Tuesday, April 3, 2018

8. Origin

             = Work in Progress =

Yes, you can help improve my writing of this latest blog. Though not interested in perfecting the writing to a t, what is desired is a delivery that is as plain and logical as possible. I need your help wherever my words got in the way. Contact me at Penta Publishing for feedback.


It may be a stout remark, but a scientist will never be able to tell the Big Picture story; definitively not so from the driver seat perspective. Describing the largest scientific picture, she will ride shotgun and observe perhaps how the driver behaves and how well the car performs. But a scientist will never declare anything from the driver seat itself.

A philosopher has an easier time in the driver seat, and may declare something smart as if he were the car himself, even though physically that would not be possible. A philosopher can start with expressing an idea, and the goal is to create understanding about that idea. Please recognize the distinction in character between the scientist and the philosopher, both seekers of the truth.

Other folks can be on board as well, telling their Big Picture stories. In the back seat, we may find a priest and a mystic. Neither is seated up-front, telling their truthful stories, never doing the driving themselves. Sitting behind the scientist, the priest may put his trust in the automobile, or any self-moving machination, and pray this car will not get into an accident. Meanwhile sitting behind the driver, the mystic will only talk about the trip ahead; she may declare how this was determined completely already by what fuels each of them inside.

In this blog, taking a closer look at the subatomic structures of matter will help clarify the presented Structure of Everything. The distinction between a unified structure and a unifying structure should become crystal clear. It should also become clear why a philosopher – literally a lover of wisdom – has an easier time capturing the Big Picture than anyone else. The mystic may tell the same story, using different words. Even a scientist or a priest could come close to telling the same story, too, though it would be hard to do. 


[In a previous blog], materialization was said to have occurred at a specific cross section where conflicting energies had come into existence. Prior to materialization there was only dark energy in Universe 1.0. For some reason, an inward direction started up in this dark energy collective.

During the inward movement, a center got established in which moving inwardly was no longer possible any further. This inner area is called dark matter in this blog, declared as (0) since nothing moved, nothing communicated, nothing came out of this position. It was based on the natural setting (1) that created it, but it became stuck in place due to the inward circumstance.

The outer regions of dark energy kept moving inward (1) as if nothing had happened. Caught right in the middle between both positions, specific dark energy got warped so badly it materialized, declared here as (1) though different from the original natural state. Perhaps it should be declared as (A) to capture the distinction. The moment for this to occur is proposed in this blog as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

What happened more exactly in ordinary words? Imagine being the dark energy (1) that is stuck between an immobile wall of dark matter (0) and the overall dark-energy 'directive' (1) to unite beyond that wall. We can assume that there was no prior agreement on what to do when the directive turned out to be impossible to complete, and of course a wall was not going to do any of the talking.

For the dark energy (1) caught in the middle there is no other option than to disengage from both impossible scenarios and to go where no energy had gone before (A).


The scientist may state that the outcome happened because it happened, even accepting that matter (A) appeared deus ex machina, and stating we should be bothered only by what we can know now, based on the available information. She would never use the words God, directive, freedom, motivation, desire or a consciousness inherent to the energized state (1) prior to materialization. The scientist will have no exact voice in telling the origin story in ordinary words, though observing the following from a scientific perspective is fine.

The priest may have more to say. At one point in time, priests and scientists were one and the same people. The Vatican Observatory is a reminder that priests also like to look at the stars. And indeed, with the solid dark matter (0) we can declare – if so desired – the existence of a fully unified God, a perfect entity that is then found besides us. Yet matter (A) occurred in this scenario because there was no entry into this exclusive heaven, so there is a divine problem. Confronted with this complication, priests will tell us rather too quickly to trust that all is in good hands.

Important to note: only the mystic and the philosopher can tell the entire story, because they are not bound by structural conventions. Naturally, their stories will have some coloration. The mystic entices us to look at what exists inside us all, while the philosopher gladly takes place behind the wheel and do the driving, wherever that road leads them.


The Structure of Everything is a dual structure that can be envisioned, for instance, as a pyramid. The beauty of the pyramid is its simplicity: it is the duo-positional combination of the square of one (1) and the square of two (2). The pyramid shows us three oppositional realities: at the bottom two sets of opposing corners exists, while the top can be seen as the singular position in opposition to the four corners at the bottom.

The Unity that can be envisioned in top is once-removed from the four grounded positions. If we may believe the proposed translation, then the word 'pyramid' means One that comes forth from height. In plain English the word would translate into something like United but only in top.

