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 #12Schematics 3.1

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

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 ; cycleSchematics 3.2

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)Schematics 3.3

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.

Figure 3.4We 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.

Figure 3.6 - CycleCycles 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:

Figure 3.8 - Wave propertiesThe basic, pure building blocks of all waves is the sinusoidal (sine) 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.

Figure 3.9 - Sine waveWhen we look at a waveform we are always looking at a static representation, 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 wavelengthSchematics 3.4

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 temporal length (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). Only the Intentions that possess extension and duration are present as *phases* in 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.

Figure 3.# - Energy x TimeUntil 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.

# | Variable | Quality | Description |
---|---|---|---|

1 | E | Energy | The first dimension as a variable is energy. |

2 | DH | Matter | The second dimension as a variable is matter. |

3 | DV | Intelligence | The third dimension as a variable is intelligence. |

4 | T | Time | The fourth dimension as a variable is time. |

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 possibleSchematics 3.#

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)Schematics 3.# Figure 3.# - Real and imaginary in the Cycle of Life

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. But 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 case of dimensions of consciousness, for example, the idea is that individual perception becomes attuned to a certain frequency range interpreted by the physical senses as a *N*-dimensional world.

Regardless of which context we use for this term, whenever we are talking about dimensions 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." Dimensionality is the ability to measure, that is, the ability to establish limits. Modern physics presupposes that extra dimensions exist at incredibly small scales. Indeed, extra dimensions of space beyond the fourth are condensed to extremely tiny scales, almost reaching a state of singularity, but they still have some magnitude -- it just lies beyond what current human perception and scientific 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 a linear interpretation to them, hence dimensionality (length). As you can observe below, associating one dimension to each phase gives a total of nine dimensions. Still, there is nothing impeding us from considering the entire extension formed by all the phases as an additional dimension: the 10th.

Figure 3.# - Dimensions in the Cycle of LifeA 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 conceptual. You can see in the Cycle of Life that the first and ninth phases do not contain an appreciable amount of energy, and in fact there should be zero energy in those phases. But we must also take into consideration that the word *phase* by definition implies in some duration / length of time, which in turn must always be in relation to some form of energy variation of a system. Consequently there must be a speck of energy in those null dimensions of the Cycle of Life, but 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. For this reason we can conceive the 10th dimension as being an ether: a theoretical substance that permeates everything and thus embodies all dimensions of space.

There are two types of dimension: spatial and temporal. As depicted in Figure 3.#, the first nine dimensions possess spatial characteristics because in the graph they occupy their own individual space along the horizontal axis. The 10th dimension, however, is non-spatial because it does not occupy a space of its own and instead borrows it from the first nine dimensions. Therefore, being non-spatial yet measurable, the 10th dimension is quite a paradoxical case like the correspondent Intention #10, since this dimension does show up as having length in the graph after all. It is only that this length is one of duration (time) and not of extension (space), which means that the 10th dimension is actually a temporal dimension. Indeed, as we will discuss later, a number of spatial dimensions can be taken as one big continuum with the result being a temporal dimension.

Notice that we are associating dimensions to Intentions and not the other way around because the Intentions of Creation are always at the root of any association. But we can also do the opposite and once the primary association has been made, we can proceed and associate Intentions to dimensions in order to complement our understanding of the numerological meaning of each dimension. That is, the dimensions have an indirect (numeric) association with their corresponding Intentions. for examplem although Intention #9 in the Cycle of Life 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, and the ninth dimension, the last spatial dimension.

Furthermore, there are two additional "levels" beyond the 10th dimension. Because they are inserted in a context of null / infinite space-time, they are not dimensions per se, but similar to how we treated 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; the 12th level is *transdimensional* because it transcends all dimensionality. But in spite of these abnormal characteristics, we can still refer to them purely as dimensions of consciousness, or alternatively we may see them as *spiritual* dimensions.

