, not how the brain creates it.
As an analogy, think of the brain as a lamp. The wiring in your home is the assemblage of quantum wave-particles, microtubules, and cytoskeletons making up your brain cells which in turn make up your brain's neurons. The electricity carried by the wiring is consciousness itself. Without electricity, you still have the wiring. But it does not generate electricity, it only supports the means to deliver it to and make it useful by the lamp. A person in a coma, for example, may evince low electrical activity in the brain, or indeed high activity in it, in any of various places inside it. But he or she is not conscious, at least as we commonly think about it. And many people wake up after comas and have no recollection of what they may have thought about while in them. So if consciousness is generated by the brain, why are such people non-responsive and apparently, not consciously thinking, and then later, have no recollection of it? I am not a doctor or a neuroscientific researcher, so I am sure I could learn from others more in the know regarding the details of the brain's operational mysteries, even if some of these remain speculative. Please forgive my layman's pass on the matter if I simply point out that there are examples of people who show no signs or recollections of what we'd identify as conscious thought but nonetheless are still alive and whose brains show a respectable amount of electrical and cellular activity. There also seems little reason to imagine quantum mechanical activity among the many wave-particles that make up matter itself has slowed or stopped in the microtubules of their brain cells' cytoskeletal structures even when they appear to be unconscious.
So if throughout the brain (or more comprehensively, the central nervous system) there exists an unimaginably high number of interface points to something as yet poorly-defined that we call consciousness, as well as it being a regulator/controller of an individual's body, reactions, etc., then I speculate that the degree of a being's brain complexity relative to its ability to tap into this thing called consciousness would strongly influence how "conscious" the being is and what it can do with the raw power to generate not just thoughts but in the case of certain beings (including humans), thoughts that entail or require the self-awareness that consciousness presumably provides the ability to form. Possibly it is the design of a being's brain that allows it to be what we call self-conscious or self-aware, but as with all other thoughts humans or other beings may have, the power supplied by consciousness enables us to have this rather special category of thought. If the foregoing is true, it suggests the generalization that consciousness is critical to animals' creativity and provides the fuel for awareness needed to allow animals (including people) and possibly also plants and other life forms (using structures that fulfill a similar purpose to animal brain neurons) with the varying degrees of awareness they evince as enabled by each specie of being's brain or analogous organ(s). Predictably, a brain capable of supporting only simple cognitive functions would express a limited level of consciousness and/or intelligence (ghost crabs, for example, have very simple brains, and are yet surprisingly clever in their own way), but those beings capable of supporting advanced levels of cognitive functioning seem to display a lot of consciousness, self- and otherwise. Back to the lamp analogy, a small lamp able to handle low wattage can only glow with relatively weak lighting, but a bigger one capable of handling higher wattage can glow with a much brighter light -- provided it is designed to hold one. The source of energy is the same for both, just each lamp's capacity to show evidence of it varies based on its design.
This is not a new idea. It has been described many ways elsewhere, and the idea that consciousness is distinct from the being described as having consciousness and is a far greater, more expansive (possibly even infinite) thing, and wholly independent from any particular being has been taught for millennia in various religious/spiritual traditions. It has been the subject of constant discussion, debate, and numerous treatises and books, and the presumption that consciousness is indeed distinct from that which is conscious has been the inspiration for the creation of a number of human activities, such as meditation, some forms of prayer, voluntary waking sensory deprivation, etc. And yet, here humanity remains, still wondering just what exactly is it that allows us to think, walk, talk, act, invent, and so on. And if we're so special in this way, how is it that so many of us swear, regardless of what many scientists or religious leaders tell us, that all manner of living things can quite obviously think, experience emotional states, are self-aware to at least some degree, and can suffer much the way humans do (or if not as much, then still enough for us to extend our compassion to them and take action to alleviate their suffering). The case to be made that non-humans of many kinds evince traits we typically think of as reserved to humans that reflect self-consciousness is simply too strong to ignore. Just a few examples: dolphins, non-human primates, octopi and other cephalopods, elephants, canines and felines, to name just a few.1
By the foregoing, I want to assert for the sake of discussion that what people typically call consciousness can be treated as being distinct from that which evinces it, with the means by which living beings that are "hooked into" consciousness as a source of intellectual- and cognition-enabling energy still not being understood, even if some have theories. I mean hereafter to distinguish between the consciousness that an individual being experiences by use of a lower-case 'c' ("consciousness") and consciousness in the lower-case-'c'-"consciousness"-powering, infinite, and not necessarily bound sense with an upper-case 'C' ("Consciousness") -- though I want to be perfectly clear that I am not trying to substitute "Consciousness" for the theistic idea of "God", though others may choose to view Consciousness as the theistic God by another name, only a Consciousness that has its own will, ideas, interests (such as the fate of humanity), etc. Second, I assert that the varying degrees of consciousness evinced by different beings is due to the capabilities of the central nervous system (or similar organs in biologically less-organized animals/non-animal-kingdom beings) that allows them to interact with the power, for lack of a better word for it, that Consciousness provides, either as a property of itself or as itself.
