5-D Philosophy

Does God exist?

This question dwells in the mind of all beings resting here on planet earth but is not regarded as a question. Maybe the most obvious assumptions aren’t questions?

(The real question will be dealt with towards the end but you need to read it whole to appreciate it.)

Tryna objectify Science.

What’s Science?

Science means reason expressed in a quantitative order that requires measurement in numbers.

What’s Philosophy?

Knowledge of perception and deference to reality in analytical terms forms a conjugate hypothesis that puts forward a form for discussion on the contradictory analytical subjective abstract thesis.

Why is Science Important?

Mainly for practical purposes.

What do we mean by the term ‘practical’?

That can be expressed in terms of numbers and dimensions (0 included.)

Why is the practical world important?

’cause it satisfies the real definition of creation. It fulfils its purpose and sustains life.

There are two branches in Science- the Perfect and the Imperfect.

The Perfect branch of science is pure logic and the application of its inductive effect which is none other than Mathematics. The beauty of Science lies in the impractical curves that give rise to the practical infrastructure.

And that’s why Maths is beautiful but Physics is magnificent. (will explain later)

The Perfect branch of Science deals with thesis while the imperfect branch deals with real-time thesis. Does that mean reality is imperfect?

Well, that’s a question we’ll deal with later. For now rear the doubt and feed it.

The Imperfect branch of Science is as rational but it’s the very definition of practical though it won’t have existed had it not been for Mathematics.

Yes, Physics is imperfect. But Physics is something more than just imperfect. It’s magnificent. It’s magnificent with all its imperfections. It’s magnificent with all the faults in its theories when they all could be turned down with the introduction of the third phenomenon added to the wave-particle duality. With its vast corpus of sheer imperfections, it’s all the more beautiful. It enlivens the perfect and sustains our breath.

Do we love the imperfect more?

Maybe. Or else we would have discarded the utilitarian concept of living. I’m amazed at how we grow to love imperfections. I’m amazed at how we constantly thrive to be perfect and in the end grow to love our own imperfections.

And that’s what Physics does. Exactly like us. No wonder we love her because she’s similar to us. She sounds more real and more practical than her perfect counterpart, and so we love her and accept her beauty as real. That’s what makes her magnificent in our eyes. We can connect with her better than we could with The Perfect. We always doubt God as we know he’s the ideal of perfect, then shouldn’t we doubt the imperfect as well?

Shouldn’t we doubt ourselves and the reality of our presence?

We should but we don’t. We can’t be wholly rational. Physics is not wholly rational. We have learnt to thrive on our imperfect sense organs. And we have learnt to believe whatever they can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell. But we can’t believe the Perfect because we can’t think in a five-dimensional world.

And these are the limits of Science.

And that’s why Philosophy exists- to clarify the doubts Science has. Philosophy is GIGANTIC! It’s capable of solving most of the doubts that arise in your mind when you read Science. Does that answer the question- Why great scientists have also been great philosophers?

Before introducing you into the process of thinking spiritually, let me introduce to you the philosophical and hypothetical concept of 5-D Space.

THE IDEA OF THE ABSTRACT-

If you could think beyond what your senses are taught to think and actually ‘think’ nothing, you enter the five-dimensional space. If you can think of five variables, you have unlocked the doors to this world. If you have derived the five equations to solve these five variables, you have successfully entered it.

The idea of the abstract deals with self-imposed conscious thinking. Thinking about the cause is the first dimension of this space.

Science deals with consequences and the conjectured hypothesis derived by observed and practical phenomena. It tries to find the element that causes the result when Philosophy searches for the cause instead.

Your first approach to deriving an equation for this variable should be hypothetical analytics. For instance, try analyzing death first and then coming to life (reverse engineer the process)

You will face questions like- Why death? This will be followed by- Why are the life-death spheres concurrent? And then, what’s the use of life at all if all it has to do is live for a time that doesn’t even suffice to make something out of it? Once you answer those questions yourself, you’ll look for an authentication. But that’s missing in this sphere of Science where even the hypothesis is developed only after authentication in the form of practical address to a problem.

But what if ‘the practical’ is hypothetical?

This is the second sphere- debating obvious norms of science when science debates the obvious norms of society.

This is the first obvious norm in Science but Science doesn’t question it. Why? It’s because Science itself is the norm of practicality that’s often mistaken as the practical ‘reality’. It has no authentication in the sphere of Science, and this second problem in Science is solved by the second dimension of Philosophy.

The Impracticality of the Practical Reality-

Think- How can we prove that what we sense alone is practical, authentic and real? Does that mean a debate with the very definition of ‘real’?

REAL- It’s like objectifying the purpose of Science, but in 5-D, you are allowed to do it.

Can what we not sense be real? If what I am is real material, can’t it coexist as a mere subset of the power set of reality and impracticality? Can’t we include the perfect in our definition of reality? Can that which serves the purpose of the realistic Science be impractical itself? Does that mean the imperfect is derived from the perfect? So, can’t we, the imperfect, be derived from The PERFECT- GOD? Can the practical be derived from the impractical? So, shall not we consider the impractical as the practical unreal?

We got the answer to the question on the existence of God, this shall help us in solving the following simultaneous equations.

THE IDEA OF DOUBTING

The first two equations raise doubts. And the biggest doubt you sustain is a question mark on the reality of your own existence. After all, we don’t really own living proof of our existence. And what if the proof is unreal itself?

Ask yourself- How can I convince myself that my world is real. How? After all, how? By the Big Bang theory? But don’t forget the theory believes that matter is real, after all. How do you go about proving that matter is real in the first place? Does it rely on the fact that even time is a mere fabric and vastly different from the reality of the cosmos? Or is Time nothing but movement? But movement of what? You don’t know ‘what’ ‘cause it’s neither you nor me that sweeps through as time. And yet we say it ‘passes’. But how does it pass? Why is there even a notion as time?

THE IDEA OF THE STATIC

Imagine the fabric to be static. Nothing passes. You are you. The frozen you. Time doesn’t elapse. What shall happen next? Thinking from a 3-D point of view, there shall be no movement. Then why is time different from movement? Because we don’t believe it’s just a notion. And yet you need not believe in what I say. It’s only a three-dimensional thought process.

But, can we even think in 5-D? How would it be like to think, think, think with no real passage of ‘time’? Thinking in the static. The finest equilibrium you would achieve. If everything would frost, even time, and you are the one thinking, thinking out of nowhere, for a ‘time’ unknown. No passage of ‘time’…would there be a passage of thoughts? If your answer is no, you imply that the movement of thoughts is the same as the movement of matter. If your answer is yes, you got the third equation. Both the answers are progressive.

Let’s address the second answer first (it’s the first one for me, maybe the second one for you).

If you believe that thinking is possible without time, you believe that time is a limitation, and your thought process will be able to ‘escape’ from time. In case Time indeed is a limitation, you know Death is a reality, so life too must be.

Now the other answer.

If you believe that thinking is impossible without it excising in stages (compare it with the scene when you climb down the stairs- the movement of YOU (a matter) along with the passage of TIME, similarly, when you believe that thinking is impossible without the passage of time, you also believe that thoughts ‘flow’ just as matter and that movement requires time to flow with itself

This equation can be solved only if Matter is proved as real. So, are thoughts also real? But they are only encoded matter! So, can something that’s not coded matter also be real?

This is the idea of the abstract proved by the idea of the static.

Now you are left with two choices- Believing that both God and Matter exist or believing that neither really do exist.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *