"rise" into the fifth dimension -- what does it mean?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
They are reviving the 60's pop band the Fifth Dimension? Cool.


"...this is the dawning of the age of Aquarius....Aquarius..."



BTW the whole thing is nonsense. Dimensions are spatial in nature i.e. height... depth... width... time etc. not an aspect of consciousness.

In short they exist whether consciousness does or not.



[edit on 16-10-2009 by grover]




posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by tgidkp
 



i really appreciate your contributions. this is exactly the type of interaction i was hoping for.
i will address a few points one by one.



Why not review the material yourself and come to your own conclusions?


i fully intend to read up on the Law of One and draw my own conclusions.




I hadn't realized that your model involved any non-intersecting dimensions at all.


communication is breaking down, as so often happens on the internet. rather than re-hash the whole argument, sufficient to say that my model DOES involve intersecting dimensions and IS cyclical (a closed loop).




a continuously increasing model would necessitate more non-intersecting dimensions


agree with your description of non-intersecting planes. my point is that if none of the planes intersect, then they can only run parallel to each other. another option, as you have pointed out with your sine wave dotted-dash example, would be to run all of the information on a single plane at different frequencies.

the problem that i run into there is that you are effectively reducing the amount of information that can be contiained in the model. since this is a hypothetical argument, and we both seem to be in agreement thusfar, i will leave it there.


You appear to be attempting to conceptualize each individual dimension as a discreet, three dimensional block.....


no. effectively i have collapsed 3D time-space into a single 2D plane, and drawn the 5th Dimension as a plane perpendicular to the time-space plane. this is useful because we are used to working in 3D space and so we can conceptualize the relationships more easily. if we were to expand all of the planes out into their proper relationships, the shape and motion becomes a hyperdimensional toroid. i linked to a thread at the bottom of the OP which discusses the hyperdimensional toroid in more detail.


If true...then your dimensions do intersect. Right? If so...how does your model make any sense?


correct. the dimensions in my model do intersect. the model makes sense...it really does.



"Dimension" is being used metaphorically.


this is the heart of the matter, IMO. use of the word "dimension" is every bit as meaningful in the context of psycho-spiritual development as it is in cosmology and molecular physics. in fact the concepts are directly linked by an underpinning model of reality. what i have given above is my attempt at bringing "dimension" OUT of metaphorical usage, and aligning it with known scientific concepts.



What is the nature of the change in consciousness you are describing? Please do not use the words "dimension," "density" or any numbers in your answer.


this is a tall order. i will give it some thought and report back asap. gotta go do some gardening while the sun is still up.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
The two are inherently different and not translatable across each other in any way.


are you so sure about that? why?

you are allowed to state your opinion, but coming into this thread and calling me a fool is not productive in the least.


Originally posted by xelamental
this is not a theory. It's a guess at worst, an hypothesis at best.


you have correctly identified this as AN IDEA. congratulations.

you would be mistaken if you propose that i am speaking on topics that i do not have a full grasp of. granted, there are details to be worked out. but the model is, in fact, predictive in a variety of ways.

for example: you can infer that the density of matter has an inverse relationship to time. time increases, density decreases, also known as radioactive decay. this is not a new idea in itself. what IS new about it is that the density function is plotted as an intersecting plane across time-space. in other words, time - space - density can now be correlated in a meaningful way. this can give us an idea of the shape of the universe, among other things.....

....it also, admittedly, could be waaay off the mark.

________

best to you both.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


What do you mean by light vibration? I've never heard of light being in vibration or a vibration in itself. Where did you find this sort of terminology in reference to light? You do know what light is and is not, right?


I expressed it wrong... The intensity of light and the vibration of that density.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 




my point is that if none of the planes intersect,
then they can only run parallel to each other.


This is only true if those planes are confined to fewer than four dimensions. And honestly, I'm having a difficult time being sure which part of the model you're even referring to. If I understand you correctly, the "planes" you're saying must be parallel, aren't actually planes, but rather they're four dimensional spaces (or 3d time-spaces if you want to call them that) that you're mapping onto two dimensions so you can show it in a picture.

If so, then those four-dimensional spaces also need not be parallel, nor intersect, providing they have at least six dimensions to work with.

But why the concern over whether they're parallel? The fact of intersection or not should be the only real concern. Whether or not they're parallel is simply an artificial consequence of your model.



will give it some thought and report back


Ok. I'll wait. ^_^



i have collapsed 3D time-space into a single 2D plane, and drawn
the 5th Dimension as a plane perpendicular to the time-space plane.


...I don't see any way useful way to represent five-dimensional relationships on a two dimensional image. Words may make a more suitable abstraction.



use of the word "dimension" is every bit as meaningful in the context of psycho-spiritual
development as it is in cosmology and molecular physics. in fact the concepts are directly
linked by an underpinning model of reality.


I'm not totally convinced that spatial dimensions are neccesary at all. I suspect space may simply be a mental construct. Simply the manner that we observers happen to interpret information.

But I'm willing to try to understand your model if you think it will be helpful.

In any case, if I were to take a stab in the dark, given your suggestion that the use of "dimension" is both literal and relevant...the obvious interpretation would be that the next level of human consciousness would be what we've already described in previous posts: awareness of four dimensions...awareness of "3d space-time" as a single object. No visual model is neccesary to describe that.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by tgidkp
 


What is the nature of the change in consciousness you are describing? Please do not use the words "dimension," "density" or any numbers in your answer.



while limiting my use of those words, i will introduce another tool. the sequence of pictures are M.C.Escher's work entitled "Print Gallery (1956)" the first is an untouched reproduction.




the second and third are the single image, split into its two seemingly irreconcilable components. i have added labels from my OP in order to draw necessary parallels.






in the final image, i have rejoined the two irreconcilable portions while adding the "upper triangle" portion of my own model in the same area as the "fuzzy" or "hidden" spot in the center of escher's work.



________
every aspect of our lives, here in the 3D, is ruled by irreconcilable dualities. every property of every particle, to include the particles themselves, from infinitely small to infinitely large is constructed through nested levels of irreconcilable dualities, which on a higher level are reconciled into a single component.

this single component, then, becomes itself part of the nested system. upwards and downwards for forever.

without fail, you will find that the "higher level" from which the two lower irreconcilables are reconciled, has a perspective of *perpendicular to and above* relative to the lower constituents.

in this way, M.C. Escher is making YOU aware of YOURSELF through the "hidden" portion of his drawing. the only way for his nonsensical drawing to make any sense is if it is viewed from a perspective of *perpendicular to and above*.....which is your perspective as the viewer! (no mistake that the artist put his own name within that space.)

.....

getting back to my model: each of the numbered levels 1-7 are totally irreconcilable. they are completely different ways of looking at the world, and most of the conflict that we witness in our daily lives arises from the inability of people to mutually understand these differences.

"rising to a higher level", then, is the ability to comprehend the entire system at once. this is accomplished at level 8 (5th dimension hahahahahahah!).

level 8 is similar in nature to level 4, but from a perspective of *perpendicular to and above*. as the 4D represents society/culture/history as a single unit, so does 5D represent a single form of societal intelligence.

5D represents an intelligence, or frame of mind, which most people are unwilling to acknowledge as REAL, and yet are already intimately a part of. it has been a long, long, long time coming for such a mass of humanity to come to the point of moving upward and conducting ourselfs from this higher perspective.

i very much consider it to be the birth of a new species of beingness. we truly are on the precipice of an unprecedented leap of consciousness.

________

i failed miserably at your request to limit my words. i hope you will forgive me. i am weak.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 




"Lengthy post and a bunch of pictures"


Translation: observer and observed is a single phenomenon.

Ok.



i failed miserably at your request to limit my words. i hope you will forgive me. i am weak.


...I think you're just making things needlessly complicated.


No complicated spatial relations are necesary to describe what you're saying. "Observer and observed is a single phenomenon." At one level of consciousness, the observer may not perceive that. At the next level, it does. Ok. No problem.

Am I totally off-base, or is this really all you're saying?



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


i started this thread as an offshoot of this one.

this thread is an attempt to reconcile the "mumbo-jumbo" of "higher dimensional consciousness" with established scientific terminology. although the concept may seem simple to you, the observerobserved paradigm is NOT common knowledge. nor is psycho-spiritual leading-edge consciousness a very widely accepted notion.

without such a lengthy discourse, many people would not hesitate to drag me (and my theories) down into the mud.

i am glad (flattered) that you have been willing to follow along. there is much much more. what strikes you as mere simplicity, actually contains a wide range of information. i have been working for better than 10 years on this particular model, so i would appreciate it if you didnt dismiss it so lightly.


thanks again.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



the most complicated thing for humanity to understand is that they are and will never be on a reasoning higher than the one they currently posses from their current life state of molecular cohesion. an unforced duality cannot happen all are forced with out this state of cosmic unification of megomagnetic hyperdyanamic concurrent abstractions of the entirety of complete unification of the entire realm of conceptual creation itself. um pretty much humanity has their own personal clock that they are in a way bonded to. everything in this universe is finite for a reason one word to describe it would be of cosmic beauty. the complete unification of justification is the biggest thing in common with all forms of life.