Next, I want to re-define dimensionality, at least for the sake of this argument. People usually answer that there are three dimensions when asked how many dimensions existed as taught to them in school: length, width, and depth. This is because unless they studied physics or a related field, dimensionality is treated as an applied concept largely associated with geometry; measurements of space are the primary concern. But at the turn of last century, Dr. Hermann Minkowski came to believe that time was the fourth dimension and if treated as such in mathematical analyses of recent physical theories such as Einstein's special theory of relativity, these theories made sense and could be either confirmed or refuted since there was now a reasonable predicted measurement established against which experimental results could be compared. Since that time, experiments have been done repeatedly that show that the predicted behavior consistent with many such theories, including the special theory of relativity, actually bear out. So there would appear to be four dimensions well established by experimental evidence: length, width, depth, and time. But I suggest that when talking about states of physical being, the three spatial dimensions do not exist independent of one another. There is either volumetric space (i.e., all three spatial dimensions are present), or there is no space at all. Without space, there is nothing: no volume, no length, width, or depth as separate or in a combination of fewer than the classic three spatial dimensions, so no energy of any kind (including consciousness), as there is no container for it, at least insofar as it can be measured in the typical sense. If such does exist, it is in a state beyond ordinary understanding, though I imagine there could be an understanding that is unlimited by spatial measurements, speculative on my part though that is. Absent all three dimensions of space in the classic sense, there is a total absence of any space, and of all matter-energy, but also there is absent any potential for anything to come into being. Being that there is a total absence of anything and also no container providing the context even of potential physical being itself, to have anything less than the three spatial dimensions is to have a total absence of anything. Consider as follows:
If one starts with less than one dimension, or no dimension (notation: "0-d"), one is said to have a universe made up only of a point. A point is infinitely small, and has no substance or measurable length width, or depth. It is less than an imaginary thing since at least an imaginary thing can in some way be said to exist -- at least in one's imagination, as lacking in any substance as that is. (Despite imagined things having a kind of existence in the form of representation in the neural network of the imaginer's brain, the imagined thing itself doesn't exist, though it may resemble some real thing that exists in the classic 3 dimensions, such as for example a chair, wheel, etc. Here I am only conceding that a classically-defined point may be said to exist, but only in the abstract, since by definition it has no dimensions of final definition and so cannot be atomically defined, as there is always a way to view within a point a yet smaller point -- or to put it another way, there is no way by definition to come to an indivisible actual point in space since all dimensions of it are infinitely small.) If it is definable in a way readily understandable, it is defined by what it isn't: it is a complete absence of anything, including space, time, energy (since there is no space in which energy can exist), consciousness, matter, or anything else. A 0-d universe is no universe; it is the absence of anything imaginable and not imaginable, measurable and not measurable, real and unreal. It is infinitely less than nothing, since "nothing" is, after all, a concept. To speak of it or refer to it is to refer only to the idea of an absence of anything. The human mind is very accustomed to thinking in terms of actual objects or things, even abstract things such as ideals. It is a challenge to make reference to a total absence of anything both imaginable and not imaginable, possible and not possible, in existence and not in existence. So when I speak of a "0-d universe", bear in mind that the term is simply a short-hand reference to my description above of total absence.