While duality is the essential feature for the Structure of Everything, there is plenty freedom to come up with dual outcomes other than a pyramid. Let's follow up the duo-positional model using the squares of two (2) and three (3). This delivers 4 plus 9, showing us the 13 dimensions as found in a Rubik's Cube.

The nine external bottom boxes of a Rubik's Cube align through the center with the nine top boxes. The eight external boxes of the middle layer are aligned themselves through the center, four times in total. Together, one can find 13 alignments. If so desired, one can claim that the center box in the Rubik's Cube (the one that holds the turning mechanism) is the secret place for Unity, the square of one (1). In this model, it is not visible to the outside world.

Of course, the models on display can continue, for instance, with the duo-positional combination of the squares of three (3) and four (4), which means there are (9 + 16 =) 25 aligning outcomes, a number that itself is the square of five. Notice how we are moving away from simplicity. But perhaps Pythagoras comes to mind, as well as 3² + 4² = 5² and right-angled triangles? Pythagoras is said to be the first person to have called himself a philosopher.


Positionally placed before the pyramidal model, one more important duo-positional combination exists, before the squares of one and two. With the squares of zero (0) and one (1), the essential model of duality comes into focus. Visually, it is a simple dot surrounded by space. If so desired, we can declare the center of the dot hollow. 

This 01 pair is the basic Structure of Everything, though the freedom to use a different combination is ensured by the zero position. The place of zero need not be captured by Unity, yet this is an option. 

We can probably all admit that we have a strong affinity for Unity, be it with money, with language, with religion, with family. The exception is perhaps politics? We have gotten this far in life particularly because of Unity. It should not come as a surprise that the initial move that led to materialization can be proposed as based on that desire for Unity as well. 


Let's investigate the basic 0 – 1 pair with a number game that exists within the decimal system. When adding up all individual numbers of a single larger number, for instance number 1992, one can find a single final number. The individual numbers in the example add up to 1+9+9+2 = 21. These two numbers subsequently add up to 2+1 = 3. This way, one can state that 1992 is a 3 number.

It is understood that a 0 within a larger number would not add anything. With 2001, for instance, we can quickly see how 2+1 = 3. But 1992 was also a 3 number, and so we can see that a 9 also does not add anything to the outcome in this specific number game. Zero and 9 are behaving to some extent the exact same way.

The more important information to note is how out of all possible outcomes there is only one 0 number; as an outcome it occurs only once. All other outcomes range from 1 to 9 and are repeated ad infinitum in this specific adding game. The numbers with contents are diverse, while the singular number without content is found one time only. If so desired, one can declare 9 the placeholder for zero.


Looking at the origin of matter, the periodic table shows us an organization of atoms with a first shell (or period) containing a maximum of two positions, one for hydrogen, one for helium. Few of us may realize this in our daily lives, but hydrogen and helium are the most abundant elements in the universe. Only 2 percent of all matter is thought to be comprised of other elements. 

Let's describe several aspects of the atomic and subatomic reality, while looking for opportunities to declare something about the overall structure of everything. Keep in mind that I am not going for perfectly describing all that exists at all these levels, but for making the overall structural organization understandable from a philosophical perspective.

The distinguishable subatomic players are the proton, the electron and the neutron. One can claim that helium materialized first because, with two neutrons and two protons, it resembles the four grounded features of the pyramid. The single 'top' position in the helium structure (better: the extreme positions in the structure) would contain in total two electrons, which is a conflict with the single top position of the pyramid. These minuscule particles with a mass 1/1836 of a proton would undermine the idea of Unity in top. 

Ask anyone about fractures that exist in our established united ways and all can come up with examples. No church exists that unites all people. No money exists that all use exclusively. No family exists that has not experienced friction. The top appears united, and it is mostly united. But under a microscope one will always find fractures. Add to this how a pyramid is an abstract model only; Unity is an artificial reality. So, let's accept that both electrons try to point to Unity, trying to be of help in establishing a unifying environment.


The hydrogen atom is the only element that does not have a neutron; this atom is sometimes called protium as well. Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical substance in the universe, and close to all of it (99.98 percent) is protium. Contrast this with the other element of the first period helium that has two neutrons. To describe hydrogen fully: a relatively small number of hydrogen comes with one neutron (deuterium, stable, found in heavy water) or with two neutrons (tritium, which decays).

What can be distilled from this information is that the neutron has some interesting properties in our material reality. All elements besides hydrogen come with cooperating neutrons; yet hydrogen can exist in a charged balance without a neutron, containing just the positive proton and the negative electron.