Dimension | Direct IC | Indirect IC | Type |
---|---|---|---|

1st | #2 | #1 | spatial |

2nd | #3 | #2 | spatial |

3rd | #4 | #3 | spatial |

4th | #5 | #4 | spatial |

5th | #6 | #5 | spatial |

6th | #7 | #6 | spatial |

7th | #8 | #7 | spatial |

8th | #9 | #8 | spatial |

9th | #11 | #9 | spatial |

10th | NA | #10 | temporal |

11th | NA | #11 | adimensional / atemporal |

12th | NA | #12 | transdimensional / universal |

A dimension by itself is nothing more than a way to measure physical change. When we have a group of them with each perpendicular (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 idea of space with respect to physical reality. It is only natural then that the general notion of space is formed in the frame of existing physical (3D) entities. That is, it makes no sense to ascribe independent existence / reality to space without the bodies that it "contains."

The term *space* does not need a definition because it is already an innate idea. Space is both a psychological idea as well as a fundamental property of physics. As the latter, space has inspired many into attempting to provide a definition for it. Many have struggled to come to terms with the "problem of space" before, but it was with the introduction of the theory of relativity in physics that space begun to be conceived as an essential part of the perception process. __Space is created in perception.__ A conception of space that is not defined as relative to our perception of bodies makes no sense whatsoever. And why of bodies? Because there could be no such thing as perception if we did not perceive other bodies.

The theory of relativity in its original version is credited to physicist Albert Einstein. This theory is believed to have revolutionized the concept of space and time in physics. It shows that in unusual / extreme cases different observers can very well disagree on the simplest facts regarding a physical system under analysis. Each observer has its own frame of reference that establish the basis for what he *perceives* as reality. Two observers can disagree on how fast an object is moving and/or how distant it is from them or from another object. Therefore, if space is empty for one observer, it may not be empty for another observer. Also, two observers can have different measures of time about the same event -- the theory of relativity comes to explain why both calculations could be correct.

The classical view of space is that of an ultimate reality where physical phenomena take place. Simple and effective, this view has its roots in Newton's deterministic physics which included / carried the notion of *absolute space*, that is, a space whose existence is independent of physical events. Although Newton's view acknowledged that motion and rest are relative concepts, it still carried this need to define space as an universal frame of reference beyond all observers and their respective frames; in other words, space in its own individual nature is not relative to anything and thus holds authority over deciding when there is motion and/or acceleration happening at all: that is, an object is moving only when it is moving with respect to absolute space.

The concept of space as something existing objectively and independent of things belongs to pre-scientific thought, but not so the idea of an infinite number of spaces [note: one for every hypothetical observer] in motion relative to each other. The latter idea is logically unavoidable, but is far from having played a considerable role even in scientific thought. (Albert Einstein)

^{1}

The problem with the absolutist view of space, as we already know, has to do with how irrelevant it is to imagine space outside of our being / perception when there is nothing of intrinsic value making of it a real entity. Well, that is because space is just another phenomenon being interpreted in our minds, reason why it will depend on our level of consciousness to accept it as a solid / real phenomenon or not. When speaking of the nature of reality, we cannot really separate physical from mental phenomena. All phenomena -- including physical space -- take place not only in the world but also in a mental space that is our own mind and consciousness. The outer wold is a reflection of the inner mental world, yet it is full of strong impressions that can literally take over space in our minds and become as real as, or even more real, than our imaginations.

However, it is not helpful to simply conclude that all physical phenomena are illusion. It is not only the mind that offers resistance against being reprogrammed to stop believing that something familiar is real / substantial; the world itself also offers great resistance against the slightest possibility that its illusion could be disrupted by the average person. So you must fight on two arenas at the same time: even when you have eliminated belief in outer space, chances are that you will still not be able to walk through walls. In practice this translates to the old adage that belief is not the same as reality. Fair enough, but at least belief is the first step that makes us reach out for real-life conditions that will allow the dream to come true. If one firmly believes that he can walk through walls, he has already done one third of the homework. Next step is acquiring knowledge of how to do it, and then finally training oneself to do it. Nothing is impossible when we have belief, knowledge and *action* reinforcing each other.

Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as space; there is only the perception of spatial characteristics, otherwise known as *spatiality* (IC #4). While space is an abstract idea, spatiality is simply visual depth, three-dimensional perspective: try to imagine a 3D world where time is stripped off and "frozen." Space is a perception, spatiality is an observation. When you look at the description for Intention #5, you can see that it aggregates both time and perception as key concepts, but not space. This is not to worry about because we still have perception = time and perception = space at the level of this Intention, since time is higher-dimensional space. So this is what space really is when we cut out the noise of over-analysis. Still, we should take a closer look at the notion of perception to see what it entails.

The very process of being alive, and the perception thereof, is what makes time and space a reality. Therefore, it is always good to mold our understanding around the idea that time and space are not separate from each other and that both relate to our perception. It is worth mentioning that by *perception* we mean the entire perceptual experience, not just the sensory part of it. Perception comes first: it is actively constructing the world for us, while sensation is passive and thus lies at the other (receiving) end of perception, which is open to receive stimuli from the world. Alternatively, we can go further and study time and space under the light of consciousness, which is the most important element / link missing in scientific studies. Truth is that consciousness (IC #12) is the only true authority when it comes to deciding what takes place in the physical world. Notice that Intention #12 is the highest one after Intention #13. With that said, consider the following according to the Thirteen Intentions:

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

Perception (IC #5) can be defined as the mental apprehension of a certain number of things, be them imaginary or existing. We can generally observe that our perception is always limited to a number of familiar phenomena. The only hope for change lies with the natural evolution of consciousness, which is when our perception of the world and ourselves can change at once. Moreover, the perception process can be reduced to a sequence of elements (perceptions) occurring along a time axis. There are strong and weak perceptions, also objective and subjective ones. To exemplify, consider a perception process that involves objective spatial (physical) perceptions only. In that case, as long as one carries that perception, they will be unable to understand how time and space are relative. The relativity becomes clear only after we start perceiving (i.e., visualizing, feeling) the metaphysical reality of time.

The main consequence of belief in absolute space is that it gives birth to the specific notion of *empty space*. In this view, space is supposed to exist "out there" even when there is absolutely no matter / energy. However, deeper analysis of the nature of reality shows us that the existence of empty space is not so much obvious as one may think. A particular example showing the absurdity of this notion arises from the problem of the *boundary*: In this case, a boundary is the middle between two opposite extremes that does not constitute a third extreme, but instead unifies the former into a paradox. Unfortunately, because ordinary perception is trapped in *monocularity*, it has much difficulty acknowledging the existence of boundaries.

Monocular perception occurs when the individual sees only one thing at a time but never both at once unseparated. He is always looking for a single exclusive thing to fit the lens of his monocle. As a result, he cannot distinguish between total absence and multiple unseparated presence, and so he fails to recognize when there is a paradoxical situation in which one thing does not automatically exclude the other. Understanding how monocular perception works is the key to understand how belief in absolute space, more specifically known as empty space, is meaningless.

Figure 3.# - Empty spaceIn the example illustrated above, a multiocular perception should be able to recognize that presence of thing and absence of thing are simultaneously occurring at the boundary. From this we can cogitate that space is as much as a thing as the things contained in it, and so it makes sense to say that thing = thing at the boundary. That free and occupied space are the same thing is indeed the case when we add the time dimension to a purely 3D (spatial) perception, since it will reveal that both material objects and "holes" are nothing more than the features of a 4D continuum. In this sense, absence of thing in 3D space still constitutes presence in four dimensions, that is, it still constitutes a 4D "object," namely an *event* considering the 4th dimension as time. So, notice how there is no basis to the claim that objects are "in" space when space itself is another object, not a physical one obviously, but one of perception.