Considering the length dimension, one gets an infinitely long string of points, going out in two directions, no point diverging in line from any other on that infinite line. (That is, the line is perfectly straight.) That, too, is imaginary, and represents a total absence of anything, just like the point, or a 0-d universe. To put it mathematically, a point is said to be quantifiable as 0 by any unit of measurement in any way conceivable. Now, a line of points stretching infinitely in two directions is infinity, or INF. Multiply 0 and INF and you get 0. That is because INF is shorthand for an endless number of repetitions of "+0" after the first 0 is written. So 0 x INF is also writeable as: "0+0+0+0+0+0..." without end. The sum of this representation of the relationship between 0 and INF is 0. Next, consider width and you still get 0. Now you have two dimensions made of an infinitude of non-existent points, as each are infinitely small. You have an infinite plane made up of nothing. So, what can it hold? Nothing. It has no depth. There is no room in it to hold anything. It's as spatial as 0-d space, which is to say, it isn't at all. So this logic applies with classic 2-D space as with classic 1-D space: 0 (a point) x INF (length) x INF (width) = 0. Every time you were told in school that the square, circle, etc., drawn on a chalkboard had only length and width, you were being benignly lied to for the sake of convenience. Anything that actually exists, even the radiation that strikes the back of a TV screen, has depth. I am thinking of the old CRT models, but if you want to consider the modern plasma screens, think of the electromagnetic pulse waves routed through the back of them. These cause the screen to generate images by energizing its back surface, these images made up of yet more radiation, this time coming to the viewer through the screen's front surface. The depths of things like that, or chalk dust particles, or ink lines, may be very, very small, maybe some things measured to only a few Planck lengths, a distance still only theoretical, but regardless, to bear in mind is that all things demonstrable in physical reality have depth; if something exists anywhere in space, it has depth, width, and length. So while it is convenient to say there are three spatial dimensions, and I am not suggesting that for ordinary matters people stop doing so, in terms of dimensionality and states of being, space as we understand it, even at the quantum level, is volumetric and only volumetric. If we find ourselves in some kind of zone of investigation where we are certain that there is an absence of volumetric space, then by my definition, we are somehow observing something not participating fully or exclusively in 1-d/2-d space. (Predictably, I call time the second dimension, or 2-d; that's next.) So, I define what is typically called the three dimensions of space as being just one dimension: volumetric space, or "vspace" for short. I will also label vspace as the first dimension, or 1-d. 0-d is still 0-d, since despite the fact that a 0-d universe is nothing in its most absolute sense, it is thoroughly distinct from 1-d as a concept. And in the name of taxonomic completeness, I feel I should be scrupulous and start literally at nothing. But more than that, acknowledging 0-d as a "dimensional starting point" and vspace as the next dimension will figure into my discussion more significantly later.2
The next dimension I name is time. Time has been considered the fourth dimension for years now, but for my argument, I refer to it as the 2nd dimension ("2-d"), having argued that the three classic spatial dimensions constitute a single indivisible dimension, vspace (1-d). While we can observe that time is affected by vspace and vice versa, it ought to be considered its own dimension. Simply because dimensions influence one another, or rather, our perceptions and measurements of them show that they seem to, this in no way suggests they are both horses of the same color. The reason I draw a line of dimensionality between vspace and time is because as my discussion regarding vspace above argues, one cannot have anything less than the 3 classic dimensions of space present in order to have space that can hold anything of any kind, or indeed even to exist. Any universe made up of nothing but space that is dimensionally less than vspace is as existentially qualitative as a 0-d space universe, which is to say, it does not exist. And in order to have the dimension of time, one must likewise have the dimension of vspace, since temporality is expressionally dependent on the presence of vspace. (How can time be said to exist in a context without even the possibility that there may be something that can change state to show that causation, the fundamental manifestation of temporality, is present? To debate that idea that time can exist without a means of expressing causality available even in the abstract is not much different than arguing in favor of a 0-d universe actually existing.)
But I entertain further the possibility that vspace is itself a form of energy, explaining the phenomenon of vacuum energy (and a possible explanation for the existence of the vacuum catastrophe that is still an on-going confounding mystery to cosmologists if not also of embarrassment), with other forms of energy existing within it, the same way that the strong nuclear force and gravitation can co-exist, exerting influence on the same bodies at the same time. While I do not necessarily believe that the Big Bang Theory is an accurate description of the genesis of the universe, if true it would mean that the current Planck Epoch description that says that gravity is the most likely to first have become distinct as its own measurable force as compared with the other fundamental forces of the universe isn't accurate; that if the BBT is correct, it would be vspace itself as a force that is most likely to have become distinct from all other forces in the universe. But nonetheless, I am still not ready to believe that. This is because if vspace is a force and if it is the fundamental "unifying force" of all other forces, in essence giving rise also to these forces since these forces exist in a sense within it, then they would still have to share of the same common nature -- in fact, all things would have to, whether they be called matter or energy. In short, viewing any force in the universe as truly distinct from any other would be the same kind of misconception people had when they thought electricity and magnetism were two different forces. All the universe's forces, if I am right, are simply expressions of the same common force but shaped into different forms of influence via some as yet undetermined mechanism(s), in the same way that cellular life comes in a multitude of different sizes and forms but it all still follows the same basic systems of construction, organization, and regulation, though we're still at a loss as to understand just why some cell lines evolve in one direction and others in another when there does not appear to be a clear causal mechanism at work.