life cant not not exist simply because it doesnt use numbered distinguishers of cuncurrency simply because it is not a necessity for survival. basically life has the potentiality to never or always have existed. umm but humans are a state inbetween. humans have never but always existed but only if the current static adherence of the universe contains it. humans are conceptual simply because they dont have ability transcend thought at their apature.

basically humans are neither absolute or absent. they are a form of life that isnt unified. incomplete partial dna strands. they are absent unifiers which have yet to return to the absolute universal whole.

in religious terms it would be god (adam and eve) jesus god but um with many more stages of inception. god = conception adam & eve = procreation jeus = assention. demention is simply the current place holder of insertion.
if went demsionaly humans are 3 partialities to 5 basically its precursing placeholder. all their partialities only contain one point of entropy. 5 would contain all 3d stuff but also include unification of all potential entropes. humans concieve by purpose base 5 life would concieve by choice. this differnce is like thinking from prospective through all the major senses. in a way a 5 base would have no self sense of worth more like a perception of sense. 5 only priecieve one sense at a time. it would be like smelling but also not seeing but seeing then not smelling. 5s do this to priecieve individual universal unifiers. for example humans use their senses but all at the same time not individualy this would allow for only one point of entropy in the unviersal whole.

basicly in easy terms.

humans are temporary but life isnt when unified. humanity is on a bilological clock life evertyhing else on this planet. humanity will come to an end regardless of what happens but they have the potentail to realize their purpose. they are part of the entirity of life they always will be but they are simply equal to all other constituant distuingishers. all humans are equal but so are their relations to all the different unifieres of life. basicly they are better than no one but also not below anyone. they should not worship themselves they should worship greatness of potentiality. everones believe system is obsololete from athiesm any other dietistic believe. "better" is completly subjective idea that humans simply dont have the ability to not concieve. "must be and just is" would be something more to believe in but not conceptualy possible for humans and never will be.

humans would priecieve base 5s as a threat simply becuase they dont truly concieve their purpose. more than likely base 5s would offer help but humans simply wouldnt know how to understand to react. like 2 people trying to comunicate using different languagues. however the reason a base 5 would offer help would be simply because they would see humans as equals simply offering advice. most humans will die off before they could process the complexities of the base 5 purpose. but they do have a potentiality to survive for a while longer after that if they could learn to priecieve the base 5 in their entirety. basically it would take them to long to trust the base 5 and see them as equals that their envirmental constants reorientate.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by Sonata]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonata
 


phew! that was a mouthful, sonata.

i suppose i deserve that?

i hate to be rude, but.... the content of this thread is my mind and soul. i have gone to great extent to make sure that every bit of it is intelligible. for anyone that is willing to put forth an effort, i believe that they can take a dividend from the system i have set up.


but your post was almost silly.

am i coming across as silly as well?

i am gonna take a break from this thread for awhile. ciao.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 



no nothing is silly not u or antything else. to truly priecieve is to expierance complete eventuality of everything in the uiniverse. from a cosmic sheet of particulate cohesion to its individual distinguishers of potentiality.

umm unsderstand your purpose and go from there it will all fit together simply becuase it just is and must be.

umm i know i dont spell its more the thought im trying to convey in terms of true idealism.

its my ideas im trying to convey i tried my best to formulate them into words that would best describe them. there isnt enough place holders in the human syntax to truly convey the idea of temporal possiblility.


[edit on 17-10-2009 by Sonata]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by LordBucket
 

According to some schools of thought...


i apologise for my AUTHORITATIVE tone. i fully intend an air of discussion, to clarify as nearly as possible what is meant by "rising into a higher dimension". it is one of those phrases that gets tossed around and i, personally, would like to come to a scientifically comprehensible agreement about what it means. ...get everyone on the same page, so to speak.

the OP is intended only as a jumping off point: MY jumping off point.

please, everyone, feel free to insert your own jumping off points.

[edit on 16-10-2009 by tgidkp]


You are never going to get a "scientific" agreement for "rising into a higher dimension" because once you go past the 3rd dimension, our particular laws of physics do NOT apply.

In my experience, you will NEVER be able to quantify (let alone figure out how things really work in the higher dimensions while standing in the 3rd dimension) the "how things work" in the higher dimensions because, in addition to our 3D physics failing, in the higher dimensions, things are created and manipulated by pure thought manifestation, belief and intent.