The elements in the periodic table are numbered according to the number of electrons and the number of protons in the nucleus. Carbon, for instance, has 6 protons and 6 electrons and takes in position number 6. It gets a tiny bit sloppier with the neutrons, because three different outcomes are known to occur for carbon with 6, 7, or 8 neutrons.

Since this also involves our physical selves: most scientists declare that organic matter must have both carbon and hydrogen components. One element contains neutrons, the other most-abundant accompanying element does not.


Reviewing matter, one can state that with the Big Bang a new, self-based reality was created (A). Matter is therefore different from the two other options, resembling neither the impenetrable dark matter (0) or the stark general directive of dark energy (1). Yet within this new material reality (A) both experiences were incorporated nevertheless: a natural limit occurs with anything material, and matter has an internal drive to unite.

Though the universe is enormous, one must accept that the material outcome of the conflicting forces occurred first and foremost at the subatomic level. The packages that came into material being are protons, neutrons, electrons.  

Amazingly, the tremendous pressures occurring at pinprick spots immediately prior to materialization are captured in the outcome; there is no single basic unit that is the one unit representing materialization. Said differently: it was a messy event of many subatomic units becoming different, supporting aspects of matter (almost) simultaneously. We find a chorus of discontent.


With all these parts of the warped dark energy creating a self-based and new reality (A), we now live in a material universe. How did this happen? Let's present this in the abstract, acknowledging that there are imperfections in the outcome, but letting the imperfections be for now.

Imagine a thick layer of dark energy (still with 1) that is under enormous pressures, and how this layer, on its way to materialization, is starting to crack. In this presentation, the area under enormous pressure is said to become an enormously large number of cubicles, its walls implying cracks.

What we end up reviewing is a single cube of dark energy (1) under extreme pressure to examine the details; the cube is cracking on all 6 sides. Where at first this energy existed as dark energy only (1), it is exposed now to a reality it had no prior knowledge of. As a reaction, the center of the cube solidifies (A), its energy uniting. Yet only the center united.

One can state that a miniature recreation (A) was established of the large ball of dark matter (0) that the energized cube (1) had encountered just moments before as a solid wall. It is as if the directive to unite (1) was still followed, but since that was not possible, a recreation of that Unity (0) was pursued.

A priest would be able to state that this can be seen as the material recreation in miniature form (A) of God (0). A perfectly round ball at the center of the minuscule cube of warped dark energy (1), mimicking what it could not become, the God particle. Because the energy succeeds in achieving the desired outcome, let's call this ball the neutron (A).


Multiply this state with many, many neutrons occurring in the thick layer of dark energy under pressure (1), and then notice how much space is left between the neutrons (A). This  remnant of dark energy, too, had nowhere else to go. One option for organization seems most likely to have occurred.

The neutrons are created side by side per layer. Viewed from one perspective, the neutrons are organized in enormous rows like eggs in a carton. Yet on top of these layers, the next layer is stacked more tightly. Envision this fit, for instance, how a fifth egg would be stacked above four supporting eggs in an open carton. Please recognize the pyramidal structure that can be envisioned between each neutron plus its four neutrons found either one layer above or below.

In between the neutrons, a distinctly different particle starts to occur in this extreme environment, one that can be called the proton. The proton (also with A) is made from the remaining dark energy (1), the residue that exists between the neutrons. The proton is aware of its imperfection, because at heart there is no accomplished unity. No surprise therefore that the proton has a charge. Perhaps superfluous, (A) represents both the neutron and the proton.

Let's play one more chicken and egg statement with the claim that the protons materialized first in large numbers after which many neutrons had no choice but to also exist within the material realm. Innocent at heart, the neutron caused the proton to materialize. Not all too happy, and charged up, the proton returned the favor.


The forest is thick with trees. But if you come away with understanding how a priest could declare the following divine structure, the goal of seeing things in a new and different light is met. If the dark matter at the center of the Big Bang (0) is declared God, and if all neutrons (with A) recreated this perfect state in miniature format, then we can envision a divine resemblance at the heart of most elements with each neutron. That is, all elements except for hydrogen, the most abundant element in our Universe 2.0 that has no neutrons.

In reality, the abstract delivery is not perfectly followed. Realize that the thick layer of warped dark energy materialized in an almost flat and suppressed environment - almost. Just like the earth's circumference appears flat at close inspection from ground level, viewed from space we see its curvature quite clearly. Materializing energy occurred in an almost flat setting during the Big Bang, and the curvature would have to bend some of the outcomes away from that 'perfectly' flat-structured shape.

