The War & Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception : Book 2
Resolving Paradoxes of the Recent Past - Virgin Consciousness

Tractate 8 : The Error of Einstein

1955 AD Einstein/Science - The Error of The System built upon a foundation of time and space

The Error: The paradox of 'time and space'.
The perception: Einstein moves our perceptual understanding regarding the Kant/Hegel system being filled with ‘timelessness and spacelessness’ back into the system being filled with time and space. As such, ‘time and space’, with the help of Einstein, once again have a location within which they can be found. However, the understanding regarding the role of ‘time and space’ and the role of ‘timelessness and spacelessness’, as well as the understanding regarding the interrelationship between ‘time and space’ and ‘timelessness and spacelessness’ not only remain in a state of confusion but even more disconcerting, the existence of such an interrelationship is not recognized as a significant aspect of the ‘larger’ system.

It is this state of confusion which will be specifically addressed within this tractate.

Constancy of consistency
Constancy of sequentiality
Constant of physicality
Coherency of time
Constancy of time
Constant ‘k’ variable
D = t
Doppler affects of time
Einstein’s mirror
Experiential permutations
Hegel’s mirror
Imaginary numbers
Incoherency of individuality
Incoherency of time
Metaphysical mirror
‘real’ illusion
Real numbers
Tunnel of abstraction
Tunnel of perception
Universal building block
Variability of time

Part I: The Paradox of ‘i’

Newton, Einstein, and ‘i’ are the key to understanding how it is we get from the location of ‘here’ to the location of ‘there’ and the key to understanding how it is we metaphysically go from understanding the direct proportional interrelationship of time and distance to understanding the interrelationship of inverse time being directly proportional to the inverse of distance and then proceed to metaphysically understanding the concept of squaring such interrelationships. In essence, this tractate examines the very relationship of time and distance whether it is in a form of direct proportionality, a form of inverse proportionality, a form of time multiplied by time, or a form of space multiplied by space.

This is a process of stepping onto a surface of quicksand whose depth is indeterminable. The only tangible aspect of this tractate is an intuitive sense that the depth of this ‘quicksand’ will go well beyond Einstein and his concepts of relativity as it applies to metaphysical thought.

This tractate, Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein, is the most precarious departure from the past tractates found within the work The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. This tractate departs from the ‘known’ dilemmas/paradoxes of present day metaphysics into the realm of yet to be defined metaphysical paradoxes.

To avoid such a journey, however, is to turn away from the true nature of metaphysics, which is to explore regions yet to be theoretically examined by science itself. To avoid addressing potentially hypothetical challenges, which a new metaphysical system may ‘encounter’, to avoid addressing potentially hypothetical dilemmas, which a new metaphysical system may ‘suggest’, is to show no confidence in the new system itself. To avoid the inevitable is in essence to shut down the very concept of what a new metaphysical system is required by its very nature to address. To shun examining the full implications of a new metaphysical system including its impact upon the theoretical is to shun the obligations of the most basic principles of metaphysics itself: ‘To thine own self be true.’

And why is the principle ‘To thine own self be true.’ so basic to metaphysics? Principles are so fundamentally basic to metaphysics because it is metaphysics, which deals with the most basic of principles, principles rooted in the purity of truth itself.

So how are we to delve into such an immense project as attempting to understand the concept regarding:

  1. Metaphysically understanding the direct proportional interrelationship of time and distance.
  2. Metaphysically understanding the interrelationship of inverse time being directly proportional to inverse of distance.
  3. Metaphysically understanding the concept regarding the square of the interrelationships expressed in #1 and #2.

To understand the complexity of direct, inverse, and square relationships of time and distance, we will focus upon mathematics and mathematics’ fundamental explanation regarding the relationship between time and distance. If I were a mathematician, the following concepts could be seriously considered for their mathematical soundness. Since I am not a mathematician, rather than the mathematical soundness of the arguments being the points to consider, one might better focus upon the metaphysical implications of what bits and pieces may emerge from the following examination of mathematics and what clues mathematics might conceivably provide metaphysics regarding an understanding of what lies outside the physical.

