The Final Truth

A Theory of Practice

The Thirteen Intentions of Creation

In Chapter 2 we saw how the Thirteen Intentions of Creation can be interpreted as distinct steps in a sequence; however, a purely sequential approach hides the fact that they are actually discretizations of a continuous process. Seeing the Intentions as individual entities is convenient for an initial study, but we eventually realize that it is not possible to completely separate the meanings of one Intention from those of the next.¹

But what kind of process do the Intentions define? We ought to find an answer if we try to define what a process is according to the Intentions themselves. In first place, Intention #2 (linearization) is the one that better depicts what a process is, because all processes entail a linear abstraction (sequence) of events. Second, a process is understood insofar as we can see into its development, because then we can analyze it from beginning to end, and we are able to see it coming full-circle before our eyes. This leads us to the following:

process (IC #2) as a whole (IC #10) -> 2 + 10 = 12 -> IC #12

Can we imagine a process described by the Intentions ordered in sequence? Yes, and while we are at it let us name this process as Process. As noted before, a process that can be seen in its entirety is necessarily a finite (IC #12) process. Thus we can assume that the Process must begin and end with some Intention of Creation, and since we know that Intention #1 represents beginning and Intention #12 represents end, then the Process can only be contained in the interval from Intention #1 to #12. In short, the Process is actually a 12-Intention process. Intention #13 is the only Intention that escapes and transcends this Process.

Every process produces a result once it ends, an output, and the 12-Intention process is no exception: we already know that it ends with Intention #12. But what does that mean? What is the output? Well, by numerological arithmetic we have the following: 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 so that the actual result of Intention #12 is Intention #3, which in turn brings the directive Circulation and the idea of a cycle to our attention. In short, the result when the 12-Intention process finishes can only be the completion of a cycle, which is equivalent to the idea of a circle. Another way of coming to this conclusion is shown below.

IC #12 -> unified (IC #1) linearization (IC #2) -> a line that is unified -> circle ; cycle

The Cycle of Life is the name given to the cyclical process formed by the first twelve Intentions of Creation. It is far from being an ordinary cycle; instead, it is the blueprint, the fundamental standard cycle of Creation that determines the pattern behind all cycles. Many people think that only biological life (i.e., living systems) follows natural cycles, but we cannot forget that there is energetic activity (IC #3) in all things in the universe regardless of their size or origin. By the very nature of reality, any kind of energetic activity is describing pulse waves, which are nothing more than cycles. That is, from a micro or macro perspective, everything in the universe operates according to cycles.

As a process, the Cycle of Life is actually non-linear because of its cyclical nature. But of course that any cyclical process is still subject to a linear interpretation by the very definition of process. In other words, the Cycle of Life is both linear and non-linear as a process: we can picture it sideways and see the progress from beginning to end, or we can picture it from the front and see a juxtaposition of spirals forming an outermost circle as shown in Figure 3.3. The outermost circle alone can represent the entire process and/or the result of the process. This is interesting, because by Intention #3 the idea of a circle is linked to the directive Manifestation. But manifestation of what? Of something, anything. The product of the Cycle of Life is the manifest (physical) universe itself, which is frequently called as "reality." That is why the Cycle of Life is so important for us to understand the nature of reality.

Cycle of Life -> 12-Intention process -> 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 -> reality (IC #3)

We can expect to find the pattern of the Cycle of Life in whatever direction we look, especially when we are analyzing some aspect that is more fundamental with respect to how Creation is implemented through the Thirteen Intentions. More specifically, any aspect in Creation can be characterized by the first twelve Intentions organized sequentially to describe a finite process that results in a cycle. This is what is behind the nature of reality.

We can correlate Figure 3.4 with the idea of a fractal. The word fractal comes from the Latin fractus meaning "fracture." Above all, a fractal exhibits self-similarity, which is the tendency for an overall geometric pattern to be repeated across all levels of magnification. Therefore, no matter how much we zoom in a fractal, we still get the same shape / pattern approximately. That is how the Cycle of Life alone can provide us with all the knowledge necessary for a comprehension of the organization of the universe. If you understand that there are only 12 types of building blocks, you understand it all.

By Intention #3 we have the directives Manifestation and Circulation, the latter of which gives birth to the idea of a cycle. Consider also the notion of duration (length) from Intention #2. Now, considering that Intention #2 evolves into #3 by the sequence of Intentions, we can say that when a duration of any sort becomes manifest, it can only describe a cycle; it can only function as a cycle. This means that all things including abstract concepts have a lifespan (duration) in the form of a cycle.

Consequently, every phenomenon in Nature is cyclical. Planetary, galactic, cosmic and even universal cycles are like ordinary biological (life) cycles yet operating at a greater scale of energy. There are macroscopic as well as microscopic cycles. There are always cycles within cycles. Cycles of different magnitudes work together to form a giant cosmic wheel. Each cycle possesses its own internal "clock" that ultimately synchronizes with cycles above and below it. At the end of a cycle there is always a new cycle beginning at a higher order / level of energy and consciousness -- it never ends. Going from one cycle to the next is like an ascension for consciousness.

Intention #13 is the one responsible for the transition between cycles. The resulting process is a cyclical evolution forming a spiral that never comes to an end. A spiral is formed as one cycle connects to another in a continuous fashion. It is not a coincidence that Intention #13 is the last Intention of Creation, because it plays the most important role as an ending that guarantees a continuous supply of new beginnings. Intention #13 is eternity itself. In fact, if we consider the word end as meaning purpose, we can say that the end of all Creation is continued evolution and nothing more.

With the eternal power of Intention #13, the Cycle of Life can transform from a finite and sequential process to a continuous and recursive process. The perpetuation of this process is acomplished through the recylication of every ending (IC #12) in the Cycle of Life into something new (IC #13): a new beginning. By Intention #13 we no longer have a process per se, but more of a flow, a greater process by which everything flows. The Cycle of Life being a finite process serves as a building block for an infintie process in which there is continuous rennovation of this cycle.

The only way for a finite process to last forever is through a greater process that causes it to repeat. Indeed, Intention #13 makes sure that there is continuous renovation of the Cycle of Life. However, how much different every new cycle appears to be is relative: a copy is always a new copy not mattering if it looks identical to the mold. A cycle can be excitingly new for some and incredibly boring (repetitive) for others. The bottom line is that all cycles are somewhat new (IC #13), because at least in some detail they will differ, but as instances / copies of the Cycle of Life they still follow the same receipt.