One could say indeed that with the creation of matter (A) a 'Big Bang' played out. Yet equally possible is that materialization occurred in a less combustible fashion. It wouldn't be pleasant for all dark energy involved, but calling it a bang is only proposed in the prevailing scientific story. The structure presented in this blog, using the exact same scientific information, has materialization occurring in a different spot and fashion. An alternative, more fitting name would be: the Big Crackle, the Big Roast, or the Big Whisper.

Seven periods (or shells) are currently known in chemistry, and the maximum number of elements per subsequent shell is as follows: 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32. One can notice how the same number repeats once in a following period, except for the first shell of 2 elements (it portraying 98% of all matter).

Presenting the numbers 2, 8, 18 and 32 in a different way, one can write them down as the square of one doubled, the square of two doubled, the square of three doubled, and the square of four doubled. It is almost as if a child was playing with elementary building blocks. Correction: make that two children.

Interesting perhaps to note is that a Fibonacci sequence did not occur. Fibonacci numbers are of interest, because the sequence occurs often in biological settings. That specific sequence makes use of a dual reality in which a zero (or an immature position) is an essential aspect. The famous rabbit calculation explains why the otherwise natural doubling effect is postponed in the Fibonacci sequence by one period.


The basics for the periodic table do not follow the Fibonacci sequence, and appears therefore surprisingly simpler. Still, an explanation must be found why the first period with a maximum of two elements occurs only once. Because, from the first period on, repetition seems the norm.

An explanation can be proffered with pointing to zero and how this is the singular number that represents the freedom to come to many different outcomes. Zero in a first position occurs just once; it is indistinguishable from any other zero. Yet as soon as a specific expression is established in a spot, the freedom to establish anything else in that initial spot is used up. Fascinatingly, in the first period we do find a doubled one-times-one outcome; two positions are found, once, and not repeated.

Any and all following periods appear to not be unique and – because our universe is based on a dual framework – an additional display of the same number would then automatically follow. Only with the first period, at the atomic heart, we find a character that is in essence unique; and this remains unique even when it is multiplied into every piece of matter in our universe.


The first shell or period with just two possible elements, hydrogen and helium, provides us a clear handle about the origin of matter. Hydrogen shows us on the one hand the unique expression of the single kind: one proton only with an accompanying electron, and no neutron. The outcome has a neutral charge. The other option of the first period, helium, shows us that this matter contains a more established dual nature - loud and clear. 

Recognize how we have two different atomic structures of the first period declaring their own version of unifying matter. As mentioned, both make up 98% of matter.

The second shell or period has a maximum of eight proton and eight electron positions, and let's postulate that the center bond is the essential bond. There is a limit of eight additional positions, and perhaps the importance of that number has become obvious by now, because we find 2 + 8 elements after completing the second period.

Recognize that the hydrogen atom is not at play here. Just like the two protons (2) in the helium nucleus representing a unifying position (together with the neutron and the electrons), we find a setup surrounded of two times four protons (8 in total) in the completed second period/shell. Together we should be able to see a pyramid doubled (2 times 5). 

It can be suggested that the center bond between the two neutrons, forced into matter by two protons, carries everything through. Though there is no demand that two protons and two protons only can carry the essential material bond, the question can get posed sincerely whether this dual setup explains our being here in material form best. Any and all added neutrons only confirm the established positions.


One should recognize the importance of doubling, this being applicable to our daily lives, too, because doubling helps in establishing the permanence of an outcome. Money as an institution, for instance, is not immediately firmly put in place; it takes time getting used to it, and one can suggest that in a way this is a form of doubling.  

Review the establishment of currencies, for instance, in the United States, and one can notice an era in which trial and error for coinage and bank notes took place. Particularly when a larger entity, in this case the Federal Reserve, guarantees a national currency, then folks are enticed to use that money. Quickly, but only after it is firmly established and confirmed, all can see the tremendous benefits of the artificial entity.

Or review the establishment of political parties. Particularly during the early stages of a new system, time is involved before parts (and parties) are established solidly. It takes time, confirmation, trial and error, before the various parts are solidly in place. In some kind of way, folks are waiting to see if a setup holds, before they start accepting it is as an established norm.

There are options to create different ways to solidify a system. With winner-takes-all (for instance, UK, US), the two major parties are solidly in control, and revolutions notwithstanding these two parties will be in control forever and ever. In proportional democracies it is easier to establish a new political party and send an old one to the graveyard. In the more modern version of democracy, the collective of parties is solidly established to represent a nation's power, but this is not a given for any individual party. Voters are the established power, and no two parties can fix the game and hog the seats all to themselves.


Where does the electron have its place with (A)? Because the proton is positively charged, it creates a charged field. The negatively charged electron portrays the negativity that must occur in the surroundings of the positive proton. One can imagine the internal forces of unifying energy at work in the proton, while it does not arrive at a single center of bliss. At heart, the proton is restless. In the field surrounding the proton, we find with the electron as the opposing charge the counter expression of this restless state. 

There is no essence to the electron, other than what is (measurably) supported by the local-environmental collective. It is possible to suggest therefore that the electron does not belong to (A), but to the surrounding combination of (1) and (0). It could be called antimatter, though this word appears to be used up by scientists at this moment in time.


A surprise awaits us if we declare that the desire for Unity was the driving force behind the inward movement of dark energy (1) before the Big Bang occurred. If there was indeed a motivation within a conscious collective, then this points to an unmet outcome within this state. Perhaps this happenstance existed as something that can be considered lost and that had to be found, or something that was seen as ideal and needed to be chased. This would indicate that the previous state of our universe was not the first state.

It gets complicated quickly, because the sketch of our previous state of the universe is already based on a distillation of our current situation. To move an additional step within this distillation, the chance of sincere warping is tremendous. Yet as option, we have found a plausible story line to reason that we do not live in Universe 2.0, but in Universe 3.0. The previous state was not based on a neutral satisfying condition.

The downside of this profound projection is that there is no additional layer available for discussion, except for outlandish speculation. We cannot know whether the state prior to our prior state was based on unification, as in ever, or whether boredom was so great that an ideal was promoted that ended up being a painful fallacy.


So, it was zero all along that caused materialization? The dark energy, caught in the middle between the solid dark matter (0) and the directive originally supported by all dark energy (1), used zero to its own benefit? The particular energy we are most concerned with (A) paid zero attention to the directive (1) and it paid zero attention to dark matter (0). It internalized both energetic positions as if they were its own, using the empowering position of ignorance as its magic wand.

The resulting matter (A) has unification at heart, but also a direction to move through time and space, in effect a separation. The big picture is not based on unification, yet the parts found within the big picture are based on a natural, unifying directive.

As said, the scientist will dislike this specific story because it cannot be replicated in a laboratory, even though she can recognize many aspects. The priest may be able to do more with it; not only can God be claimed at the spot of the solid dark matter (0), but the neutron within matter can be seen as the internalized divine handbook within each of us to find our way home. 

Yet ultimately the mystic and the philosopher may be on the right track, because their destination is not based on where we are coming from, but where we are going to.


In the next blog, we should try wrapping things up.

Blog Chips


Narrative based on In Search of a Cyclops, published by Penta Publishing.

Feel this draft can use improvement? Send feedback at: pentapublishing.com

Friday, March 2, 2018

7. Rubik's Cube

Perhaps already widely known, but the word simple comes from the word simplex, a noun that can be used as the opposite of complex. Simplex means one-fold, and when taking a sheet of paper and folding it once, it becomes obvious why we call something like that simple. The word tells us also that some of our ancestors envisioned a piece of paper and folded it once. They realized that this was simple.

Amazingly, the folded sheet of paper has an inside and an outside. And when opened, there is a spatial reality of parts of the paper being close to the viewer and some parts being removed, farther away from the viewer. Some parts of the folder are up and some parts are down. A simple one-folded piece of paper is already three-dimensional

Equally astonishing is the fact that folding a single sheet of paper already comes with the option to choose which of the two sides ends up on the inside and which one on the outside. There are just two ways of neatly folding a sheet of paper once.

In this blog structures of the spatial kind are examined. Some people have a knack for dealing with spatial realities, but not everyone is equally good at it.


Fold a piece of paper twice, and the outside of the paper is basically one half of one side of a sheet of paper. Three-quarters of the sheet end up being folded inside. One half of one side becomes visible when we open up the paper once, and the remaining two halves of one side, basically the back side of the sheet, becomes visible when we open the remaining fold.

How awkward our words when an entire story needs to be told about something as simple as opening up a piece of paper that was folded twice. Imagine the length of the story, when describing opening up a piece of paper that was folded four times. No use for going into that here, because things can get rather complex that way.

What can be expressed in a simple manner is that unfolding a piece of paper constitutes a development. The word development sounds like we are building upon previous experiences. Yet the word hints at our taking away layers, rather than adding layers. Developing is the opposite of enveloping. We therefore say that a story unfolds, and not how it gets folded more. 


In a previous blog, the tetrahedron pyramid was discussed as an incorrect construction. It is not that it cannot be created, but one of the three positions portrayed at the bottom of the tetrahedron contains a double feature melded into one. 

A good example is found with man, woman and child with 'human being' appointed in top. Where two of the bottom positions are expressed with gender in mind, the third is presented in a neutral manner, as if a sheet of paper got folded neatly once, but the second fold involved only a section of the sheet. To have each of the parts be an entity of the same order, boy and girl should be expressed as two separate entities, collectively replacing the singular child, thus creating a regular pyramid.

There is no system in which three diverse entities of an equal kind exist. There can be two entities of the same order: parent and child, for instance, or male and female. As discussed, there can be four entities of the same order as well. Yet the only correct way to have three diverse entities of the same order occurs when adding a negative: man, woman, no children. The third position is understood as a negating equal and this occurs therefore at the abstract level only.  

In actuality, there are no three diverse entities of the same order, and organizations managed-by-three are known to be quite the task.


When looking closely at any aspects mentioned by humans to exist in threes, something peculiar always becomes visible. One can say gas, fluid, and solid, but these are three stages, not three different entities of the same stature. Plus, plasma can get added to the set. Equally, a chair with three legs needs to be recognized as a single object; it does not come in threes. 

Other familiar examples are coach, business and first class, but a fourth category could have been added just as easily. Next to the three primary colors, there is also black and white. Meanwhile with past, present and future, only one of them is really present.

Three dimensions are said to deliver our spatial reality. Yet by using Rubik's Cube it can be shown that there is something peculiar going on here, too. Just like we count to ten because of our ten fingers, humans have declared the dimensions to be three-folded because of who we are.


Though other spatial objects can be proposed, the cube is universally seen as the visual expression of spatial dimensions. Six equal fields form the outside of a cube, and each specific field can be declared to be left, right, up, down, front, or back. Let's take a closer look at a Rubik's Cube to see if there are other ways to declare the spatial dimensions.

When placed on a table, a Rubik's Cube has three layers of small boxes that can get turned sideways around a center. Each layer contains nine of these small boxes, except for the box in the center that contains the turning mechanism, hidden out of sight. With 26 exterior boxes in total, the dimensional options can get explored better than with a simple cube.

First off, each of the six directions of our three-dimensional world can be declared to be a side of the cube, with a total of nine boxes per field. Because many of these boxes have more than one side, let's simplify this and appoint just the center box per field to represent the same six directions of left, right, up, down, front and back. So far, everything fits the familiar three-dimensional explanation.


Rubik's Cube has eight corner boxes. They distinguish themselves from the other boxes by having three sides with each side a differently colored sticker on it. It should be effortless to imagine an internal line from one corner to its opposite. With all four top corners internally aligned to the four bottom corners, straight through the center, a system with four spatial dimensions is declared. In the image below, each of the four dimensions has half a red and half a green section.

Four dimensions, eight corners to the cube.

Notice how there are no good words to easily describe each of these relative directions: up-front-right, up-front-left, down-front-right, down-front-left, up-back-right....you get the drift. The Western human brain hasn't worked much with the spatial four-dimensional system, and so we never invented easy words for them.

In human culture some folks do work with eight points, for instance, in Buddhism and Hinduism. Mandalas are sometimes portrayed with eight aspects.

Still, it is difficult to envision four spatial dimensions in our day-to-day lives. Hold a picture of the entire earth in your mind, and place a cube around it. The eight points of the cube are now all sticking out equally, away from the globe in the middle. This way, it should be easier to envision the system with the four dimensions; perhaps this helps with realizing that in our day-to-day lives we live on the surface of that planet, feet safely on the ground, but warping our overall spatial understanding nevertheless.


Let's review the pyramid once more to further investigate our spatial understanding. We can say that there are four horizontal directions to a pyramid: left, right, front and back. To complete the set, the top can be declared as up. One direction has seemingly gone missing from the six pack: down. Naturally, the four directions at the bottom of the pyramid can collectively be seen as the expression of down. Yet this works only if one climbs the entire pyramid until the four corners become visible. That way the pyramid does not block the view itself of one or two of its corners. 

The big picture with all five pointy directions is available while looking down from one lofty position only: the top of the pyramid.

The pyramid is an excellent example of three dimensions. If so desired, one can see 4 dimensions in the pyramid as well. The sloping edges of a pyramid, going up from bottom to top, come in four, not three. In the image repeated below, the edges of two pyramids are shown as red and green.

