STREAM : Delta Theory : Chapter 1 : Physical Logic

This chapter will describe a consistent metaphysical foundation, which I call, the physical logic. Considering the amount of elements this foundation incorporates, it is minimal. However, instinctively, understanding it, is challenging. Therefore, it is best to first approach it, through the use of metaphors.
Imagine a photograph of a boat sailing at sea. A huge chunk of metal afloat, peacefully. Can you imagine it? Good. Ok, now, tell me, how high is the boat? If you know something about boats, you would know, usually, half the height of a boat, is submerged underwater. Considering this, you could answer, the boat is twice the height it appears in the picture. However, what if I told you, a computer rendered this image? In such a case, arguably, the boat has no height whatsoever, because physically, It does not exist. Nevertheless, physically, the picture does exist. Moreover, computers operate consistently. To clarify, there is no "ghost in the machine", creating this image. Computers follow software instructions, while manipulating the laws of mechanics and electronics, consistently. They obey consistent and well-defined algorithms and mathematical equations. Therefore, the computer created the image of the boat consistently as well. Ok, still, what does this have to do with anything?
Well, the physical logic argues, that exactly as the image of the boat is a consistent product of the computer, the same applies to all elements existing in the world. Matter, sensations, changes of states of consciousness, all six items on our list, as well as all consistent elements in the world, are a consistent product of the logical field, which is the essence of the world-in-itself. Considering the sensation we sense, while thinking about metaphysical enigmas (such as, the first "cause", for example), they are consistent with the logical field, in the same consistent manner the computer created the image of the boat. The height of the boat does not exist, regardless if we think it exists or not. The existence of such thought sensations, is consistent with the logical field, while the semantic meaning of these sensations, is not. Considering mechanical determinism, the term "cause", does not refer to any element within the logical field, and therefore, it does not exist, and hence, the first "cause", did not exist as well. Indeed, the world obeys causality. However, causality is not an element in the world. It is an idea, and ideas cannot exist in the logical field, separately from our thoughts about them. The same applies to all elements within our consciousness, meaning, sensations, constructs of sensations, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification. While obviously, they occur, they do not exist as ideas. We could rephrase it and say, generalizations do not exist in the world. Only the regularities thought, sensory, repression, and nullification represent, exist.
Still, obviously, we cannot map the essence of sensations onto the logical field yet. So far, we have only discussed what is not in the logical field. To populate the logical field, we need to discuss what does exist in it. Therefore, let us begin by defining two basic attributes, "is", and "isn't".
Unlike other theories, metaphysical theories possess a unique autonomic quality. To explain, because metaphysical theories proclaim to explain all the elements existing in our reality, the very discussion about them must be included in this explanatory bulk. This poses a problem, unique to consistent metaphysical theories, as consistent metaphysical theories do not allow discussion, regarding any element, whose existence we cannot explain rationally. Therefore, essentially, consistent metaphysical theories must proclaim some of the elements they discuss, emerge out of nothing, as eventually, there must be elements, which metaphysically, no other element produces, and hence, only nothing can yield them. Arguably, the logical field is one such element. Still, while this limitation is problematic, it provides us with one conceptual category, which we can use for our analysis. To explain, because consistent metaphysical theories possess the attribute of being consistent, they provide us with the categorical division between metaphysical consistency and metaphysical inconsistency, by default. And this is where the terms "is" and "isn't" come into play. "Is" we will define, as whatever is consistent. "Isn't" we will define, as whatever is inconsistent. If an element is "is", it exists, as it is consistent with the logical field. If an element is "isn't", it does not exist, because it is inconsistent with the logical field. Still, regardless if an element, which is "isn't", does not exist in the world, it might still be useful for our understanding, as implicitly, it describes the boundaries of our world, and arguably, the logical field embodies one such element.
Now that we have established these two basic terms, we can begin exploring the logical field. Naturally, the term "field" refers to an idea. Therefore, obviously, the logical field is not a type of a "field". The term, "logical field" is merely a name, which embodies the regularities, which according to the physical logic, exist in the world, including those existing in our consciousness. Therefore, from our perspective, the logical field embodies every sensation in our consciousness. Furthermore, because the physical logic determines that the logical field produces all the elements in the world, then obviously, our consciousness does not produce it. Our consciousness is a product of the logical field. Therefore, while indeed, the logical field includes the collection of all the sensations in our consciousness, it cannot be a construct of sensations, as it does not rely on any validating sensation. To summarize, the logical field is not knowledge. While the logical field motivates our thoughts, our thoughts do not produce it. Therefore, obviously, either accepting the existence of the logical field, or adopting the physical logic as our belief, is our subjective choice. Nevertheless, this choice demands very little of us. It merely demands we believe in the existence of logical consistency. That is all. Obviously, the physical logic does not imply, that the term "physical logic" exists. The term "physical logic" represents an idea, a generalization, and therefore, it cannot exist in the logical field. It is an "isn't". Only the existence of the regularities the physical logic describes exists. Other than that, nothing exists. Nothing is "is", other than consistent flows of causality.