So we know that the cycle of life is the fundamental pattern behind all cycles, and that it has 12 events correpsonding tot he Intentions of Creation. Of course that, for example, the life cycle of a rock is very dull: all that we can say for sure is that it has a beginning and an end, which amounts to only two events in place of where there should be twelve. The reason for this discrepancy is because the Cycle of Life is a life cycle seen from a multidimensional perspective. Even the simplest of the things can become more complex when seen from a higher-dimensional perspective. See the following example:

Psychological time is a frame of perception that extends from birth to death based on how the individual experiences life. Imagine if we could take a picture of someone's life so that the entire set of experiences could be archived in a file in some kind of holographic database for the purpose of an universal record keeping.² There would probably see a strong resemblance to the Cycle of Life in the resultant energetic patterns of oscillation in the life of the individual, even though every life cycle has an unique signature.

Therefore, the Cycle of Life is the template for a file that encases all 3D experiences in the life of a person plus one more dimensional experience considered temporal by us: the fourth dimension. for every dimension on top of another, the dimensions below are folded as an infinitesimal unit that can be lined up for spatial measurement of the new dimension. we use 2D units (eg, inches, milimeters, etc.) to measure 3d objects and we use 3D units, as our minds depend on a sucession of 3D scenarios to measure the duration of events. try it yourself, chamber of sensorial deprivation where time would go? and you will lose track of time.

The fifth dimension can be visualized as a temporal plane containing all possible timelines and probable lifetimes. We know that a plane is composed of an infinite number of lines, and so eahc line is an infinitesimal unit. if we imagine each line as being a timeline with an arbitrary length, then each timeline would be an instance of the Cycle of Life, a fourth dimensional line wrapped to a life experience. therefore, the Cycle of Life serves as an unit of measurement for the fifth dimension.

from a 3d perpective we measure the duration of events using a linear interpretation of time as an absolute variable, but in the fifth dimension we measure duration according to cyclical an interpretation of time that has a multitude of instances of the cycle of life entire timelines and lifetimes, as the hours, minustes and seconds of regular time. therefore, the cycle of life is a process that encapsulates time and space, and not the other way around.

it is worth rememebring that the cycle fo life, as part of the thirteen intentions of creation, isn't restricted to anything . it is an abstract pattern and cab be applied even to the fifh the sixth and any finite or infinite number of dimensions. it is just that inside the context of cyclical time, the cycle of life really does indeed spans only four dimensions. in the context of other an abstract qualities from even higher dimensions than the fifth, the cycle fo life would still apply but probably with much less relevance, as even the concept of life would not even apply to such dimensions.

In the same manner that the invisible energies of the Thirteen Intentions can be interpreted as directives, imagining a graphical representation for the Cycle of Life is only a matter of giving form to the Thirteen Intentions. It may seem like a difficult task, but we have already been given a hint: the Cycle of Life is a cycle.

Cycles and waves have a lot in common, especially because wave patterns originate from cyclical processes. Ocean waves, for example, are formed due to orbital, seasonal (weather) and tectonic cycles. In wave theory, the conclusion of one period of a wave is said to be one cycle that has ended, while frequency is the number of cycles per an arbitrary unit of time.

Change (IC #13) in terms of space and time is always associated with Oscillation (IC #6), since where there is no disturbance there is no change. An important distinction in physics is that scientists model oscillations mathematically and call the results as waves instead of the actual phenomena that may or may not be explicitly observed as waves. Therefore, in most cases when we use the term wave, we are actually talking about a graphical representation known as a waveform. A waveform is generally a x-y graph of a varying quantity over time and it is used to represent energy signals.

When looking at a waveform, we can appreciate the two main properties of a wave: wavelength and amplitude. Amplitude is the maximum positive vertical displacement corresponding to the magnitude of oscillation, while wavelength is the distance between two sequential peaks. They are graphically defined as:

The basic, pure building blocks of all waves is the sine wave, also known as the sinusoidal wave. Sine waves are "well-behaved", periodic waves with definite frequency and wavelength and thus are more appropiate for consistent study of waves. the most complex wave shape is still a simple sum of sine waves of different wavelengths. This shape of waveform is often encountered in natural phenomena, while complex and chaotic (non-pure?) shapes tend to correspoind in artificial phenomena.

When we look at a waveform we are seeing a static drawing, but if we try to follow the curve visually as a flow, we can even sense a momentum in certain regions. To put it in another way, there is a thrust in a horizontal or vertical direction in certain segments of the curve. Sometimes the curve wants to explode horizontally, other times vertically, and sometimes the force is even in both directions. These two tendencies can be said to correspond to more or less wavelength or amplitude.

Horizontal Tendency (DH) -> lower amplitude, higher wavelength
Vertical Tendency (DV) -> higher amplitude, lower wavelength

If waves are models originated from cyclical processes, then we should be able to build a waveform for the Cycle of Life. We can take the first twelve Intentions and evaluate their meanings in terms of wavelength, amplitude, horizontal and vertical tendency, and then try to draw them as the peaks and valleys of a wave. We should also take into consideration that some Intentions are very extreme and translate as null amplitude and/or wavelength, or have tendencies toward infinite amplitude or wavelength.

IC #	DH:DV		Language
1	0:0		beginning; singular event; singularity; point
2	+:0		line; length; extension
3	+:+		expression; manifestation; visibility
4	+:+		closed shape; form; object
5	∞:+		potency; horsepower; acceleration; horizontal thrust
6	∞:+		settle down; accommodate; rest
7	+:∞		align; orient
8	0:∞		more; higher; infinity; vertical thrust
9	+:∞		less; zero; nothing
10	0:0		concentrated; dense; particle; instant; singular event; singularity; point
11	∞:0		not enough; seek last frontier; incompletion
12	0:0		ending; singular event; singularity; point
DH: horizontal tendency ; DV: vertical tendency ; +: at least some

The graph above is far from being a plot based on real data; it is more like a product of intuition than of data analysis. What we really did was determine the visual chracteristic of each step (Intention) of the "flow" of Creation while trying to represent it as a wave. We start from the assumption that a standard wave is supposed to go up and down, up and down, but here we have addiitonal possibilities to consider: horizontal or vertical tendency. Also, beginnig with Intention #9 we get into heavy abstraction. Since the transition between each Intention is supposed to be smooth, We try to linearize the abstraction, as for example: The graph "collapses" at Intention #10: Fir we went to infinity (IC #8) then to zero (IC #9), and if the graph ended at Intention #9, it would stay at zero; however, Intention #10 is a limit point case where both zero and infininty are present at once.

For other Intentions the graph would have discontinuities If we were to do complete justice to their meaning. Intention #8, for example, has the characteristic of a vertical (90 degrees) line going upward toward infinity. In the graph, however, this would introduce a vertical disconinuity. Also, Intention #8's line is slanted and not vertical because wenever we have the idea of process we must take duration into consideration, and this means a disllocation along the horziontal axis. The same case applies for Intention #11: it is a process happening inside a singularity, hence Intention #11 not being represented as a a singular event.

Looking at the graph of the Cycle of Life, we can see that not all Intentions have a significant extension. Some are depicted as mere dots that could very well represent instantaneous events, such as a beginning (IC #1), an atonement (IC #10) and an ending (IC #12). The Intentions that have extension and duration are the phases of the Cycle of Life. A phase is any point of the graph that demarcates one stage or portion of the cycle's duration.

The phases correspond to those intentions that have the quality of length (IC #2) present in them. The phases correspond to those portions of the graph displaying horizontal and/or vertical tendencies, that is, processes of approximation (IC #11) that take some time. Numerollogicla math, 1 + 1 = 2 which means that tendency (IC #11) will necessarily imply in length or duration (IC #2).

A stage is bla bla bla.. We are accostumed to think of a life cycle as having just a few stages, but in the Cycle of Life we have nine. It has to do with the fact that the Cycle of Life spans four dimensions: three main events represent the cycle alone, but when we add four dimensions to three evetns three events are seen through four dimensions, 3 x 4 = 12, see below.

In the graph of the Cycle of Life you might have noticed that the axes have no meaning associated to them, much less units of measurement, but this does not mean that they have nothing to do with spatio-temporal concepts. There is no problem in trying to associate a few quantities to the axes and see how it plays out. After all, the Cycle of Life is an universal pattern valid to all phenomena that can be quantified (measured).

Because the Y-axis tends to infinity at Intention #8, there is not a definite amplitude that applies to the whole waveform of the Cycle of Life. An amplitude must be a finite maximum vertical displacement. However, if we isolate certain intervals of the waveform as if they were standing alone, then the concept of amplitude can apply to these intervals individually. Still, the wave will have maximum vertical displacement at some points, namely amplitude, but these maximums will not be related to anything in particular. Indeed, amplitude is just another name for a literal quantity, i.e., quantity that is not of something physical.

To quantify is to measure, and so a literal quantity (amplitude) is just a measurement that is not of something in particular (e.g., length, time), but also can be of anything. This means that there is an amplitude for everything that exists, and every thing is completely characterized by its amplitude. In this respect, amplitude and the idea of pure energy are directly related with each other. People frequently talk about energy as if it was an absolute measurement not restricted to a form in particular, but this does not mean that they believe that energy exists in this state. The fact is that everybody knows that energy is an absolute variable with respect to life, and this is the reason why the term can be applied in all kinds of imaginative ways without sounding unrealistic.

For most practical uses, the terms energy and amplitude are interchangeable. Most waveforms treat amplitude as the amount of energy (power) that is being transferred by the wave. Therefore, there is no doubt that energy is an appropriate choice for the Y-axis of the Cycle of Life.

Thus for a more practical application of the Cycle of Life, we can make the vertical axis denote energy and the horizontal axis denote time, because all processes have duration. The Cycle of Life then becomes very clear if applied to ordinary living systems that are born, experience highs and lows of energy, and die.

Until now we are discussing only two variables that are explicit. the other two (DH and DV) are implicit and have been already discussed. that makes it four variables. remember that we said before that tmainly because the Cycle of Life has four dimensions. each spatial dimension is obviously associated to an intention, as we will see in 3.2 - Dimensions, but in the graph each dimensions is turned into a variable, which means that each dimension has a certain quality that cna be measured.

Let us imagine that the space sorrounding the curve as being the spatial representation of Zero, a void, that serves as abstratc propagation medium for the intentional flow of creation. According to Intention #2, the principle of duality can be found in every conceptualization, and thus even in zero. Indeed, the idea of absolute nothingness, or zero, zero can be seen as real or imaginary. the first case when it is absolute, as the real lack of something, and the other as a symbol representing the imagination of nothingness that can only be approximated in reality.

zero (real) -> zero in the strict sense         
zero (imaginary) -> as close to zero as possible

Curiosly, In mathematics we find that zero also has two distinct representations: one grouped with the positive numbers and gripued with the negatives known as negative zero. with this in mind, the graph can also be considered as having a positive and negative quadrant. one for real zero, and other for imaginary zero. the positive quadrant deals with everything real, and the negative with everything imaginary.

but we can reach the same conclusion through the ICs themselves. both quadrants span the vertical axis (energy) which corresponds to ic 5. 5 can be formed by two numbers either by 1+ 4 or 2 + 3. 3 is on the upper quadrant, while 4 on the lower, therefore:

(+) quadrant -> real (IC #3) ; individual / subjective (IC #1)     
(-) quadrant -> imaginary (IC #?? ???) ; material / objective (IC #4)   

knowing that the upper quadrant representes real, and the lower, helps wiht the interpretation of the graph of nthe Cycle of Life. it also helps with udnerstanding why some intentions are below and others on top, or crossing like ic #8. the intentions that have imaginary aspects are #4 and #7 and lower half (beginning) of #8. and the real are #3, #5, #6, the upper half of #8 and #9. other intentions are free from this categorization.

________________________
¹ Due to this fact, there's a good chance that the list of Intentions presented in this book is not 100% accurate. please refer to the (proceed to website for up-to-date list)
² the akashic records are....

There is more than one possible interpretation for what a dimension is. In the strict geometric sense, a dimension is one of the three standard spatial dimensions: width, height and depth. However, due to a fundamental connection between dimension and frequency range, we can extrapolate the former's meaning to refer to parallel universes, planes of existence and even levels of consciousness. (In the last case individual perception is attuned to a certain frequency range interpreted by the physical senses as an N-dimensional world.)

Regardless of denomination, whenever we are talking about a dimension we are implying the measurement of some property or quality. There is no such thing as a dimension that does not embody some kind of measurement, since the very word dimension comes from the Latin "measured out." Modern physics presupposes that extra dimensions exist at incredibly small scales. In other words, dimensions beyond the fourth are infinitesimally condensed, almost reaching a singularity, but they still have some measurable magnitude -- it just lies beyond what humans and their instruments can detect.

A phase in the Cycle of Life is the same thing as a dimension, because the phases correspond to those Intentions that admit dimensionality (length). Associating one dimension to each phase gives a total of nine dimensions. However, there is nothing impeding that the entire extension formed by all the phases can be considered a dimension as well: the 10th dimension.

A dimension is not necessarily physical and so it does not need to have a perceptible size. Therefore, from a physical perspective some dimensions are very much abstract and conceptual. In the Cycle of Life, you can see that the first and ninth phases do not possess an appreciable amount of energy, yet phase by definition implies in duration, and a duration must always be in relation to some form of energy variation. Therefore, there must still exist a speck of energy in the ninth dimension, for example. The idea is that this energy is of a finer quality; it is an extremely thin and subtle form of energy that lies in-between the smallest units of matter. As an example, we can conceive the 10th dimension as being an ether, which is a conceptual / theoretical substance that embodies space itself by permeating everything.

Note that we are associating dimensions to Intentions and not Intentions to dimensions because the Intentions of Creation are always the root of any association. But once the root association has been done, we can proceed and associate Intentions to dimensions in order to complement our understanding of the numerological meaning of each dimension. For example: Intentions after #9 are completely abstract, paradoxical and meaningless with respect to spatial concepts such as length and dimension. This means that the number of dimensions that are truly spatial is nine. Therefore, although Intention #9 has a direct correspondence with the eighth dimension, we can establish an indirect but nonetheless true connection between Intention #9, the last Intention that has something to do with spatiality (length), and the ninth dimension, the last spatial dimension.

Basically, there are two types of dimension: spatial and temporal. As depicted in Figure 3.#, the first nine dimensions have spatial characteristics. The 10th dimension, however, is non-spatial because it does not occupy a space of its own in the graph, yet it does have extension borrowed from the first nine dimensions. Therefore, the 10th dimension is paradoxical like Intention #10: it is non-spatial yet it has extension. Well, the problem lies in our denomination: in the context of a non-spatial dimension, we are talking about duration (time), not extension (space). Indeed, as we will discuss it later, a number of spatial dimensions can be taken as one, as a continuum, and the result is a temporal dimension.

Another difference between the 10th dimension and the spatial dimensions is that they are associated to phases in the Cycle of Life, while the 10th is not. However, nothing stops the 10th dimension from having an indirect (numeric) association with Intention #10. Furthermore, there are two additional "levels" beyond the 10th dimension that are not dimensions per se, because they deal with null or infinite space-time; however, as we did with the 10th dimension, we can still find dimensionality in their lack of dimensionality. The 11th level is adimensional because it is completely void of space and time, and the 12th is transdimensional because it transcends all dimensionality. In spite of their characteristics, we can still refer to these levels by the name of dimension if we consider them as dimensions of consciousness.

A dimension by itself is nothing more than an idea, but if we consider a bunch of them simultaneously and orthogonal to each other, the result is the property known as space. More specifically, a minimum of three dimensions is required to give birth to the general notion of space, because space is primarily characterized by the existence of material (3D) objects. In other words, the notion of space is only relevant when there is spatial relationship resulting from the presence of at least one object.

A purely spatial perception tends to interpret space as if it was a three-dimensional "hole", but the fact is that without observable three-dimensional mass, space loses any sign of dimensionality and is therefore meaningless as such. Space acquires relevance only when there are material objects, just as the notion of distance only makes sense when there is a relation of position (coordinates) between points. In sum, the three-dimensional (spatial) perception that characterizes space is imparted by material objects.

Space is a fundamental property of physics, and as such it inspires many definitions and few convincing answers. Many have struggled to come to terms with the meaning of space before, but it turns out that space cannot be understood outside of its role as an essential part of the perception process. In fact, space does not need a definition because the term is already intuitively defined.

The classical view of space is that of an ultimate reality where objects and physical phenomena take place. Simple and effective, this view shares its roots with Newton's deterministic physics that introduced the notion of absolute space, that is, space whose existence is independent of physical phenomena. Although Newton's view acknowledges that motion and rest are relative notions, it still has the necessity to define space as being a property that is above observers and their frames of reference, and so space itself becomes the authority that decides whether there is motion and/or acceleration happening at all.

A possible criticism of spatial absolutism is that it is irrelevant that we try to imagine space as something "out there" when there is nothing about space making of it a real thing with its own independent meaning and existence. Space does not possess a reality of its own, and more importantly, it does not exist "outside" time and perception. Instead, perception is always changing with time, and this change manifests itself as physical phenomena along with the property known as space. In this section we will not discuss the details about how this manifestation takes place, but consider the following according to the Intentions of Creation:

consciousness (IC #12) -> 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 -> reality (IC #3)

According to the Thirteen Intentions of Creation, the concept of space along with the concepts of time, movement and life can all be found in Intention #5. This means that the very process of being alive, and the resulting perception thereof, is what makes time and space a reality. Therefore, it is always better that we understand how these concepts are not separate from each other and how they are all relative to perception. Alternatively, we can go even further and study these concepts under the light of consciousness, which is the essence of perception. Consciousness is the only true authority with respect to what takes place in the physical world.

Perception can be roughly defined as "the mental apprehension of a certain number of things." This means that perception is always restricted to those things that it can perceive, and it is unable to grasp anything beyond itself. For this reason, if someone's perception is restricted to space only, they will simply not be able to understand how time and space are relative to perception, because the relativity becomes clear only when the two concepts are perceived as one. Since space does not exist without time, one can very well conclude that a perception that sees only space is trapped in monocularity. Space is just one side of the spatio-temporal "coin."

The main consequence of the belief in absolute space is the notion of empty space. In this view, space is supposed to exist "out there" even when there is absolutely nothing. However, deep analysis of the nature of reality can show us that the idea of an empty space is not so much obvious as one would think, and in fact, if we extrapolate our results from this analysis, we can even conclude that this belief is just as meaningless as the belief in a space that exists independently from our perception.

A particular example showing how absurd is the notion of empty space arises from the problem of the boundary. In this case, a boundary is the middle between two extremes that does not constitute a third extreme, but instead unifies the two extremes into a paradox. The problem is that boundaries are always ignored by a monocular perception, which sees only one thing at a time but never both at once unseparated. A monocular perception cannot distinguish between total absence and multiple, unseparated presence, and the result is that it fails to recognize states where one thing does not exclude the other.

In the example illustrated above, a multiocular perception should be able to see that presence and absence of thing are states that are simultaneously present at the boundary, which in turn, at least momentaneously, equates object with empty space. Of course that such conclusion does not make a lot of sense, because real-life objects are not the same as emptyness; however, if we discard the word emptyness and consider space as being as much as a thing as the things contained in it, we will simply have thing = thing at the boundary.

But what does it mean that space is a "thing"? It means that in the end there is only one thing going on between creatures and space: a continuous perception process attached to time. That is, if we add the time dimension to a spatial perception, the material objects and the spaces between them will be perceived as the features of a four-dimensional continuum, because absence of thing in three-dimensional space still constitutes presence in four dimensions. In short, empty space can be considered a four-dimensional "thing", which is also an event if we consider the fourth dimension as time.

With respect to Figure 3.#, one can still argue that an array of atoms constitute the definitive barrier between empty space and object. This surely sounds like a comforting answer, but the actual nature of reality according to the Intentions of Creation is based on continuous (IC #13) interaction (IC #12) between an infinite (IC #8) number of elements everywhere (IC #10). This means that a reductionist analysis can be performed endlessly and still never be able to find an absolute line of separation between elements; instead, two elements always have some kind of connection accomplished through even smaller elements. (Note: everything has a threshold, and size is no exception: things can only get as small as the concept of size remains applicable, because anything beyond starts fading into abstraction [IC #9] and finally into a paradox [e.g., infinitely small = infinitely big].)

By 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 we have that Intention #3 (reality) is the fruit of interconnectedness (IC #12). But how can we corroborate this hypothesis? Well, it is not easy to demonstrate how fundamental qualities of Creation such as continuity and interconnectedness have their place in a macroscopic world where things definitely appear to be disconnected. In the case of physical reality, for example, there are those who prefer to discard everything as an illusion, but it seems that being an illusion does not make of a reality something less real to a perception conditioned by it. That is why it is important to understand that there is no such thing as a fixed absolute reality valid for everyone, except if we restrict the meaning of everyone to a group of individuals having the same experiences and thus living the same reality.

Physical reality was generally seen as something absolute to all levels of perception until experiments in modern physics overthrew this concept. Because of this, many people jumped to the other extreme and concluded that "reality is an illusion." Well, for most people reality will always be sufficiently concrete, a "persistent illusion" as Albert Einstein said, but experiments have shown that it can also be probabilistic and undetermined when perception crosses a certain threshold. That is, determinism and indeterminism are not mutually exclusive, although indeterminism has the advantage of being more essential to the nature of reality.

Quantum physics was the new science that came to explain the anomalous behavior of subatomic particles. It also introduced a new view of the configuration of microscopic space that turned the classical deterministic / Newtonian approach into something quite inappropriate for this level. Instead of the classical idea of particles bumping into each other, detecting and analyzing elementary particles at the quantum scale requires a statistical approach applied to wave theory. In fact, the classical notion of space barely holds at atomic and subatomic levels, because wave concepts in physics are nonobjective, and most importantly, non-spatial.

Although the wave model is abstract, wave functions can mathematically describe all kinds of real, continuous-effect phenomena in Nature. What quantum mechanics did was to extend the wave model to describe the state of a particle according to the Heisenberg principle.¹ The wave function was then treated as if it determines a distribution or set of probabilities. This distribution can be worked out accurately, but not the actual location of a particle. Instead, the position of a particle is described by the probability corresponding to the Y-values of the waveform. For example, a particular Y-value defining a sharp peak means that we have a greater chance of locating the particle at a point in space associated to that value.

These interesting concepts brought by quantum physics mean that subatomic particles hardly behave as corpuscles; instead, they are spread out as clouds or propensities corresponding to the probabilities of where they might be found. There are no well-defined boundaries marking where one particle begins and another ends, nor there is certainty about the momentum or position of a particle.² The more precise one measurement is, the more diffuse the other becomes. But the indeterminism is not there to mislead; instead, it is evidence that better understanding about the nature of space comes with seeing it more like an ocean of energy about which we need to make approximations (IC #11) to surface what we want to see.³

As discussed in Section 3.1, amplitude has a relation with energy in the sense that it refers to any amount of pure energy. In a probability wave, the amplitude is actually a probability amplitude, and it extends itself from one side to another. Therefore, a probability wave can be said to describe a smooth distribution of energy where certain regions have greater concentration than others. The dense regions are particles with well-defined positions and ill-defined momentums (momenta); the less dense regions are particles with ill-defined positions and well-defined momentums. In both cases, the particles are infinitely dispersed either because they vibrate wildly in a sense that they are at multiple places at the same time, or because they are not in a definite place due to their erratic movement. With this in mind, we can make the following analogy regarding the nature of space:

For any interval of spatial dimensions that begins with the first dimension, the dimension that comes right after the last in the interval is the one that goes through and enfolds all the previous dimensions, with the result being a continuum. This is equivalent to how each Intention of Creation includes and extends the ones before it.

Continuum simply means that there is continuity instead of discontinuity, or that there is continuity behind apparent discontinuity. But a more interesting implication in the presence of a continuum is that you can never really say that a part is not a manifestation of the whole. It only takes a few changes in perception for someone to see that what once appeared as an isolated part is actually connected to another part, and then another and another in a never-ending assemblage. In fact, one can classify as many parts as desired, but ultimately there is no end to the succession of aspects in Creation that can be categorized as parts.

Any interval of spatial dimensions is a continuum. By its own definition, a continuum does not admit the presence of separation; instead, it always presents itself as a whole. There are only different ways for us to see a continuum in its entirety, ways that bring to our attention different aspects of the same thing. Therefore, an observer is necessarily seeing a single object (continuum) wherever he looks. The idea of parts only arises with the idea of multiplicity, which is in fact an illusion: an observer that sees multiple parts / objects is actually looking at a single crystalline object from different angles that bring to his attention different facets of that same object.

In reality, a continuum is experienced by an observer as a world full of objects that keep appearing everywhere he looks. Every observed object is merely an aspect of the continuum as well as the continuum already manifested in full. In other words, everything that is observed is a valid representation of the continuum in its entirety, and there is not an object or part that can be considered the ultimate manifestation of the continuum. This is a valid analogy because it is based on the holographic principle that the whole is in every part. At least conceptually, the physical universe is a hologram, an example being the striking similarities between the atomic model and the galactic model.

Furthermore, the act of seeing an object necessarily implies in the presence of a surrounding space, a higher dimension that includes both object and observer. It is a matter of logic: Delineation (IC #2) leads to the automatic creation of two sides: one current and one beyond. That is, at the very instant that we determine an interval of dimensions, we automatically create a higher dimension beyond that interval. Such logic may give us the impression that the number of dimensions is infinite, but as we saw in this section's introduction, there are two more transcendental levels beyond the 10 standard dimensions. These levels transform the possibility of an infinite number of dimensions into an infinite fractal recursion applied to the same base number of dimensions, just as the Cycle of Life is the same basic process renewed for all eternity thanks to Intention #13.

For example, with respect to 3D space, 2D objects (images) and the 2D spaces between them are nothing more than features of a 3D continuum, which in our analogy is a 3D sphere floating inside a 4D space. In the same manner, 3D objects and the 3D spaces between them are nothing more than the features of a 4D continuum, which is a 4D sphere floating inside a 5D space. As you can see, this analogy can be applied to any pair of consecutive spatial dimensions, and that is with the notions of object and space still holding as true, but perhaps changed into more abstract concepts.

A second example: An observer inside three-dimensional space sees several images (i.e., 2D objects) forming what he may deem as material (3D) objects; however the images only seem as 3D objects because the observer acquired a sense of depth in his perception as a collateral effect of being partially immersed in the higher dimension. This analogy can be applied to even higher dimensions as well, with the notion of space and depth still holding as true. The dimension that includes the observer always exert some effect in his perception that gives a sense of depth to wathever he is looking at.

A higher dimension has a particular space or zone of its own (e.g., the ninth dimension is the interval [8.0,9.0]), but at the same time this interval has an equivalence with the interval composed by all the lower dimensions. Therefore, whenever we are talking about the nth dimension, for example, we will not only be reffering to that dimension's particular zone, but also to the interval [0.0,n-1] which is equivalent to [n-1,n]. The equivalence is with respect to energy and vibration in a way that the higher dimension alone makes up for the entire combined vibrational level of the lower dimensions. We will see more about vibration in 3.5 - Densities.

Relatively speaking, a higher dimension is always experienced as a temporal dimension (time) by creatures living inside the corresponding spatial continuum. This dimension directly above the creatures plays the role of time as long as it stays removed from their perception: a priori, time is a non-observable dimension. For example, by the equivalence between dimensions shown in Figure 3.#, the fourth dimension would be the embodiment of all dimensions directly perceived by the 3D creatures as well as an extra dimension that controls their lives. In other words, the fourth dimension is everywhere around the creatures as well as nowhere to be found. Now, for creatures standing somewhere inside the interval [2.0,3.0], they would have a partial 3D experience because they are not fully outside the third dimension in order to have a full 3D experience.

The consequence of being stuck inside a spatial dimension is that time seems like an omnipresent force. The resident creatures have no choice other than to take time as an unidirectional force that controls everything, and as an absolute variable that controls the system they are in. But consciousness is what ultimately determines reality, not time. All that it takes for a being to cross over from one dimension to the next is a shift in perception, and that is exactly what follows after someone experiences a great expansion of consciousness. This process is known as a dimensional shift.

In a dimensional shift, time and space exchange places. What was once perceived as space-time, or just space, becomes time-space, or hyperspace, and walking a distance in the new time-space environment will be like time-traveling in the previous space-time environment. With that said, time and space are like mirror images of one another, and as two sides of the same coin, they are not really separate from each other. However, from the inside of a continuum, space and time are perceived as separate entities because, as we have already seen, there is always a higher dimension that a being's awareness cannot reach and go beyond. If the being could only rise his consciousness to an extra-dimensional level, he would see time and space as undifferentiated.

Most often, A paranormal experience is needed for a person to begin to understand how time and space are opposite aspects of the same phenomenom, and also to demistify the godlike status of time. But it is still possible to formulate about this possibility: Einstein, for example, postulated about the relativity of space and time, but what he really did was rising his intellect to a level where he was able to visualize the three-dimensional continuum. This means that intellectualty-wise he was inside the fourth dimension, at least intelectually. Nonetheless he could not explain the nature of time, as this would require his intellect to be at the same level or above the fourth dimension. By beign physically present inside the fourth dimension, the inexorable nature of time would begin to break, and one would be able to manipulate it.

Motion, as we all know, is always in relation to a frame of reference: an object inside a train will obviously appear to be at rest for a passenger inside the train, but not for a fixed observer at the station. In other words, the motion of a body is only as valid as it can be validated by an observer watching the body change position according to his unique perspective. There is not an absolute frame of reference where a determined (measured) motion is always valid for all observers. What is not obvious for most people is that the same relativity applies to time, because time is really only a function of the perceived motion (change) of things inside the visual range of an observer.

motion and acceleration requires energy or force. energization and acceleration are essentially the same in physical terms, and Both are directives of Intention #5. the more energized the observer is, or the more energized the system that acts as his referential is, the closer to lightspeed he will be, and all the relative movement of things around him will seem increasingly slower. realized that the idea of movement, as well as the idea of time, were totally relative to the observer, which is also the same case for space.

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

________________________
¹ heisenberg uncer. principle.
² Momentum is defined as the product of the mass and velocity of an object. An alternative way to interpret it is as quantity of movement. It differs from velocity in that it is a vectorial quantity, and, because it involves mass, its total value in a closed system never changes.
³ Establishing probabilities is a way to approximate what cannot be determined for sure. We should not underestimate its usefulness in ???: probability in quantum mechanics can offer the same degree of predictability found in classical mechanics.