Following this setup, the entire cube can be envisioned as having six pyramids tightly packed inside, all of them having four sloping edges. As mentioned, two are highlighted in green and red. The remaining four pyramids inside the cube all have two red and two green sloping edges. From the corners, the edges all point towards the center of the cube. Instead of having the three dimensions point outwardly, we can state that they point inwardly, and that the eight corners declare space to be four dimensional, pointing outwardly.

And that's not the only way to add a different dimensional perspective next to our common three-dimensional vision.


Let's review yet another dimensional system. The simplest structure would be the dual structure. Yet, as seen with the binary system, it is not the easiest system to use. In the binary system, there are two components: 1s and 00s, but it gets complicated quickly, because there is more than one 1 involved. The 1 that is 'the one' is not that obvious in the binary system, and from a systematic approach it is more correct to distinguish many 1s, rather than just the one.

Believe it: it is possible to create a system that has two dimensions only. The simplest form of anything spatial is a field. For example, a drawing on a piece of paper can be seen as the simplest spatial visualization available to us. Simplest because, when imagining a single direction, the only place available to draw this one dimension is in our minds, not in our reality; there is simply nothing in real life that is one-dimensional. 

Review, for instance, a single dot on a piece of paper. The dot is already two-dimensional, width and length. If you wish, one can state that even a dot or a drawing must have a minute amount of thickness, and is therefore always three-dimensional. 

Our mind can accept spatial realities that in reality do not occur. This is highly beneficial. For instance, we can imagine the five directions of a pyramid without climbing the solid structure. In our minds, we can look straight through the solid building blocks as if we were born with super powers. In our minds, we can look around corners.


After folding a piece of paper once and thus having two spatial fields in our hands, we can open this up like a folder or book. Hold it sideways and a 'V' becomes visible that has depth to it, just like a folder or book. 

Imagine an 'X' from the same angle, representing two sheets of paper crossing each other midsection. This spatial visualization would be a correct and complete two-dimensional system (of fields). Note how this 'X' appoints all eight corners that were distinguished in the cube. But note especially how there is no indication of anything three-based in this setup. With two fields, four half-sheets are sticking out from the middle of the X, and next we move up immediately to eight pointy corners.

Having a hard time seeing the 'X'? Then spread out the fingers of both hands, and move your hands together until all fingers are interlocked at the bottom. It's almost like praying, but with the fingers spread out. Place your thumb nails on top of each other, positioned close to the center of the X. Keep those fingers spread, while checking out the depth of the configuration.

Important to note is that there are either three or four additional options to view this dual-dimensional system. Starting out with the first 'X' of three in total, the crux can be aligned from bottom to top. This occurs, for instance, when placing your interlocking hands on a table, pinkies on the bottom. The other two options occur when twisting the hands sideways, with one alignment occurring from left to right, and the other from front to back. 

How this works for the four X positions in total is harder to write down, because we never invented easy words for each four-dimensional direction. I'll leave it up to you to check that the 'X' can be situated in four distinct directions just as well.


Must we see space either as a two- or four-dimensional reality? Nothing is holding us back from seeing it this way nor is there a demand that we must use something different than the three-dimensional format. Yet being able to construct a different spatial system shows how there is not just one format and one format only. Just like zero in the binary system delivering the freedom to create other numeral systems, adding a single fold to a single piece of paper, or more than one, allows us to work with different spatial systems. There is no singular standard, except for the sheets of paper. 


The natural forces as presented in this blog come in four: electric force, magnetic force, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Collectively they create a gravitational field that, when the amount of matter is right, will point inwardly to a specific direction. Like a pyramid, the four forces will have no other option than to escalate into a single direction.

Is gravity a force all by itself, or is gravity a result that came to be, nothing but the synergy of the other forces? The prevailing scientific idea is that gravity is a force by itself. In this blog, we investigate further whether this must be the case.


Imagine a cylinder filled with water, containing silver slivers. With a wooden spoon, stir the water so it swirls around, lifting all slivers. Next, let the stirring water die down by itself. What is fascinating is that the slivers will have sunk to the bottom of the cylinder already before the water has fully calmed down. On the bottom, in the center, a heap of silver slivers has collected themselves, despite the water still moving about.

What has happened is that when the movement slowed a bit, the silver slivers continue to move about, including some of them now also getting close to the center of the swirl. At the center, there is no specific movement, just like the eye of the storm is without wind. The slivers getting caught at the center will sink to the bottom. Long before the water has stopped spinning, all slivers will have been collected in that one spot.