Still, ontologically, the physical logic does not imply nihilism, as the regularities the logical field sustains, produce every element we know. The same applies to our consciousness. Naturally, our consciousness, meaning, what we perceive as our consciousness, cannot exist in the logical field, as a definition. Definitions are generalizations, and therefore, again, they cannot exist in the logical field. Our consciousness can only be a flow of consistent causality, as according to the physical logic, there is simply no other option. However, instinctively, we sense our consciousness as a unified entity, generalizing our sense of being, into our concept of ourselves. Therefore, obviously, much of our intuitive ideas regarding our consciousness, are false, as according to the physical logic, there are no "materials", which could produce and validate these intuitions.
Still, why should generalizations generate inconsistencies? Let us think. When we say an element "exists", implicitly, we combine the various sensations we sense from this element, into a single sensation. It is similar to giving a generalization, a name. For example, let us consider our own names. When I say: "I am Ptyl", actually, I am generalizing my consciousness, body, and memories, as the name "Ptyl". In this sense, the term "Ptyl" represents an idea, just as the term "I" represents an idea, and therefore, both cannot exist in the logical field. Nevertheless, these are two different sensations. Utilizing this duality, they attempt to validate one another. On the one hand, the name "Ptyl", defines me for others, while the existence of others in my mind, makes me believe I exist as well. On the other hand, because I exist, I can have a name. To summarize, by saying "I am Ptyl", my consciousness attempts to validate its existence, with a tautology.
Now, let us consider the sentence, "I am not Ptyl". Obviously, our old friend Zack, would find this sentence perfectly valid. However, for me, it is false. Why is that? Well, it is simply that the term "I" is more meaningful to me than my name. However, if both would have been equally meaningful to me, this sentence would produce a variation of the liar paradox. To explain, if I was to say, "I am lying", there would have been no way to determine whether I am more "I", or more "lying". However, when I say "I am not Ptyl", implicitly, it is obvious I am more "I", than "not Ptyl". Still, again, this is obvious only implicitly. There is nothing in the grammar of the language, or the logical structure of the sentence, to suggest it. The same applies to the liar paradox. If I was to say, "I am here, with you, in this room. I am Ptyl, it is my name. I am speaking. I am thinking. I am fantasizing. I am lying. I am living", somehow, the paradox would vanish. Indeed, this last example does not produce a paradox, because I used the language in a different manner. Nevertheless, this example shows, that neither the meaning of the generalizations we use in our statements, nor the manner by which we put them together within a sentence, can create paradoxes, by themselves. Only the manner by which we understand a statement, may produce a paradox. To clarify, only the sensory we select, to determine which thought we should use to understand a sentence, can produce a paradox. In other words, paradoxes are products of our beliefs. To conclude, had the logical field allowed the existence of generalizations within it, our subjective choice how to interpret generalizations, would have rendered the logical field, inconsistent.

But why? Well, again, let us consider the liar paradox. Arguably, the concepts which compose the liar paradox, namely, the terms "I", "am", and "lying", are consistent. Furthermore, obviously, placing the terms one after the other, either verbally or in writing, is "harmless". Therefore, essentially, the sequence of words, "I am lying", is "harmless" as well. Indeed, whenever we try to understand this sentence rationally, we fail to do so. However, in itself, this is not a problem, as potentially, there is an infinite amount of word sequences in the English language, which we cannot understand rationally. For example, we cannot understand the sequence "My dog house cat", even though all the words compiling the sentence, are in English. Indeed, the grammar of the sentence "my dog house cat", is wrong, while the grammar of the sentence "I am lying", is correct. However, we can understand neither, and therefore, semantically, they are identical. They both represent nothing. However, once we generalize the sentence "I am lying", and give it a name, meaning, "the liar paradox", we have a problem, as the term "the liar paradox", does not represent the sequence of words "I am lying", but rather the paradoxical idea this sequence implies semantically. Essentially, by claiming it is a paradox, it implies that conceptually, the sentence is meaningful. Therefore, by generalizing this sequence of words, implicitly, we claim a meaningless sentence, is meaningful. To summarize, by subjugating the words compiling the sentence "I am lying", into the concept of a paradox, we imply that the meaning of the sentence, both exists, and does not exist. Therefore, the generalization, "the liar paradox", both exists and does not exist. Therefore, had this generalization existed in the logical field, it would imply the logical field is inconsistent, as it hosts an inconsistent element.
