It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is “Abstract” A 5th Dimension?

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:31 PM
Ok everyone knows about the first three dimensions up, down, and sideways.
Then there’s time.

And why not Abstract?
The case for abstract…

1. Abstract can exist without matter.
For example: All technology is as old as the universe because: Instead of inventing a club the first caveman could have invented a blow pipe, sphere, arrow, or crossbow. All the materials he needed to invent these things were lying around him. All that stopped him from doing it was that he never thought of it, but the technology itself was always there.
But the mobile phone is also as old as the universe because whether or not we can assemble the materials is irrelevant to the fact the that technology has also been there.

2. Numbers also exist, work, and produce without matter. For example if you got rid of all the matter in the universe would 1 plus 1 still make 2?
Obviously you need something to do this equation. But we can imagine a world without atoms, photons ect; so this isn’t directly relevant.

I would suggest that 1 pus 1 still made two even before the Big Bang (or whatever the true cause is) exploded-came into being.
Maybe the same is also true of the abstract technology.

So I would speculate that: In the beginning there was nothing, then there was abstract.

3. But abstract can also apply to matter. For example take an iron bar. It could be dropped into the sea and rust, it could be part of a bridge, or a tank.
Once more it could have been all these things (accept probably the rust in sea since nobody is realistically likely to both find and also use it, but anyway)…

The things an iron bar, glass of water, or carbon in coal can be, or could have been are rather like the 3D directions an object might be moved in. Only one of them is true at any one point in time, but there is no limit to how many times, or whether indeed the object was in any of them.

When applying abstract to matter the only chief limiting factor is the periodic number, as well as amount, number(s) and percentage of the elements it is composed of in the periodic table, and the amount of energy applied or available from them.
However even the elements can be shifted in a nuclear reactor, core of star, or in particular exploding ones (where elements higher than iron are made).

4. Like the 3D dimensions of an object you do not need intelligent life for abstract to be real. The human race could be eliminated, and Aliens (assuming they exist) could make use of abstract concepts a billion years later (e.g. the petrol engine, or atomic bomb), and could no doubt be doing near the fringes of the universe (should it have fringes as we think of it).
But maybe not aliens? Perhaps the earth could become inhabited by machines, and perhaps these have a very limited kind of intelligence, but they could still invent. Evolution itself would seem to me to be quite a good example of a natural process like these even hypothetical machines which still prove my point.

So what I would really like to know is that if 3D and Time are dimensions, then why not “abstract”?

If one thinks of abstract as a 5th dimension that still leaves Measurement quite distinctive. Most people on here will be familiar with
Heinsburg’s Uncertainty Principle

And Schroeder’s Cat's_cat

So you have Abstract and Measurement as different things because abstract exists without matter, measurement or intelligence, but then so too does Uncertainty.
But measurement can only exist: Through matter, or intelligence, or perhaps memory as a distinctive thing in it’s own right (not sure and that one, but wouldn’t be exactly surprised either). Anyway a bit more to make sense of the world; or ponder over.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 08:52 PM
Lets come your way, you are trying to say that abstract is the fifth dimension, but you know that we cannot see the fifth dimension and we have to ascend to it like a previous thread on ats said its frequency is that of the frequency of light, all the things you say are in this dimension and all came about due to the evolution of mankind which made him discover new things and make new things.

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:24 PM

but you know that we cannot see the fifth dimension

But we can see it. Can you not photo-imagine a glass of water before it is made into ice?
You can even measure it like if you measure the time before lump of ice is about to be altomatically dropped into hot water, or calculate-watch it if you mesure the time it takes to melt in the sun.

I'm not talking about “frequency” or advocating evolution more than just another example. However you’re more than welcome if you do.

Oh and by the way (not that I have a problem with anyone using marijuana
) but what's so amazingly funny?

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:01 AM
Looking at Wikipedia
Abstract would certainly seem to be (if anything) more of a dimension than the other 3-4 since a dimension is the minimum coordinates needed to specify every point within it.
This is because just numbering which of the trillions of states say a (pure) iron bar could be in (the scale probably reaches something like the number of atoms squared by the number of atoms) would technically be less coordinates than the first 3 i.e. just one although the amount of ink space would be obviously far bigger than normal.

So is the convenience of just using the first 4 dimensions obscuring truths critical to the nature of reality?

posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by Liberal1984

I guess it might be. I've thought in similar manner; the Astral level is 4th dimension and the mental or "abstract" might be the fifth. Astral is of course (in my talk at least) an emotional level, where everything is quite false; 5th dimension is same kind, yet the ideas there are not as false as in Astral. Before one developes "spiritual" senses being capable of "seeing" astral and mental, one can only "think" about them.

I think this is a relevant post. Starred and flagged!



posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 09:09 AM
Yes, it would seem that it fits into the boundaries of a "dimension". However, I wonder how much of all this concepts actually make sense.
I mean, I believe that the human brain (I'm no specialist) tends to associate thoughts and experiences in a particular way. So these concepts as "dimensions", "numbers" and the such, are only things that make sense to humans.
Maybe aliens, if they exist, have a very different brain (maybe not brain at all) and their perception of space, time, etc. is very different or maybe non-existant. Maybe they are silicon based beigns with absolutely no resemblance to humans, both mentally and physically.
So is "dimension" something useful, or maybe it's just a mind construction that's hindering our progress?
Haven't you thought that actually what you think may disprove the concept of dimension, rather than reinforce it?

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 10:47 AM

these concepts as "dimensions", "numbers" and the such, are only things that make sense to humans.

But seb2882 Evolution makes sence of abstract concepts and has (barring supernatural beliefs) no brain at all. It has no central storage system yet is responsible for things that could well keep biologists in the job for another thousand years.

Evolution is of course an abstract concept but to say it doesn't exist without intelligence is also to demand an alternative first. So what alternative to demand?
It was after all working before any intelligence of anything had come into being since microbes (are too all intense and purposes nothing but robots-chemical reactions even) they have no consciousness; at least if they do it will be a major discovery that as far as I can see can only be made sence of through (as yet) pritty unexplored system of what makes ghosts ect work.

Thanks seb2882 by the way for pushing this back to the top of threads list. I'm trying not to be big headed; but reckon this is a pritty interesting thread for others to see.

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:02 PM
Well Liberal 1984, I think sometimes that things like "evolution", or even "time" may be things that just happen and we humans give some sort of symbolic interpretation. For instance we think that a species has changed over the course of millions of years and we call it evolution. The strange thing is that abstract thinking made us advance a lot, but may also be hindering our progress.
What I want to say is that people (myself included) go crazy thinking things like "what if I went to the past and..." and maybe time just doesn't exists, it's a misconception based on our "abstract thinking". Or maybe current physics is correct, who knows?
And what if all there is it's just "abstract". Meaning that we are just as you hint, "constructions" of this abstract dimension.
Speaking of ghosts, some people say what you say but from a different point of view. Some claim, for instance, that playing ouija or that sort of things they can access "the subconcious, where all the questions are already answered".
I believe it was also Jung who said that there was a "collective mind" and when you dug deeper into peoples minds you could see how they all seemed to be connected. So if this is true, maybe it's a connection with something beyond our minds, maybe another realm which we are far from understand yet.
So to me, if abstract indeed is "something", I don't think it's just another dimension, because it would contain all the other dimensions, even the ones that aren't physically posible.

Hey you're welcome, interesting subject. Let's hope it doesn't get filled with posts of reptilians of the 5th dimension and such! (unless they have some proof of course!)

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by seb2882

I believe it was also Jung who said that there was a "collective mind" and when you dug deeper into peoples minds you could see how they all seemed to be connected.

This reminds me of a thread I typed down sometime ago; it is about C.G Jung and collective (un)consciousness. In case you haven't seen it, here's the the link. It is nothing really, but there are some thoughts I've collected along the road. Not my thoughts really, just some pondering. Go see and comment if it resonates in you.

Back on the matter at hand:

I too - I guess much like Seb person here - have thought that what if this "dimensions" are merely abstract levels of mind. Those capable to access "higher dimensions" are more likely more abstract people than mundane. I am not saying that this would be somekind of qualifying property for human being, no way! I know many mundane people than I appreciate as much as some more abstract people; They both have qualities that are required for building a more just and balanced society.

Anyways, I guess I am sliding back to think that these dimensions are in a way real - maybe abstract, but definately they exist. Think about every product and artifacts that humans have made and constructed: Most (if not all) of them pre-existed in thoughts only; meaning that somebody had to design them. Of course one can say something like "well, that happens in mind, individual mind to be precise.", but sometimes, when somebody - say an appreciated artist - makes a work that resonates in many human beings, he have touched something from the collective. I don't know exactly what is that or how to explain this. This is merely some kind of intution in forming.



[edit on 28-8-2008 by v01i0]

posted on Aug, 28 2008 @ 02:49 PM
Originally posted by seb2882

So to me, if abstract indeed is "something", I don't think it's just another dimension, because it would contain all the other dimensions, even the ones that aren't physically posible.

There’s two ways of looking at it…
1. Either the abstract as we know it stretches across of the multi-verses. For reasons I gave in the opening thread (i.e. you really don’t need any atoms-matter for 2 plus 2 to still make 4) I am completely certain that the abstract (in our universe) existed before the “big bang”.
That’s to say before the big bang it was still principally possible to make a car (the absence of suitable metals-workers being the only major obstacles).

Alternatively maybe abstract doesn’t stretch across? So in another dimension 2 plus 2 makes 3. It would be interesting to know what string theorists make of this.

But we already know that since in other dimensions the laws of physics can be different it might be possible to say freeze water rock solid in oven, and boil it in a freezer.
But that might just be because say as things get hotter the vibrations cause their “electrons” to circulate closer to the nucleus rather than further away. I.e. “our” abstract logic still applies. And in this way is universal.

2. If it isn’t universal the following might be true…
It’s possible to make a reliable car that will last about 10 years out of butter because…
1. It melts
2. It’s a soft material
3. And it rots

But it’s not possible to make one out of stainless steel because…
1. It hasn’t melted into a pool by the time you want to get in it.
2. It too strong (so it will kill you in a high speed accident, but not say a low one)
3. And it doesn’t rust-rot which means you will need to buy a new car pretty quickly.

If it’s true that abstract doesn’t apply across the multiverse then the above is pretty exciting.
If it is true then it makes sense of how the multiverse could be inter-related.
I go for the latter because I haven’t been able to find any evidence to support the first. But then I'm not a beacon of knowledge on these subjects; even if I might be ok at thought.

The above demonstrations both of course assume we have a multiverse (which I for one do because of physical evidence (never mind theory): But when I started this thread I actually meant: Is abstract a 5th dimension in our dimension-universe? But that’s no to discourage for one moment, exploring the many other possibilities.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 05:20 PM
I believe that we know very little of these things to be even near of grasping what they truly are.
I would stretch these examples to the extent of my imagination: is it possible that, in one of these "universes": I can talk to you by emitting light through my hand, which is over my head, every time a car starts ascending, because my great grandfather was a farmer?

I mean, are there really ANY possibilities? Would there be a "limit" to the abstract?

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:11 PM
in dimensional talk up is the same as down it's just positive not (-) side ways or left and right would be the second, the third would be forward and back. making time the fourth. and object on tv in motion is still only perceived as two dimensional but being in motion it's a trapped 3d. you starring at the tv makes it a 4d tv

new topics

top topics


log in