Having established a defense for any irrationality which may emerge from the remainder of this tractate, let’s explore where reason, fused with mathematics, might take us in regards to metaphysics as we attempt to resolve the puzzling state existing between Zeno’s ‘i’, Newton’s ‘i’, and Einstein’s ‘i’.

The new metaphysical perception which ‘being’ being ‘Being’ creates regarding Zeno, Newton, Einstein, relativity, and the modern physics of quantum mechanics is an unusual one to say the least. Modern physics is immersed in the realm of the physical universe. This is as it should be. What should not be the case however is the perplexing abstractual state of existence within which modern mathematics (the language of physics) and physics find themselves existing. Mathematics and modern physics find themselves immersed within the realm of physicality with no sense of understanding the abstractual significance of the very physical reality they are examining. Mathematics and physics are in a state of abstractual confusion.

This state of abstractual confusion was not ‘created’ by mathematics and physics but rather was created by the inability of metaphysics to break out of its state of uncertainty regarding the most fundamental of first truths: ‘I am.’ ‘The universe is.’ ‘1st cause is.’ This state of uncertainty regarding whether first truth is ‘I am.’, ‘The universe is.’, or ‘1st cause is.’, once logically hurdled will allow metaphysics to once again lay down a model which can act as a challenge, act as a guide towards which the energies of mathematics and physics may be directed.

Until a theoretical goal is established by metaphysical ingenuity, mathematics and physics will have no beacon towards which they can advance. Without such a beacon, mathematics and physics will have no choice but to visualize each new advance as a step into the blackness of the unknowable which they find surrounding their reality of the physical. Each step will no doubt expand their horizons, expand the very limits of their presently existing physical universe but each expansion will find itself forever being followed by the question: Into ‘what’ did our expanding universe just expand?

It is Hegel who points the way regarding an examination of the new metaphysical system, an open non-Cartesian Kantian abstractual system powered by a closed Cartesian Aristotelian physical system, ‘being’ being ‘Being, symbiotic panentheism introduced by this work: The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception. It is this new metaphysical system, ‘being’ being ‘Being’ which allows us to understand, in the metaphysical sense, the interrelationship between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

If the new metaphysical system of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ aids us in understanding the connection between metaphysical Newtonian physics and metaphysical Einsteinian physics, what then becomes of the ‘i’. Is ‘i’ a grammatical error? ‘i’ is not a grammatical error. The ‘i’ is in fact, ‘i’ not I.

It is through the process of applying metaphysics to the concept of ‘i’ that we begin to understand theoretical metaphysics today as opposed to practical metaphysics and metaphysical engineering. It is through the process of following the trail the concept ‘i’ marks as it travels through the physics of Newton and then moves through the physics of Einstein that we gain an understanding as to the metaphysical concepts Einstein’s introduction of relativity has to offer us as a specie of rational, reasoning entities of individuality.

So where do we begin? We begin by examining the most obvious aspect of our reality. We begin by examining what it is we find ourselves immersed within. We begin by examining the realm we call space.

The three most familiar aspects of space are the three dimensions: length, depth, and height.

In a sense, dimensions are nonexistent unless ‘something’, for example: ‘matter’ and ‘energy’, are found within the dimensions themselves. Dimensions immerse themselves within matter and energy or one could say matter and energy immerse themselves within dimensions.

There are such ‘things’ as zero dimensional objects: ‘a’ geometric point, emotions of love and hate, concepts of ethical and unethical, justice and injustice, knowledge …

There are such ‘things’ as one-dimensional objects: lines, rays, line segments, open line segments …

There are such ‘things’ as two-dimensional objects: circles, squares, triangles, semi-circles, rectangles, rhombi, arcs, parabolas, hyperbolas, ellipses…

There are such ‘things’ as three-dimensional objects: cubes, spheres, cones, square pyramids, Klein bottles, Mobia strips, dodecahedral objects…

As we introduce more dimensions, we introduce more complexity. Interestingly enough as we introduce dimensions themselves as opposed to the lack of dimensions, we leave the concept of abstraction behind and begin entering the realm of the concrete. Now this process is fuzzy in the beginning but it begins to come into focus as we move further and further into physical reality through the process of adding additional dimensions.

The point is: Once we have left the concept of dimensions, zero dimensions; we begin leaving the realm of pure abstraction and entering the realm of the physical. This is not to say abstraction no longer exists. Once abstraction exists, how can abstractions ever be erased?

Erasing a picture of a flower does not erase the concept of the flower nor does it erase a flower. Erasing a picture of a flower simple erases ‘the’ picture of the flower. The concrete item, the flower, and the abstract item, the concept of a flower, remain intact, unaffected by your action of erasing a picture of a flower.

In fact, once the flower has been created, its concept, the abstract understanding of the flower can never be erased for it exists. The question becomes: Which came first the abstract or the physical existence of the flower? Simplified, the question becomes: Which came first, the abstract or the physical? Metaphysically we continue to come back to the question: Which came first the chicken or the egg.

Darwinian biologists would say the egg came first. But Creationist biologists would say the chicken came first. Again and again the question becomes: Which came first the chicken or the egg? Metaphysically we are no further along than we ever were.

Now I cannot speak for biologists or cosmologists, nor am I suggesting that once the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, is resolved we will have resolved the question of which came first the abstract or the concrete. What I am suggesting is that we may be able to better understand the interrelationship between the concrete and abstract if we spend a little time with Newton, Einstein, and i.

So now what? Now we need to get back on task and move to the next dimension, the fourth dimension.

Most of us are familiar with four dimensions: length, width, height and time.

It is within the four dimensions, length, width, height, and time that we find the comfort of our home, our environment, our planet, our universe. It is here we find the sense of belonging as we immerse ourselves in the company of our spouses, children, relatives, friends, coworkers, and fellow humans. It is here we sleep, eat, reproduce, meditate, contemplate, and vegetate..

Time cuts through our universe, immerses our universe within itself, and immerses itself within our universe. Time has been shown by Einstein to be a function of what it is we find within our universe, namely matter and energy. Some would speculate this is not the case. They would say matter and energy are a function of time. This debate is not the issue of this tractate, nor is the chicken and egg paradox the issue of this tractate.

The issue of this tractate, Einstein and i, lies rather in the understanding the relationship of the chicken and the egg, understanding the relationship of time and matter/energy, understanding the relationship of the abstract and the concrete.

So once again, where do we go from here? We need to enter the realm of the abstract. It will be a while before we come back to our home, the realm of the concrete, so if you are a homebody you may wish to skip this tractate for we will not be coming home for a long while.

Goodbye concrete, Hello abstract:
Leaving the concrete is as simple as saying goodbye to the physical. If we say, Goodbye, to the concrete, the concrete no longer exists as a reality and we have no other choice but to accept the fact that we now exist ‘within’ the abstract. What of the concrete, is it gone? No, the concrete is no more ‘gone’ than the flower is ‘gone’ once we have erased the picture of the flower. The concrete still exists, the universe, our galaxy, our sun, our planet, our homes, our loved ones, our communities still exist, its just that they do not exist within our ability to physically experience them once we have ‘left’ them behind.

Metaphysically the action of leaving the physical behind means we not only leave the physical but we leave the ability to take actions which ‘create’ new experiences, leave behind the ability to add ‘newness’ to the whole. Being within the abstract does not mean we cannot experience what we have never before experienced for we can experience what it is others have experienced, we cam experience what it is we have generated in terms of having created ourselves as entities of unique knowing identified by our unique experiencing generated by our actions of free will applied within the realm of the illusion we call the universe/physical reality. The complete details regarding the concept of growth of the abstract generated by the active action of free will operating freely within the realm of the physical is addressed in Tractates one through seven.