That vspace is expanding should no longer be confounding if it is understood itself to be a form of energy, or a force, no different from electromagnetic radiation, gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc., some of which behave expansively while others attractively/contractively. Likewise the nature of the many physical constants which seem to be not-so-constant when vspace is measured under varying physical conditions no longer remain so mysterious once they are seen from the perspective of all being expressions of the influence of vspace as a force rather than when viewed from the typical point of view of vspace being merely a great-big-empty inside which forces, matter, and energy exist. Matter is largely made up of energy itself, accounting for much of its mass, as Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence formula (E=mc2) reveals; the strong force at the center of atomic nuclei account for nearly all of atoms' mass, even when counting the mass of their electrons, which is very small as compared to protons and neutrons. While as yet unproven, I would not be the least bit surprised if the remaining small amount were not also shown also to be energy, showing that in the end, matter is simply energy that has been slowed down/corralled in a way yet to be understood. But whether or not vspace is another form of energy/force not unlike others (which would, by the way, help further the effort to uncover the holy grail of physical force research: the unified field, since if vspace could be viewed as a force, the unifying force that supports and gives rise to all of nature's forces would be traced to vspace itself), it still needs a context in which to exist. That context is time.
As discussed above, vspace must be present to define a universe minimally for time also to be a dimensional property of that same universe. Now if a universe has vspace but lacks all matter and energy or indeed anything else known or not, imaginable or not, able to exist or not, if that universe is a total and complete vacuum (whether or not vspace is a form of energy is irrelevant for the sake of this argument), time may still be said to exist in it if it is possible for events to occur in it. That is, that universe may still have as part of it the property of time, but just nothing in it to act as a demonstration of the passage of events. Since such a 2-d universe allows events to occur, at some point, some kind of event may still occur that allows a great deal of time measurement to be made at some point in future by beings capable to making such measurements or perceiving events.3 But the most important distinction between vspace and time is that the two are qualitatively different; the classic dimensions of width, length, and depth are all horses of the same color, all participants in spatial dimensionality. Time is not in the same category as vspace; vspace supports the quality of existence while time supports the quality of the change in state of anything that exists by whatever means, even if those changes in state lack what we may see as having a rational causative nature.
At this point, it makes sense to summarize the dimensional concepts as laid out above:
0-d permits of nothing in any sense and is mentioned for the sake of taxonomic completeness (a theoretical non-existent point)
1-d supports existence of anything that can exist and requires no other dimension for its expression (vspace)
2-d supports changes in the state(s) of anything that can/does exist and requires 1-d for its expression, though its absence from any 3-d would not preclude it from being present in another 1-d universe to some degree (time). [As strange as that may sound, consider that the way time manifests itself in our experience may not be the only way time can manifest itself in a 1-d universe. In the same way that merely because nearly every home that is built on Earth is rather cube-like, that does not mean they all have to be nor indeed are all homes designed after that fashion. Likewise because our universe appears to express time a certain way (causation is experienced more or less predictably in one fashion and appears not to vary, except in occasionally unpredictable ways when the activities of energy and mass in very low amounts are observed) doesn't mean time isn't expressed differently either elsewhere in our same universe or in another, since after all, who is to say there is not more than one universe even in a pedestrian sense.]
The most significant part of this definition of dimensionality is that each higher dimension offers an infinite number of new possibilities and anything existing within the next higher dimension is for all practical purposes infinitely greater than anything in the next lower dimension. Anything in 1-d, even if fixed and without any way to change, exists. This is an infinitely better (qualitatively) state to be in than to lack any existence nor any chance to exist (that would describe 0-d). 2-d is infinitely better than 1-d since anything that exists in 2-d has, compared to anything that exists in 1-d, an infinitely greater number of ways to manifest itself, to influence its own existence, and otherwise avail itself of a mode of existence that is as infinitely greater to anything in 1-d than is anything in 1-d as compared to anything in 0-d (which would be "no-thing" at all). To consider the idea of a conscious being existing in any of these dimensions, obviously nothing could ever exist in 0-d nor is there any chance for it to do so since 0-d by definition cannot support any kind of existence. As for 1-d, no living, thinking being could actually exist in 1-d, at least not as we understand such, as there is no chance for any life processes to occur, not even the smallest quantity of movement, energy, or state change permitted. But before the reader argues that there may be such a thing as non-corporeal life, let me say that 1-d could not support that either, since non-corporeal life would still need the quality of time to support its being alive. Unless of course, it didn't need time, or space, or a body. Which brings me to 3-d.
3-d is what I describe above as Consciousness. It is a dimension wherein there is no limitation due to time and vspace; there are infinitely greater possibilities in 3-d than in 2-d. In 3-d, there is no requirement for 2-d, though 3-d can interact with 2-d the same way that 2-d can interact with 1-d. Unlike the modern notions of dimensionality extending beyond 4-D (with the 4th dimension in the classic sense being time) that views the fifth dimension (5-D) as a universe filled with alternate paths of 4-D universes stretching out for infinity, co-existing alongside or perhaps sharing the same space as our own (via a kind of "super-space", or space-above-space as we understand it, not unlike the quantum physical notion of "super-position"), this view of the next dimension (3-d) simply says that as beings operating in a 2-d universe, in the same way that time (the 2nd dimension in my taxonomy) enables the first dimension (vspace) to interact with itself internally, likewise 2-d beings can interact with what we call intent and/or self-awareness within our 2-d universe. Non-conscious beings or things can interact in a 2-d universe if the influence of 3-d (Consciousness) is absent, like asteroids simply crashing into one another in deep space, but they lack any degree of self-awareness and mercifully, any capacity to suffer. The matter though of how different dimensions intersect remains mysterious. Presuming for a moment that vspace is indeed a form of energy along with everything else, perhaps the base or unifying energy form of all energies in the universe, is vspace and all it contains "expanding into" the dimension of time rather than participating in temporality? Is that why time can only move forward by our reckoning and experience, but never backwards? If there was some part of the universe wherein vspace was neither expanding nor contracting, then would time travel forward or backward be even theoretically possible at least within that part of vspace where it was not expanding or contracting? Would our present concepts of causation behave in a reverse fashion if vspace were contracting and not expanding? For the time being, these questions remain speculative even as to the validity of their suggestion.
Finally, I come to the matter of a common definition of spirituality. I suggest that if a creature could be alive and be aware in a 1-d universe, its notion of infinity is the addition of time (2-d) to its universe. Time offers an infinitely greater set of possibilities in which a 1-d universe being can partake. To such a being, a 2-d universe would represent freedom and an unfolding of knowledge and wisdom not imagined in its wildest dreams. It would not even consider 3-d since after all, once the infinite dimension it would love to partake in has been identified, why seek further? And could a 1-d being even start to understand 3-d if it can hardly fathom the infinity of possibilities 2-d offers? It would in its imagination stop at 2-d, and perhaps wisely so, since madness for it may well lay at the end of any inquiry beyond 2-d. But at some point, somehow, this 1-d being would deduce that in some way, 2-d has interacted or is interacting if only superficially with its 1-d universe since at some point, its 1-d universe had to have come into existence. (The mystery is: How?)
Allow me to suggest that we are very much like that theoretical 1-d being, only we are not so theoretical. We are 2-d beings capable of occupying vspace and experiencing time in the form of cause and effect. We can, therefore, think, given the right physiology to do so. And this, we have. But the physiology is not enough to explain it. So we can imagine something powering our ability to think. This is what I'd like to suggest is Consciousness.
A 1-d being striving to make contact, somehow, with a 2-d universe, is for its universe, a spiritual being. It is trying to rise above its mundane circumstances and perceive of a universe of infinitely greater possibilities and a treasure trove of perspective that would allow it to understand fully its nature and relationship between its surroundings and its own self. After all, with the benefit of time as a dimension, its ability to think/reason will be infinitely greater, to do things, infinitely greater, and so on. It will have transcended its mere 1-d physical form and assumed a 2-d form, a form of constant fluidity and change -- if it can somehow get itself into a 2-d universe, or just even catch a glimpse into it.
As 2-d beings, I suggest that Consciousness (3-d) represents an infinitude of greater possibilities for us: unbound to 2-d bodies and unrestricted by time and vspace, we would, if 3-d beings, be in an infinitely better place than 2-d beings, just as 2-d beings are in an infinitely better place than any theoretical 1-d being might be. Striving for an entry into 3-d, or to get some glimpse of it, or to act in the knowledge that we share a common Consciousness (some religions have this admonition already but in so many words; example: the "Golden Rule" in Christianity), is what I'd like to suggest is humans' pursuit of spirituality. And so my common definition of spirituality is this: Any effort one takes to experience or gain an insight into the nature of the next highest dimension, or to behave in a way in one's dimension commensurate with the implications around such an insight.
Now what 3-d beings might need to do to meet that definition, I could not even begin to say. After all, what is 4-d? No idea. Down that path lays madness. :)
FOOTNOTES:
1 To play it safe, some people think keeping their teeth away from anything with a brain or something close to it is the way to deal with the uncertainties around the matter of non-humans' capacity to suffer, which as most psychologists think, requires self-awareness to some degree. (Automobiles, for example, have no self-awareness; thus when they overheat, break down, or are crushed in a junk yard after years on the road, no one feels bad for them since they have no self-awareness and by the word's definition, cannot suffer.) Some large religious groups have included this concept in their "best practices" lists. A few include Buddhism, most Hindu sects, some Christian traditions/monastic orders, and others I am sure I don't know about. Outside of religious traditions, abstention from eating meat or using animal products has been pursued by such notables as Pythagoreas, Albert Einstein, and many others who did or do not seem to be primarily guided by religious convictions, even if like most people they have or had them to some degree. Some of these people may be swayed to vegetarianism/veganism more by their own health concerns rather than compassion for non-human animals, but it often plays at least a small part in many people's decisions to forego meat/all animal products in their diets.
2 By way of observation, consider that if there could exist a one- or two-dimensional (in the classic sense) being, length and width can only be ascertained with certainty when seen from the point of view of a being existing in vspace. After all, how would a classically one- or two-dimensional being be able to keep track of where each side of a one- or two-dimensional object was as it moved around only in a single or a two-dimensional plane? A two-dimensional object could rotate, so how would a two-dimensional being be able to know for sure what it was shaped as? The exact shapes of things would remain a mystery since the being could not rise above the object and look at it. (For millennia, sailors and cartographers struggled to draw accurate maps of the Earth's land masses and seas. Only after humans invented flying machines did cartography really make the progress it needed to create maps with the kind of accuracy we routinely expect of them. Until that time, travelers and sailors needed to make use of hard-won skills and experience and infer things as best they could where the maps failed them.) For us, it would be like trying to determine the change in position of an object in our universe without the benefit of being able to experience cause and effect and eventful changes, or perceive of same (i.e., to experience time and what it demonstrates to us). Related ideas were brought up in a novella entitled Flatland, which caused many people some years after it was first published to indulge a fashionable interest in topics such as time and dimensionality.
3 Though the cause of it be mysterious since such a universe would lack anything occupying it in any way prior to the event fostering such an event's occurrence, it is still possible in the abstract sense, since while it appears as if our universe (which obviously has the dimensional property of time) demands that all events have causes, it may not be necessarily so. If the Big Bang Theory is correct, the question remains: where did all the super-condensed plasma energy that suddenly exploded nearly 14 billion years ago come from? If what we know today as our universe did not exist in any form with the kinds of physical laws we now observe operating in it (or having the dimensional property of time), then to ask what caused the Big Bang and where did the high-energy plasma (or whatever it was) that exploded all those years ago is pointless. But if time was a property of the universe which somehow pre-existed the sudden Big Bang which may have had no actual cause as we can understand it, to imagine that the property of time doesn't actually entail a requirement for causes to exist in order for what we call events to occur is both liberating as well as a bit scary. After all, what's next? A second Big Bang to add yet more stuff to the universe? And who's to say the one that it is said happened over 14 billion years ago wasn't the first? Another could have happened, say, 5 billion years before that, but a very long way away, so that nothing it blasted into the universe has even reached our side of the street yet (and even if it did, it'd probably not be much compared to the one we think blasted all the stuff that makes up our local supply of matter -- including the matter that goes to make up our very bodies). And if the Big Bang did include in its productive influence the creation of vspace itself (as some suggest), then what is vspace expanding into (if indeed it is)? If time itself was part of the Big Bang's creative force, then without a cause-sustaining mechanism like time to support it, just how could it have happened? For these reasons and others, I am personally skeptical of the Big Bang Theory being the final say in the matter of cosmology. While I can't deny that a Big Bang may have indeed happened all that time ago, the matter of causation and the context in which vspace and time exist is still unexplained. But to be fair, the theory itself does not attempt to do so. It merely offers a hypothesis and suggests some of the observations scientists have made, in particular astronomers and astrophysicists, appear to support this theory.
posted by Matt Campbell at 11:05 PM
5 comments