In Chapter 1 we defined Creation as an absolute concept, and we equated it to an overall existence. But in the same manner that Creation with capital C is not the same as creation, the act of creating, Existence with capital E is not the same as existence, some form of reality among others. Therefore, it is imperative that we redefine these concepts as follows:

creation -> the act of creating -> Intention #3                                                 
existence -> some form (IC #4) of reality (IC #3) is what consciousness (IC #12) is all about ->
             3 x 4 = 12 -> Intention #12                                                        

Existence / Creation ->                                                                         
      all (IC #10) realities (IC #3) -> 10 + 3 = 13 -> Intention #13                            
      a singular / absolute / overall (IC #1) existence (IC #12) -> 1 + 12 = 13 -> Intention #13

Whether we call It Existence or Creation, we are still talking about the Absolute mentioned in Chapter 1.

Seeing Existence as absolute yields an interesting implication: it makes of it a paradox. In Section 1.5 we saw how wholeness can be recursively defined on top of its own negation. In other words, an absolute concept is paradoxical by nature because it incorporates and includes even that which opposes it, that is, even its own "shadow." In the case of Existence, this definition means that both the essence of what is and what is not (nonexistence) will be a part of it, as contradictory as this may sound.

Another way to reach this same conclusion about Existence is as follows: Existence is beyond definition, and indeed, this is the case if we consider it as an absolute concept. However, if someone does not agree with this, they can still go and try to define Existence, but this will require the consideration of an opposite: nonexistence. It is not possible to define (IC #2) something properly if the definition is not done through an opposite (IC #2), that is, something that provides a contrast for reference. Anyway, nonexistence cannot be considered a valid counterpart for Existence due to the latter's absolute status.

Existence is directly linked with and has its basis in consciousness. When what was previously unknown to our consciousness becomes known, it is the same as if the thing had been brought into existence for us. According to this logic, if we ever come to experience nonexistence, it will become a valid mode of existence for us, because we will be conscious of it. Nevertheless, if nonexistence does not allow for consciousness, then nonexistence cannot exist, because no one can ever be conscious of it in order to prove its existence. In any case, nonexistence is just another mode of existence, or it does not exist, leaving only Existence as the triumphant absolute concept.

Now, if nonexistence is out of the game, then there is no way left to define Existence. From a rational standpoint, this means that it may not be possible for us to believe that Existence is true if we cannot even define it. But as Descartes said, "I think therefore I exist": if we are here discussing and thinking about Existence, then we are proof to ourselves that Existence must be true. The result of these two conflicting views over Existence is a paradox. In other words, Existence is better understood and defined by its own paradoxical nature.

Existence is essentially paradoxical in nature, but as it can be and often is perceived linearly, so is it possible to not be enlightened about it. ¹

It is worth noticing that one of the limitations of rational (linear) thinking is that it sees paradoxes as problems that must be resolved. But sometimes a paradox is the answer, not the problem. Paradoxes in Nature appear to be contradictions, but they actually express a non-dual truth: the coexistence of opposites. Holistic thinking, for example, accepts paradoxes as they are because it knows that the actual nature of the thing being analyzed is all-inclusive and cannot be divided without loss of information. Rational thinking, in contrast, needs to be able to separate and classify (IC #2) things completely before accepting them as true. It is not a surprise that rationality fails miserably in face of the paradoxical (IC #10) nature of Existence, because there is no room for a rational interpretation anyway: Existence is all possible realities (IC #3) happening at once (instant - IC #10).

In Section 1 we saw the transcendental nature of Existence how can be better understood through a recursive definition for the Whole. A whole is the objective notion of a totality. and the Whole with capital W is an objective equivalent for Existence. Note the word objective: it has to do with visualizing an object as, for example, a circle whose circumference is nowhere and center is everywhere. In everywhere we look ,there is existence, even in the smallest speck of reality, but still we can never find its bounradies circumference.

Fortunately there is already a conceptualization of Existence and its paradoxical nature: a singularity. In physics, a singularity is defined as a point in spacetime at which gravitational forces are extreme, and at which physical quantities become infinite and space and time become infinitely distorted / warped. In astronomy and astrophysics, a singularity is expected to be what lies at the core of a black hole. In any case, physics cannot study singularities directly because they are a phenomenom where physical laws and equations "break down".

The idea of a "living" paradox, a manifested singularity is a very good representation for Existence. Zero and infinity are the two fundamental extremes that represent the essence of polarity, the two poles that delimit rational thought. A singularity finally promotoes the identity of these two extremes, because a singularity is a nothing (zero) that is also everything (infinity). Instead of the monocular perspective that there can only be zero, or infnity at any one time, we can now actually see both at once unseparated, forming a singular whole. Even more, we can give it a formal definition in the form of a conceptual equation:

0 + infinity = 1

According to numerological arithmetic, another way to define Existence is as follows: singular (IC #1) unvierse -> 1 + 12 = 13 -> Intention #13, and so Existence (IC #13) is the Universe with capital U, i.e., the universe taken as one. Of course, the word universe already implies a single instance, and that is why we saw in 3.2 - Dimensions that the term Multiverse fits under the context of Intention #13 (Existence) better.

Additionaly, consider that by numerological arithmetic. reality (IC #3) is the output (result) of the universe (IC #12) since 1 + 2 = 3 -> reality (IC #3). This means that an equation that is valid to and symbolizes Existence is also valid to the Universe. Now, if realities are the outputs of universes, then Reality is the output of the Universe (Existence), and so the equation in schemtics can very well be called an universal equation that is valid to Reality, some kind of collective dream that all beings share.

Although symbolizing Existence and being valid to all realities, the universal equation has little value except as a philosophical truth/consideration that everything is one, and one is everything. In order to make it more useful, we will have to transform it into a real mathematical equation so that it can accuraterly describe what touches us more directly: our own ordinary reality, not the universal Reality. That is, we need to find a way to work this equation mathematically until we able to see how the truth contained in it also reflects in the fleeting aspects that compose our reality.

We can transform the universal equation into a real mathematical equation, more especifically a single-variational equation, if we make the following distinction: Since this equation is conceptual, the presence of zero and infinity is also purely conceptual, which means that both concepts are present as imaginary ideals. However, for a realistic version of this equation, zero and infinity would have to give place to approximations to their respective ideals, because they don't exist in Nature. In real-world vocabulary this means that zero becomes a fixed limit, and infinity becomes an unbounded limit.

Consider that a + b = 1 is the prototype of a realistic incarnation of the equation in Schematics 3.#. Also, consider that a→0 and b→∞, where symbol → reads as "tends to." One thing that a and b have in common is that they both converge to a limit, and although they do this in opposite directions, a convergence (IC #11) by definition is a process that only ends (IC #12) at infinity. Therefore, consider x such that

    and     . (3.1)

For simplicity purposes, a and b can both be expressed in function of x: a = ± x^-1 and b = x. As a result, there will be two versions of the prototype equation:

x^-1 + x = 1(3.2)

and

-x^-1 + x = 1.(3.3)

Equation 3.2 has no solutions among the positive and negative numbers, but it is possible to find what is known as complex solutions using imaginary numbers. Imaginary numbers are born from the symbolic manipulation of "impossible" magnitudes. These magnitudes differ from real numbers to the extent that they are metaphysical, that is, they are not restricted to the physical notion of linear extension (length) that defines real numbers. In short, these numbers are essentially meaningless, but this does not stop them from having applications in many fields of science.

We shall focus only on solving Equation 3.3 because we seek the meaning that the universal equation holds with respect to physical reality, hence the title of this section "???", this meaning of course can only be found in the real solutions of Eq. 3.3, while the complex (non-real) solutions of eq 1 are for now completely useless to our purpose.

If we multiply both sides of Equation 3.3 by x, we obtain the quadratic equation x² - x - 1 = 0. We can now attempt to solve this equation with the quadratic formula;² hence,

x = (1 ± √5) ⁄ 2 ⇒ .(3.4)

As displayed above, there are two possible solutions for Equation 3.3. Curiously, but not coincidentally, the first value for x is the value of Phi, a well-known mathematical constant whose name is borrowed from the Greek letter Φ. Also known as the golden number, Phi is the first one of three universal constants directly related with the Thirteen Intentions of Creation. We will see how this relationship takes place, but for now we shall focus only on Phi and its amazing properties.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Phi. This little constant has amazed mathematicians and philosophers throughout the ages mainly because of its unique properties. Some have called it a mystical number, while others have called it magical, but apart from mysticism, it is a fact that many natural phenomena exhibit some relation to Phi. There are Phi geometries in DNA, in galaxies, in organic structures, in musical sounds, in arts and even in systems linked to the dynamics of human consciousness (e.g., financial markets). In fact, the degree that Phi occurs in Nature seems to be only limited to the degree of creativity that a person can have when studying the geometries present in the aforementioned scenarios.

1.6180339887 4989484820 4586834365 6381177203 0917980576 2862135448 6227052604 6281890244
  9707207204 1893911374 8475408807 5386891752 1266338622 2353693179 3180060766 7263544333
  8908659593 9582905638 3226613199 2829026788 0675208766 8925017116 9620703222 1043216269
  5486262963 1361443814 9758701220 3408058879 5445474924 6185695364 8644492410 4432077134
  4947049565 8467885098 7433944221 2544877066 4780915884 6074998871 2400765217 0575179788
  3416625624 9407589069 7040002812 1042762177 1117778053 1531714101 1704666599 1466979873
  1761356006 7087480710 1317952368 9427521948 4353056783 0022878569 9782977834 7845878228
  9110976250 0302696156 1700250464 3382437764 8610283831 2683303724 2926752631 1653392473
  1671112115 8818638513 3162038400 5222165791 2866752946 5490681131 7159934323 5973494985
  0904094762 1322298101 7261070596 1164562990 9816290555 2085247903 5240602017 2799747175
  3427775927 7862561943 2082750513 1218156285 5122248093 9471234145 1702237358 0577278616
  0086883829 5230459264 7878017889 9219902707 7690389532 1968198615 1437803149 9741106926
  0886742962 2675756052 3172777520 ..                                                    

The fact that we were able to derive Phi from the universal equation is not a mere coincidence: When we transforfmed the universal equation from a conceptual form to a variational form, and thus an algebraic equation, Phi and its conjugate were the values that solved the equation and reaffirmed / maintained the original meaningunity of opposites. Therefore, if Phi solves the universal equation that is supposed applies to all aspects of reality even when they are opposites to each other, it must acts as an universal constant behind the fabric of reality.

The ratio derived from Phi is known as the golden mean (a.k.a. golden ratio, divine proportion), and it can be expressed as the ratios 1:φ or 1:φ^-1. Tthe golden mean offers the perfect balance (IC #6) between excess and deficiency in the universe. This means that if we want to do something stand out in relation to another, with the golden mean we can do this in a way so that the opposites complement each other perfectly and so they maintain a bond or an unity that is aesthetically beautiful. In the end, it is the whole that will stand out, and the opposites will be equal in the sense that they are undifferentiated from the whole picture.

Most sources say that the golden mean is present in Nature, but it is more appropriate to say that Nature is based on the golden mean. Examples could be given to fill several books, but it is more important that we understand how this is possible. An even more counterintuitive implication born from the fact that Phi is an universal constant is to say that artificial structures are also based on golden mean. This is also true, but only meaningful and obvious from a multidimensional perspective.

Artificial structures are those created by intelligent beings for complex and unnatural purposes. Thereforem, the objects will reflect their complex purposes and not natural patterns. As we add more dimensions to our analysis, eventually all complexity fades back into the natural patterns of creation. We saw an example of this in section when we the cycle of life was shown to apply even to the life of a rock, yet from a fourth dimensional perspective, except we are talking about the inverse here: complexity becomes simplicity in the fourth dimension. the reason for this is because secion crossing from one idmension to another implies a shift (IC #9), meaning that everything is inverted.

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

[Under construction]

________________________
¹ Transcix. "What is enlightenment?" Online posting. 14 Oct. 2006. 23 April 2007 < http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message302358/pg1 >.
² the quadratic formula is used to solve quadratic equations of the type ax^2+bx+c=0,

Copyright © 2008-2010 Conspiracy Knowledge Base

You are free to reproduce parts of this work as long as you give credit to the author. When copying parts of this work, make sure to always include a notice identifying the original title and author. You may also distribute this work as a whole as long as you do not add or remove anything from the original content. You may not mutilate the content, or leave off contact, copyright and authorship information. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.