http://humanifesto.org/yehoshanah/2004/fractional_dimensionality.htm

    Title: Fractional Dimensionality.

  1. The big bang, the cosmic one, was perhaps a dimensional implosion. The big bang might be better described as a recurring contraction within continuos attention.

    In this theory, the cosmic big bang was not an explosion. Rather, the big bang is like intention, a focus of attention within attention. Modern science suggests that the spacial dimension of the universe appears to be continuously expanding within an ever extending dimension of time. In this theory, the universe continues to contract within itself, into lower dimensions. Its like the universe is narrowing the focus of a specific attention within a broader background of a contextual and universal attention.

    The riddle has a solution, it is in the subject matter. This theory attempts to understand fractional dimensionality. If what makes you, also makes me, we might actually share a common sense of reality? In other words, we could consider the threading together of all our systems of relativity into a shared creation theology. We might be fundamentally cooperative, by our very nature, in how we interpret and author, our intentional and experimental, living and knowing, cosmically inspired psycho-social ecological reality.

    A relative dimensional implosion would reveal specific and more particular dimensions within more general and inclusive dimensionality. Consider, if you please, the cosmic contraction of dimension into fractions and further into fractions of fractions. The contraction of the dimension of time, reveals fractions of time as space. This theory suggests relative dimensionality is fractional rather than numbered.

  2. The conception of the series or the set of natural numbers are a cognitive extrapolation dependent upon the more primary conception of a whole and its fractions. The primary conception is the whole, and within it, parts of the whole. From a sense of whole, and a part of the whole, we derive the idea, of an 'a'. The conception of More Than 'a' comes from recognizing other parts of the whole and so on.

    We don't have the series of natural numbers without the natural idea of the set in which numbers are its fraction. We all start with the premise of the set of all sets, which is a recurring process, to recognize the whole, ad infinitum. We really only conceive of fractions as the members and sub-members of the whole. The primary layer of attention, even after the contraction into sub-sets, remains within the infinity of recognizing the whole. Each part and all wholes make sense in a recurring process, recognizing parts of the whole.

    Dimensions use various notations such as power (indicating a relative degree of higher dimension, background, context, more universal), root (indicating lower dimension, foreground, focus) and base (indicating number of fractional parts to a whole, definite dimension). With base two, which is called binary, there are two parts, halves, which are the fractions that make up the whole (two to the power of one). Within each part of a base two whole, within each half, there may be two sub parts etc (sub dimensions are called roots). Two parts, a pair, participating in a whole may contribute or participate in a higher dimensional whole (2 x 2, two square, two to the power of two) etc.

    With Base ten, which is called decimal, this refers to ten participants in a whole. Base ten (ten to the power of one) may be participant fractions within the higher dimension of ten to the power of two (10 x 10, One hundred is the next higher dimension of base ten) etc. If four parts (four to the power of one) are considered a whole, a dimension of four square (4 x 4) refers to its next higher dimension. Four to the power of three (four cubed, 4 x 4 x 4 ) refers to the next higher dimension containing sets of four fractions etc.

  3. Infinity is really simple, there's nothing to it. It's about starting with a premise of Zero prior to the possibility of finishing with the recurring sum of fractions equivalent to one. We seek a zero difference when we check the sum of all parts to compare if they equate to the whole. We look at the recurring Zero Sum Check, which is the template for packet integrity, a glance of the whole, when ever we shift or move between foreground and background attention. When we contract our focus on what appears to be a foreground and pretend it is a whole in itself, we really know the foreground is also part of the background. We start with a thread of recurring glance at the background that we premise to precede all appearances of relative foreground.

    In this theory, we understand more about everything we see when we return to look at how we see and understand. We could end up, just about anywhere we wish, but the motivational momentum, with which we continuously co-author, will always starts at home. Home is the sense of being whole, it requires but little attention to maintain but its thread is continuos throughout the journey. Every wayward attention pays a fare, a tribute, in built in its very nature, to a single harmonizing formula that checks for it place within a correlational summary. The formula seeks to equate this particular attention with its participation in the greater whole, the recurring seeking of integrity within all dimensions of attention.

  4. Zero Sum Check, not too few, not too many.
    Zero One Infinity, some count them as Three.
    And The Whole Authors its Being, but do We?

    Intentional Being. Halelu Yah.

    Yehoshanah

    2004 12 20


Your visit adds one for the site: and adds one for this page: