THE DIMENSIONAL TRUTH OF OBJECTS AB ORIGINE Abstract: Perhaps my most important paper (as of Dec. 2014), this paper argues that time is not the fourth dimension, and defends an alternative, called perflexity. ------------------------------------------------------ According to recent comprehension, the first dimension --- not yet a dimension of objects, but a dimension of ‘some thing’ --- concerns mere ‘description’. The second dimension concerns abstract ‘information’ which has no substance inherently, and the third dimension concerns what are called the ‘Five Ems’: ‘machines’ / ‘meanings’ / ‘materials’ / ‘momentum or energy’ / and ‘more information’. The boundary between the third and fourth dimensions is what is hyperbolic from a two-dimensional view, that is the view of pure values. However, it is clear that the hyperbolic could be explained as the boundary between the second and third dimensions, as one website attests. If that is the case, the pursuit of the fourth dimension may appear inexplicable. However, in my view there is no doubt that the fourth dimension exists, and that people of some type could live there. Two common conclusions have been drawn concerning the constituency of the fourth dimension, one of them perhaps very recent, and neither of which I believe completely. These views are: (1) The view that Time is the fourth dimension, and (2) The view that the fourth dimension is virtual reality. For good reason, both of these views may be perceived as dangerous. Traditionally, religious people might have said that these kinds of perspectives are no more than God toying with us. And, regardless of the truth of their beliefs, their rhetoric may be a propo. My own analysis differs from the analysis used to reach the other types of conclusions. It is not as narrow-minded as thinking that the fourth dimension is virtual ---- I call that view the ‘plastic view’ , since all that might be necessary to believe it is a conviction of the symbolism of plastic, overwhelm about the environment aside. Nor is it as simplistic as thinking that the fourth dimension is time --- since limiting time to one dimension of reality seems a little bit revisionary and optimistic. However, believing in fourth-dimensional people is not necessarily a pessimism. Indeed, what besides virtual reality or death would convince us to be pessimists? Someone else might have embarked on a ‘New Formalism’ --- and I indeed may be somewhat guilty of this in my investigations. However, my conclusion drawn is somewhat different, ultimately. For people to live in the fourth dimension, we must extend all the factors present in the third dimension, only adding new variables. According to this view (common to descriptions of hyper-cubes), the fourth dimension is not time, instead time is a variable which exists independent of the dimensions. Perhaps time is the outer boundary of the dimensions (whatever the current state may be…). Whatever the case, time is a variable which does not prohibit the existence of entities in a post-Euclidean space. If such is the case, then there are vast possibilities. The detractors of this view are largely people who believe in life’s limitations. And I would like to call this opposing view ‘defeatism’. Defeatism, needless to say, is not a respectable theory. Believers in math, invention, and imagination (not to mention religion, mythology, and the immortality of the soul) should hold this higher dimensional view. Now suppose, according to all of these theorists, that a higher-dimensional world exists, say, at least a fourth-dimensional world (barring the view that time is the fourth dimension…). Then some concept will be needed that is either more material or less material than the current world as we observe it. This is likely to lead to some curious intellectual altercations. One solution ---- I think highly of this observation --- is that the fourth-dimensional world is a virtual-reality. This is the view put forth by history at the turn of the last millenium. In other words, ‘God-according-to-Science’ has us believing that we either are-or-are-not mistaken about virtual-reality-as-the-fourth-dimension! This is a remarkable perspective on history and human thought. We are, in other words, on the verge of defining----or failing to define----the fourth dimension. It is not that history has been entirely left up to us. Instead, you could be a determinist, or a believer in free will. Either way --- somehow, either way! --- the fourth dimension has been left up to us! This is no mere religious paragrination ---- psychology, science, sophomores, hedonists ---- everyone was in agreement that the fourth dimension was essentially unresolved. And yet some people, the people I am calling the defeatists, did not see this great debacle, and painted it over with the false belief that the fourth dimension was already defined. Perhaps it takes genius, but I have seen no trace of a debate, no willingness to weigh scientific evidence, about the false dogma that the fourth dimension is what is causing history. That is the statement I wish to call into question: why would the fourth dimension --- and not the first ---- cause history? It is this perspective which persuades me to the variablist view. For, although I have entertained this idea at times, I do not believe that time is matter, nor, because of its extension of matter, do I believe that it is the limit of matter. Without these two views, the perspective of time as the fourth dimension is standing on weak crutches. Now I will raise the idea that was the inspiration for this paper in the first place, which is a discovery I do not fully attribute to myself, the combination of complexity and perfection called either perflexity or complexion (I believe perflexity is the term that will be preferred in the short term). This is a concept which has potential to define the fourth or higher dimensions, and I propose it is an alternative to the time-based model. The advantage of perflexity is something I first raised in The Dimensional Phenomenologist’s Toolkit, a book I will not publish until a year from now: Perhaps ’matter’ in the broad, potentially symbolic sense, is what the third dimension consists of. Then, the extrusion of the second dimension consists of the materialization of information. Perhaps that is the simplest view. But this materialization could bring into question the idea of matter-as-a-formalism. Perhaps what causes matter to materialize is a ‘value’, a ‘specified power’, or ‘a significance’! In this way, the embodiment of the fourth dimension necessarily involves a qualification that is not present at the third-dimensional level. [~p. 28] Based on that argument, it can be seen that there is a need for a concept that is not time, unless we adopt an imaginative computational-functional model of the universe, in which case we are free to adopt metaphorical functions which explain how everything amounts to processing power. However, I feel that historically-speaking, that would be a mistake. Perhaps this is a form of revisionism, but it is not the worst kind. It is more like calligraphers who have just discovered a magical book which contains a somehow-obvious typographical error. In this way, the new concept could be explained as an explaining-away of the ghost in the machine. Perhaps the ghost in the machine is a functional computational concept, but otherwise it can be rejected, according to this form of critique. The question then remains, what are the exact advantages of this special concept which proposes to replace the functionality of time itself, in the context of history? The advantage of the concept is that already proposed by post-materialism, meta-informationalism, and dynamic descriptionism: a world that is neither specifically virtual, nor deterministically absolute, but instead much more imaginative and much more functional than all prior dimensions. FOUR LAWS OF THE PERFLEXIVE (FOURTH-DIMENSIONAL) WORLD: 1. Realities are immunities. 2. Problems are isomorphized. 3. Problems are not global, and 4. Ideals are not idealizations. ----Nathan Coppedge December 3rd, 2014 5:47pm Nathan Coppedge, SCSU 12/03/2014, p.