Imagine the solar system before the sun started to shine, but after the most turbulent moments had subsided. There is a slowing of speed, because the fine materials of the original state become a drag. The floating matter is now slowly collecting itself at the centers of maelstroms, eddies and what not in the discs of gas and dust of our early solar neighborhood. Most of this matter ends up being collected in the center, our future sun. 

The more matter collects in a single spot, the stronger the gravitational field of forces will do its attractive work, particularly on the collected matter. The slowed-down spin of the whirlpool ends up becoming the spin of the collected matter.


How do collective gravitational fields work? First, it is good to remember that matter does not exist at a spatial standstill. All matter arrived from the Big Bang and therefore has an on-going speed, even when we may not immediately realize this is truly happening. The solar system today is still speeding away from Area X, the spot in the Big Bang where our solar-system matter originated. This is a separate spatial movement next to the one of earth's spin, the earth circling the sun, and the solar system coming along in the Milky Way's circling movement.

Let's use the four-dimensional spatial setup, and place one cube around the earth and one around the moon. If these two bodies were simply floating away from Area X in a collective straight line (which they are not), then the two cubes would be 'touching' each other in the same spot all the time (which they are not).

In this setup, the matter of both bodies would have a combined center that is then like the center of stirred water in a cylinder, or the eye of a hurricane, an area of relative stillness. Sooner rather than later, both bodies would end up at this location, becoming one.

Since it may be difficult to comprehend this image, let's use as example two boats floating on a lake on a still day. The two boats are both moving in the same direction and with the same speed; the lake is tremendously large. The boats are found in each others vicinity, otherwise the desired outcome would not occur. 

Both boats have a length to them, and the wakes in the water will start up from the front of the boats. The wakes occurring between both boats experience some reinforcement and cancellation of their magnitudes. This altering of the movements creates a directional tendency for both boats to float towards one another until they touch; there is no reinforcement or cancellation occurring for the wakes on the outsides of both boats. That's why their initial vicinity is important, because the wakes' influential effects are noticeable only in close proximity.

The spatial reality of our speeding away from Area X can be seen as the lake in the example above. Since the condition is not met that no other movements disturb the outcome for earth and moon, these bodies will fortunately not collide and become one. Yet the gravitational eye of forces that exists between both in the collective movement away from Area X is enough to command the tides.


People fight over space, not because of the character of space, but because of the character of matter. No matter exists where other matter exists already (and leaving both entities of matter internally intact). An altered state occurs therefore inherently with matter. Not only was matter created first in the altering process of the Big Bang, but over time other matter will have altered or influenced the specific outcome yet again.

Perspectives can differ, and perspectives can alter outcomes. In politics, to mention a complex setting that contains many perspectives, one can recognize a power struggle over many matters. Yet before addressing any matter, the decision how to decide a subject matter is often made beforehand. The decision structure can influence the outcome.

If there is just one spot (for instance, the single seat of a royal ruler), then the fight for that one spot may be most intense. The potential for further escalation is inherently present when just a single spot matters: there is either a win or not, and other options are not considered. We can say that bloodshed is the most extreme outcome of the single seat of absolute power.

We also have powers of the inclusive kind, most clearly expressed in the version of representative democracy, such as found in places like Sweden and Spain. Sweden, for instance, has just one house and one house only and no president. Though this collective outcome inherits the same amount of power as held by a single ruler, all seats are fairly dispensed according to the outcome of all votes. I do not know of any bloodshed associated with this form of proportional democracy, because all voters end up being represented by their actual choice.

All things considered, there is no single Structure of Everything. The one exception is the dual structure that at heart contains freedom as one if its essential parts.

Matter cannot occupy space twice, and a little dance by the earth, the moon and the sun helps avoid a bloodshed sky; smart — because in reality there is an abundance of space


In this blog our three-dimensional reality was hijacked by a four-dimensional experience that in turn got hijacked by a dual-dimensional system. It doesn't really matter how we view space, because space is readily available with no end in sight. Rubik's Cube makes it simple to entertain even a 13-dimensional system, though using it would be complex. 

Matter takes up space and matter can battle other matter for dominance of that space, often resulting in an altered state. Our universe contains a diverse amount of structures. With plasma, matter can be declared a different state next to solid, fluid and gas. And so the story unfolds further about our exciting and fundamentally diverse universe.

In the next blog, we're going to dig a little deeper and talk about our origin.

Blog Chips 


Narrative based on In Search of a Cyclops, published by Penta Publishing.

Feel this draft can use improvement? Send feedback at: pentapublishing.com