The objective of this tractate, however, lies elsewhere. The objective of this tractate is to examine the metaphysical significance regarding the interrelationship between Newtonian physics and Einsteinian physics.

It is because we have committed ourselves to examining concepts of abstract mathematics, because we have committed ourselves to examining what lies beyond the physical/concrete that we have labeled the physical as simply an illusion.

The statement: ‘Our universe is an illusion.’ needs to be rephrased. It is much too uncomfortable a statement to make so pointedly. It is best for our specie that we not make the statement so pointedly since making the statement creates the impression that our universe, our experiences, and we ourselves are simply illusions. Creating the perception that the concrete is an illusion is not only threatening to our ability to go back into the concrete but creating the illusion that the concrete is an illusion suggests that once we have turned our backs upon the physical, the physical never existed and that goes against everything we believe, reason, observe, or thought we believed, reasoned, and observed.

Once we have said goodbye to the physical, what are we to say then about our new perception of the concrete, which is now beyond our reach other than through abstractual perceptions of belief, observation, and reason. We must replace the concept of what was, our ‘having’ experienced the concrete, with the understanding that the concrete ‘did’ exist, ‘does’ exist and thus the concrete is not an illusion, but rather the concrete was a ‘real’ illusion, is a ‘real’ illusion.

Redefining the physical to be a ‘real’ illusion as opposed to being simply an illusion helps us understand that once we leave the physical behind and step into the purity of abstraction, we will be able to return to the region we called our home,. Understanding the concept that the physical remains a location into which we can return may allow us to feel comfortable enough to stay within the purity of our new environment and examine this realm known as the abstract.

Having established a life line back to the concrete, let’s now begin examining our new environment: the abstract.

From the point of view generated by the purity of abstraction, we can see various degrees of dimensions. We can see the lack of dimension, zero dimensions. From the point of view of the purity of the abstract, we can see that our universe is not wrapped ‘within’ four dimensions but in fact the four dimensions are more than four. Regardless of how many dimensions we are able to observe, we can see the multiple dimensions, wrap themselves ‘around’ that ‘thing’ called the universe, immerse themselves ‘within’ the universe, find the universe immersed ‘within’ them, immersed within dimensions, exist as just that, dimensions.

As we look around most of you would drift towards the abstract concepts which personally interest you. Fortunately or unfortunately, you are with me, a theoretical metaphysician. As such you have no choice but to drift along with me as long as you continue to read this article.

So what then is it I see? I see Einstein’s abstract concept: E=mc(2)

I see the c(2). I see c as being squared. I see c: the velocity of light. I see velocity as being an abstraction of distance and the abstraction of time. Furthermore, I see c(2) as being the velocity of light squared, as being the quotient of distance squared and time squared.

I see the abstract from the point of view of the abstract while at the same time I understanding my having experienced of the concrete while having been ‘within’ the concrete. I begin to sense a noncontradictory perception regarding the two, regarding the connection of the two, regarding the need of each for the other, of harmony, of brotherhood, cooperation, respect generated by the tool of separation through inclusion as applies to the two, the concrete and the abstract.

However, I am jumping ahead of myself. I forgot for a moment that you are with me and I must go at a pace comfortable for you.

So to begin again: What is it I see? I see a paradox. I see complexity ripe on the vine and waiting to be plucked. I see a situation awaiting the single application of Husserl’s reductionism and Ockham’s razor simultaneously.

The purity of abstraction provides infinity to the infinite power of possibilities. To make such a vast choice of possibilities manageable, it would be best to examine the infinity to the infinity power of options by examining one concept within this realm of potential perception. The single option of our focus will be the concept of numbers as it applies to Newtonian and Einsteinian physics.