5 dimensions

[Guest guest]

Phoebe - in another context - quotes the following:

> Faster than you can say " Ekpyrotic Universe, " a movement has taken hold

> - albeit like fingers on a ledge of eternal skepticism - that would blow one

> of the basic tenets of the Big Bang to smithereens. Think parallel branes

and five dimensions. Science never sounded so cool. The new idea would not

> replace the Big Bang, which has for more than 50 years dominated

> cosmologists' thinking over how the universe began and evolved.

> But instead of a universe springing forth in a violent instant from an

> infinitely small point of infinite density, the new view argues that our

> universe was created when two parallel " membranes " collided

> cataclysmically after evolving slowly in five-dimensional space over an

> exceedingly long period of time.

-- Night Sights

To which the ever-opinionated YT replied:

*This is fascinating whether you eat your carrots or not. I've always revolted

against the idea of a big bang (with or without capitals) as the starting-point

of it all - After all, if there were one on one level, it stands to reason, does

it

not, that if there is any such a thing as consistency in this universe (and

beyond it), there would be others on other levels, but, right down to the ultra-

microscopic and, one might suppose, beyond, this phenomenon of exploding

into existence, with or without anterior cause, is conspicuous only by its

absence.

I'm not sure I go for this one as much as I do for string-theory (which also

has as many holes in it as a Swiss cheese), but... yes... there HAS to be

another explanation, and - indeed - encoded in much that would appear

mythical/religious, - there is... even 'are'... Many. And far more plausible.

I personally tend to the opinion that 'universe' is coterminous with - identical

with - 'knowing', and that they arose simultaneously, which is to say that

they are a 'wrinkle' in 'real time', 'real space', 'real knowing' and have never

either really come into existence or not come into existence.

We tend to stick on the level that 'knowing' is inherent only in the animal

realm, and that the vegetable and mineral realms of 'lesser' and 'no'

awareness are the only others that exist, but 'knowing' - and on a far vaster

than merely day-to-day human scale - has always been deemed by the more

sensitive among us to exist, and even to exist equally well on an eternal and

infinite as well as momentary and infinitessimal scale - that they are

necessary aspects, the one of the other.

'Knowing' is the conscious vector of 'time-space', 'space' the presentingness

vector of experienced awareness; and 'time' the duration of any given

awareness of presence and/or absence - They are utterly - and unutterably -

inextricable, the one from the other, as are the facets of each of these

vectors - the beforenesses, afternesses and nownesses, leftnesses,

rightnesses, centrenesses and before-and-behindnesses, and mere-

awarenesses, conscious-awarenesses and un-awarenesses - each from

each other. Time and space are, as it were, the 'opacity' of our knowing.

Knowing *outside* of time and space, or - differently put - in 'real' time and

'real' space, is of a completely different nature.

Alice often speaks of the dimensionless point at the centre of the circle, but

that point is so vast that any given one of them completely pervades the

entire universe, completely pervades all circles to the extent that they

themselves become nothing more than dancing motes of rainbow light upon

its infinite surface. And this is just the beginning of the thing!...

Thought I'd toss it in here to see what came back.

m