Chart or not, above what is considered the NINTH dimension, you essentially lose all physical, ego and personality aspects because your Aura can not hold your base atomic structure close enough together. You don't "die" or disappear; you are essentially a unique energy form-you just have no "physical" characteristics. Considering there are more than 144,000 dimensions, even as sentient energy, you have many levels to pass before becoming a part of the "Source" again (if you desired to).

"Rising to the fifth dimension" as we think about it in relation to 2012 and the Ascension, means to "The process by which a person/planet leaves their present dimension and goes to a higher one." while RETAINING the same basic physical and ego (personality) characteristics (but which can be changed in that dimension through intention).

We intend our Ascension to be to the 5th dimension, since we [humans] are already interacting in the 4th dimension--when we are alive via our Souls and Higher-Selves and when we die, as the holding dimension before reincarnation.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   


you have correctly identified this as AN IDEA. congratulations.

Props. Not many admit it.


you would be mistaken if you propose that i am speaking on topics that i do not have a full grasp of.

Never did I suggest.


granted, there are details to be worked out. but the model is, in fact, predictive in a variety of ways.

Now that's what I am talking about!


for example: you can infer that the density of matter has an inverse relationship to time.

So, can you make some concrete predictions? Why do certain atoms decay at different rates? What are the implications of this prediction in your view?



time increases, density decreases, also known as radioactive decay. this is not a new idea in itself. what IS new about it is that the density function is plotted as an intersecting plane across time-space. in other words, time - space - density can now be correlated in a meaningful way. this can give us an idea of the shape of the universe, among other things.....

Please, go into excruciating detail.


....it also, admittedly, could be waaay off the mark.

Best. Thread. Ever. Seriously, it's great to see someone bringing something substantial, yet testable to ATS.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


There is nothing seperate. There is self and other selves.

All is One.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
i honestly don't have anything meaningful to contribute, but i think this is a really great thread! ATS is lacking in quality threads like these but it seems they are the ones that get the least attention, or get overlooked for the latest 'predictions.'
in other words:
bump.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by xelamental
So, can you make some concrete predictions? Why do certain atoms decay at different rates? What are the implications of this prediction in your view?
....Please, go into excruciating detail.


thank you xelamental and double_frick for your encouragement.

you have proposed exellent questions. i have decided that it will be necessary for me to construct a flash animation of my model, as to answer your questions requires that you understand how a given point of intersection moves within these three planes simultaneously.

in the interim, i have produced a second version of my model as presented in the OP. in the second version, i have made a few alterations and included some additional information with respect to the density plot. none of the additional information is IRT the OP: we are officially going off topic. similar to the first version, it will probably confuse more than clarify. alas, i may have to eventually get out a drawing board and make a video.






....more to come....



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by double_frick
 


Ugh please... This thread is about as low as human intelligence can get. Even if there were fifteen-hundred thousand different dimensions, we'd be equally existing in every single one of them. What this kid is talking about is a higher plane of existence and confusing that with dimensional physics which he appears to be basing his whole crackpot theory off of which makes the whole thing bunk and ridiculous. Please people, I beg you learn something for a change... idk if I can handle looking at another remarkable feat of human stupidity. I think I might need a break from this place.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


WOW. my goodness, you ARE smart. look at all of the contributions you are making. blowing my mind right away, you are! phew!


why dont you go ahead and blow your blustery wind somewhere else. there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with exploring conceptual relationships and formulating IDEAS.

i am not making claim to some kind of new and profound knowledge. i dont even claim to be right! i am merely making an exposition of reality as i understand it.

i am sorry that upsets you so badly.


...fifteen-hundred thousand different dimensions, we'd be equally existing in every single one of them.


if you had made even a weak attempt at understanding my model, you would know that you and i are in complete agreement on this point.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by tgidkp]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by tgidkp
 


OK, I did misunderstand your usage of the word 'dimension'. Yet, I still don't subscribe to your logic in how you describe consciousness. Nor it's ability to 'shift to a higher level'. Are you attempting to postulate that consciousness is separate from the body/brain?

[edit on 17-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


upon reflection, i can see where your misunderstanding of my model is coming from. for purposes of this thread, and the simplicity that is necessary in making the concepts available for EVERYONE, i will not be making any revisions to what i have posted.

your misunderstanding does not indicate a deficiency on my part. only that i have not included enough complexity in what i have shown in order to satisfy you.

i COULD break my model down further and show you exactly where you have gone wrong. but i have already, in the course of this thread, been accused of being "unnecessarily complex". and your attitude toward me certainly does not inspire any sympathy in me for your position.

a better solution might be for you to try and work it out for yourself.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join