We can also take the reductionist route and argue that an array of atoms constitute the definitive barrier between empty space and object. This sounds like a comforting answer, but the actual nature of reality according to the Intentions of Creation is based on the interconnection (IC #12) between an infinite (IC #8) number of elements everywhere (IC #10). __Everything is connected.__ This means that a reductionist approach 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. The truth is that all ideas exist within a determined threshold, and size is no exception: things can only be as small as the idea of size remains applicable, because anything beyond starts fading into abstraction (IC #9) and finally into a paradox where everything coexists inseparably.

By 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 we know that reality (IC #3) results from interconnectedness (IC #12). But how can we corroborate this with real examples? Well, it is not easy to demonstrate how continuity and interconnectedness have their place in a macroscopic world where things definitely appear to be disconnected. Because of this, some people prefer to jump to the other extreme and discard physical reality as an "illusion." Well, for most people reality will always be sufficiently concrete, like a persistent illusion, yet experiments in modern physics have shown that reality can also be probabilistic and nondeterministic when our perception crosses a certain threshold. So, determinism and nondeterminism are not mutually exclusive, but the latter is certainly truer to the nature of reality.

Quantum physics is the new science that came to explain the previous anomalous behavior of subatomic particles. It also introduced a new view of the microscopic world that made the classical deterministic (Newtonian) approach obsolete / inappropriate for a study at that level. Now that physicists know about quantum *non-locality*, the classical notion of space barely holds at atomic and sub-atomic levels. Instead of the common view of solid particles bumping into each other, detecting and analyzing elementary particles at the quantum scale requires the use of statistics and wave theory. In quantum mechanics, waves exist only in an abstract space, which by definition is non-local, and so they prove nothing about the existence of a physical reality at the microscale.

Although the wave model in physics is initially abstract, wave functions can be used to describe any physical system. What quantum mechanics did was extending the wave model to describe the state of a particle or a collection of particles. The wave function is then interpreted as a distribution / set of probabilities. The distribution can be worked out accurately, but not the actual location of the particle. Instead, the position of the particle is described by the probability associated with a collection of y-values of the wave function. For example, if a particular y-value defines a sharp peak, it means that we have a good chance of locating the particle at the region of space associated to the range of x-values near the peak.

Figure 3.# - Wave probabilitiesThese interesting concepts introduced by quantum physics signify that particles and atoms 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 and position of a particle according to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.^{2} The more precise one measurement is, the more diffuse the other becomes. Yet far more consequential is that at the quantum level even the existence of space is only a possibility. Then, according to the reductionist hypothesis, there should be nothing of substance supporting the existence of macroscopic space either. So, again we are led to believe that there is much less reality to space itself than there is to the perception process of it.

All this indeterminism is not to confuse us; instead, it is evidence that a better understanding of physical reality comes when we see space as just another structure pertaining to this ocean / continuum of energy that is the Universe. This great unified field of energy does not possess any characteristic in *particular*, but it will assume precisely those structures that we want to observe so that we can make sense of the immaterial chaos. Energy itself is by nature non-local, but with great effort we can localize it and ascribe to the result discrete characteristics of the types of particles, atoms, molecules, "strings," etc. -- whatever makes you happy. If we do not assume some structure as existing, then nothing can be predicted or controlled, and all appearances become misleading. When uncertainty reigns absolute, at most we can make only approximations (IC #11).

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.

Figure #.# - External perspective Bonus image Bonus imageA 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 *n*th 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 phenomenon, 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} "Relativity and the Problem of Space" - Albert Einstein (1952) - p.139 - English translation published 1954 ^

^{2} In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that we can never know accurately both the position and momentum of a particle at some point in time. The more we know about one measurement, the more we disturb the other, making it fuzzy. Obviously, the measurements of position and velocity are interdependent, and so in reality there is only one property being dealt with. With this in mind, the Heisenberg principle is simply a formalization of the fact that it is difficult for us to localize a particle. Even when we know for sure where a particle is for a single instant, it is useless because we do not know where the particle will be in the next instant, so we need to sacrifice accuracy of position in order to know something about the velocity as well. In any case, the physicist must work with approximations, also known as uncertainties. ^

In Chapter 1 we defined Creation as an "overall existence". Well, notice that in the same manner that *Creation* with capital *C* is not the same as *creation* (i.e., the action of creating), *Existence* with capital *E* is not the same as *existence* (i.e., one form of reality among many others). For this reason, it is imperative that we redefine these concepts as follows:

creation -> the action of creating -> IC #3 existence -> a form (IC #4) of reality (IC #3) -> 3 x 4 = 12 -> 1 + 2 = 3 -> IC #3 Existence / Creation -> all (IC #10) realities (IC #3) -> 10 + 3 = 13 -> IC #13 overall / absolute (IC #1) existence (IC #3) -> 1 + 3 -> 13 -> IC #13Schematics 3.#

Whether we call It Existence or Creation, we are always talking about just one absolute. What is not immediately obvious is that the concept of existence as an absolute yields an interesting implication: it makes of it a *paradox*. In Section 1.5 we saw how the idea of wholeness can be recursively defined on top of its opposite (negation). In other words, an absolute concept is paradoxical by nature because it incorporates and includes even its own "shadow." Therefore, as contradictory as it may seem, both that which exists and that which does not exist is a functional part of Existence. That is why Existence is better understood and defined by its paradoxical (IC #10) 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}

Existence being a transcendental concept is beyond any rational definition. Thus it may not be possible for us to believe that Existence is a true / valid phenomenon if we cannot even define It. Still we may look harder and try to define Existence rationally, but for that we will need to take *nonexistence* into consideration. It is simply not possible to define (IC #2) something without invoking its opposite, that is, another thing that can provide a contrast for reference. Yet the problem regarding our model of absolutes is that nonexistence cannot be considered a valid opposite to Existence when the latter is an absolute (uppercase) concept that by definition should already nest all lesser (lowercase) concepts under its wings. To clarify, there is no opposite to Existence except Existence Itself.

Existence is directly linked with and has its basis in consciousness. When that which was previously unknown to our consciousness suddenly becomes known, it is the same as if that thing had been magically brought into existence within our universe. Something which we are not conscious of, simply does not exist to us. Therefore, according to this logic if we ever come to experience nonexistence, it will actually feel like a valid mode of existence to us; it will feel like something. __Nothing is still something.__ Otherwise, if nonexistence does not allow for any kind of awareness, then by definition it cannot exist, because no one could be conscious of it in order to prove its existence. In sum, either nonexistence is just another mode of existence or it does not exist; either way, that leaves only Existence as a valid (absolute) concept.

It is worth mentioning that one of the limitations of rational (linear) thinking is that it sees paradoxes as problems that must be resolved somehow. But sometimes a paradox is the answer, not the problem. Paradoxes in Nature *appear* to be contradictions, but in truth they express a non-dual truth: the coexistence of opposites. A paradox expresses a higher order of oneness: when we contemplate a paradox we begin to learn how there is unity in multiplicity at the same time that the contrary is also true. So basically Creation is just one singularity assuming different aspects. Holistic thinking, for example, accepts paradoxes as they are because it knows that the true nature of reality is indivisible and thus cannot be partitioned without loss of meaning. Rational thinking, in contrast, has this compulsive need to separate / classify (IC #2) things in order to justify and explain their nature. As a result, rationalism will often fail miserably in understanding the essence of things, the paradox of Existence.

Fortunately, there is a way for us to conceptualize / visualize Existence by using the notion of a *singularity*. The idea of a manifested (IC #3) singularity (IC #1) is a very good representation for Existence. Problem is that science cannot prove the existence of singularities because they are a phenomenon when / where all physical laws and equations "break down." In physics, for example, a singularity is defined as a point in space-time at which gravitational forces are extreme and physical quantities tend to infinity. As a result, space-time becomes infinitely distorted / warped. In astronomy, a singularity is expected to be that which lies at the core of a black hole.

Zero and infinity are the two fundamental extremes that delimit all rational thought. A singularity on the other hand is that which promotes the *identity* between fundamental extremes, namely 0 = ∞, because a singularity is nothing and also everything. Therefore, instead of the monocular (dual) perception that there can be only zero or infinity at any one time, we can choose to see both at once unseparated forming a whole (paradox - IC #10), which proves our point that the singularity of Creation is the same as a paradox after all; although, in this case, it is a paradox that is "alive" / manifest. Going even further, we can give this paradox a formal definition in the form of a conceptual (universal - IC #12) equation:

0 + infinity = 1Schematics 3.# - Universal equation

leaving alone the factt that this equation incldues two concpetual numbers,zero andinfinity, and conceptual is quivlaent to universal according to ic #13, why is it Why is it an __U__niversal equation? Well, it could be called Existential equation as well, just a sUniversal, or Reality requastion, since the nature of realityis also fundamentlaly paradoxical. when we say universal with capital U we jst mena its valid toall imaginabl realities not mattering what universes they belong to. We have alrady seen how Universe is the sameas Multiverse. Justike there can be many realities in an universe, there can bemany unvierses in an multiverse.

Anyway, the Universal equation has little value except as a philosophical truth / consideration that everything is one and one is everything, as well as that nothing and everything are one. In order to make it more useful, we must transform it into a real mathematical equation so that it accurately describes ordinary reality and not just an abstract universal reality. That is, we need to find a way to work this equation mathematically until we are able to see how the truth contained in it also reflects in the fleeting aspects that compose our reality. The first step to transform this equation into a real mathematical one lies in replacing the imaginary ideals of zero and infinity, which by definition are never achievable, with approximations denoted by the limit notation of calculus. In this case, zero will become a *fixed* limit and infinity an *unbounded* limit.

Consider that `a + b = 1` is the prototype of a real-world incarnation of the Universal equation. Also consider that `a→0` and `b→∞`, where symbol `→` reads as "tends to." One thing that variables `a` and `b` have in common is that they both *converge* to a limit, in this case zero and infinity respectively. Now, whether we are talking about a convergence with an approach that is infinite or infinitesimal, in both cases there is an underlying process that goes on forever, hence infinitely. We can therefore conclude that there is a variable `x` that tends to infinity not mattering the direction of convergence.

and .

To keep matters as simple (IC #1) as possible, let us derive nothing more than a single-variational equation from the previous prototype of two variables. In this case, we should express `a` and `b` in function of `x`: `a = ± x ^{-1}` and

`x ^{-1} + x = 1`

and

`-x ^{-1} + x = 1`.

Equation 3.2 has no solutions among the positive and negative numbers, yet it is possible to find a *complex* solution using *imaginary numbers*. Imaginary numbers are born from the symbolic manipulation of "impossible" magnitudes, which differ from real numbers to the extent that they are metaphysical, that is, they are not restricted to the physical notion of linear extension (i.e., length) that defines real numbers. In short, imaginary numbers are essentially meaningless, but that does not stop them from having physical applications in a variety of sciences. Anyway, we shall focus only on solving Equation 3.3 because we seek the meaning that the Universal equation holds with respect to physical reality, the practical world, and not with respect to an imaginary realm populated with imaginary numbers. Therefore, we are better off elaborating upon the *real* solutions of Eq. 3.3 than upon the complex (non-real) solutions of Eq. 3.2, which at least for now are useless to our purpose.

Proceeding, if we multiply both sides of Equation 3.3 by `x`, we obtain the quadratic equation `x ^{2} - x - 1 = 0`. To solve this equation we must use the quadratic formula;

`x = (1 ± √5) ⁄ 2 ⇒ `.

As displayed above, there are two possible solutions for Equation 3.3. Curiously, but not coincidentally, the first value of `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 take a look at how this relationship takes place, but for now we shall focus 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 ..Schematics 3.# - Phi up to 1040 decimal places Figure #.# - Phi letters

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 yet maintain their individuality.

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 © 2008-2012 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.