This is a thought that just popped into my head after reviewing my last post. Right off the top of my head, I picked out two candidates for the fourth dimension of space; Scale and State.

The underlying principle used to distinguish them was a concept that is spatial in nature, that lies beyond the immediate scope of a volume.

Technically speaking, a four dimensional space can theoretically contain an infinite number of volumes, much the way three dimensional space can potentially contain an infinite number of surfaces; what we typically experience as the expression of two dimensionality.

To illustrate, in three dimensions, you can observe a large, but presumably finite number of spheres populating space. Any given sphere can be broken down into onion layers, infinitesimally, discounting the plank limit on matter.

In terms of energy shells, however, like magnetic fields, the illustration holds up. The upper limit for the size of a magnetic field is the sphere of three dimensional space itself.

Our concept of space is object oriented, dominated by the nature of vision and physical movement. That is, our perceptions are limited by the context of our bodies, which we generally think of as three dimensional.

The notion of higher dimensions led us to the concept of hyperspace and objects like a hyper-sphere, the descriptions of which seem paradoxical.

For example, hyperspace can be described as a place with an infinite, unbounded volume on it’s surface, and in each layer you slice it into—which you can do an infinite number of times.

It’s an expansion of the concept of a number line, where you can have an infinite number of points between any two established points. Say, zero and one.

Of course, if you happen to be a point, this linear property is inconceivable. So it is for us, trying to think of four dimensions of space.

Even so, we can glimpse and recognize the fourth dimension when making observations of changes in state or scale.

A dimension of scale is demonstrated by the onion layers example, and it is bi-directional, or polarized, like the three dimensions we are most familiar with.

An object can be scaled up or down (in some cases you might think of it as in and out). It bends the mind a bit to imagine things scaling up or down to infinity, especially when you consider the alternative, a finite but unbounded line—a circle.

In a loop, the infinitely large scale seamlessly meets up with the infinitely small scale, revealing that their differences are only apparent at a distance from each other.

Side by side, they end up being equal.

Mind boggling, isn’t it?

If it isn’t, then consider the fact that the entire universe is a scaled object. The universe, and everything in it, is built to a specific measure, which we’ve identified as a plank unit.

The only possibility of a universe achieving a true change in scale, would be an instance where the scale of the plank unit is higher or lower than what we are bound to.

The thing is, you cannot tell from within the universe if the plank scale changes, because everything else changes relative to it—unless you observe it from outside the universe.

Like many things, the scale of a universe is best observed from another position—in this case, another universe.

A change in the scale of your own universe would only become apparent if you observed a global change in scale across all observable universes, indicating that it is not their scale that is changing, but your own.

Of course, by introducing the possibility of change, you have really entered the realm of things that are defined by state.

The concept of a state is one we are familiar with, because we experience change.

Take into account the association between space and time, you can say that state is the particle of time; the infinitely divisible singularity with an intrinsic value of both zero and one.

That is, existence cannot be reduced to less than a state. If you discount all of time, or isolate the most finite instant, you enter a state that does not change. Call it the zero state, or call it now. Or, call it eternity.

They all end up being the same thing.

Focusing in on states and change makes thinking about time easier.

Time is a concept evolved from the experience of change, and it only becomes possible when you are dealing with something that can have more than one state.

By thinking in terms of state, you can get over the paradoxes of loops, circles and cycles of time. As beings with more than one state, we commonly return to known states.

If you can make rational sense of something like going to sleep each night, or waking up every morning, you can cope with the possibility of revisiting a point in time.

The main difficulty we have with the concept of time travel is tied to the polarity of logic; cause and effect.

To return to a point in time, there has to be more than one chain of causality leading to or from any moment in time. The trick lies in finding the paths, and knowing how to enter or exit a moment on these different paths.

Things like the grandfather paradox dissolve when you account for the vectors of the moment.

Assuming you found the path to sync up with your grandfather, before your birth, you would already be moving in a construct with multiple pasts and futures for any given moment.

Killing your grandfather does not negate the path you followed to get there, but the moment of that killing is a deviation from that path.

One branch of reality accounts for the events leading up to your birth. Another branch accounts for the untimely death of your grandfather. You end up with two instances of reality that are co-equal, even though they may become radically different because of the consequences of moving through time.

Reality becomes entirely relative, dictated by choices and actions the participants in any situation make, regardless of how they got there. Because they exist, the have the potential to be alive or dead in what might outwardly seem to be the same time.

This last part is where much of the difficulty of temporal thought lies. Our participation in the universe is both objective and subjective. Our actions have consequence, and our lives are shaped by the consequences of our actions.

Some kind of relative distance is involved; a bit like being in or out of phase with particular events.

Taken together, phase and state are both spatial aspects of time, which remains discrete from, but inextricably involved with space.

Account for our involvement, and you have a universe with three distinct media; things we conceive of as space, time and mind.

You really don’t get a viable existence without the integration of all three aspects. They blend together into a single continuum, with seamlessly smooth transition gradients in one direction, and hard, high-contrast boundaries with exclusive domains in another.

In our three dimensional world, they seem to stand apart. Perhaps in the fourth dimension, they all blend together into the same thing. If you really stop and think about it, asking where is space? and when is time?

For us, it’s all in our heads.