The same applies to all generalizations. Each generalization embodies a conceptual collection of several concrete occurrences of the meaningful pattern, the generalization implies. For example, the term "table", represents the collection of all elevated surfaces, of this specific size and purpose. Still, none of these tables are the term itself. However, had we removed from existence all the specific tables, which ever existed, the term table would be meaningless, as no one would have a clue what a table could be. Therefore, the generalization "table", both does, and does not exist, and therefore, had it existed in the logical field, it would mean the logical field hosts inconsistent elements, contrary to its definition, deeming the logical field, inconsistent, metaphysically.
Still, consciousness-in-itself must exist, as something must generate our sensation of self-awareness. Therefore, consciousness-in-itself cannot be a generalization. Moreover, every sensation in our consciousness, which can create a meaningful generalization, can exist merely as a delusion. This applies to many concepts we take for granted, such as our concept of ourselves, or our definition of what our consciousness is. Still, this does not mean generalizations are meaningless. It merely determines that ontologically, meaning does not exist in a meaningful way. Meaning is a semantically meaningless consistent flow of causality, similar to the word sequence, "my dog house cat". It cannot exist in any other way, within the logical field.
To clarify this issue, consider the following illustration. Think of the logical field as a large sheet. A generalization is similar to a hand, pushing under the sheet. When our consciousness senses a generalization sensation, it is analogous to seeing the shape of a hand, which the hand forms, by pushing under the cloth. A paradox, is analogous to an attempt of two such sheet-covered hand shapes, to create the illusion there is a hole in the sheet, by touching each other's fingertips. To explain, consider the perspective, from which we can see a gap, spanning between the point where the two fingers push against one another, and the base of the sheet. From this perspective, it appears as if we can see through the sheet. Therefore, it appears as if the hands create a "hole" in the sheet. Obviously, there is no such hole. The sheet merely allows the illusion of a "hole". The two hands do not really touch each other, above the sheet. The sheet stretches from its base, covers, and separates the fingers. Had the hands descended back under the sheet, the sheet would have stretched back down, undamaged. However, underneath the sheet, the two hands might actually touch one another. In such a case, the two hands would create a bigger bump underneath the sheet. Still, from our perspective, we would no longer see these are two hands.

Had the logical field allowed the existence of generalizations semantically, it would have been analogous, to allowing the hands to touch each other, while poking holes in the sheet. In analogy, the sheet, is the consistency of the logical field. We can retrace every point on it, to a previous point on the sheet, in each direction. The same applies to the consistency of the logical field. Every element within the logical field, has a consistent causative justification, why it became as it is. Being visible from a perspective above the sheet, is analogous to being an element our consciousness can sense, and therefore, to be a consistent product of the logical field. Without tearing holes in the sheet, the only way for an element to be visible (meaning, possible), is if the sheet covers the element. What the existence of the meaning of generalizations imply, is that an element would detach itself, from the consistent manner, by which we deduced its meaning. For example, considering the generalization "table", we deduced its meaning, by detaching our concrete experiences with tables, from the term "table" itself. Still, without these experiences, we could never deduce this meaning. While obviously, some of our generalizations, such as "causes", "purposes", and "meanings", are so abstract, we cannot trace them to any concrete experience we sensed, and from which we deduced them. Nevertheless, obviously, these generalizations did not spore out of thin air. They are compiled from other sensations and generalizations, some of which, we must have deduced from concrete experiences. Arguably, had we removed from our memory, all the concrete experiences from which we deduced every abstract generalization, they would have never crossed our minds.
We can map all six items on our list to this metaphor. The logical field produces our sensations, and therefore, a sensation is analogous to a "bump" , appearing as a section of the sheet, rises from its base. Sensory is analogous to a rising of a "bump", either by a single hand pushing beneath the sheet (meaning, belief), or spontaneous (meaning, due to the work of an element, external to our consciousness). A construct of sensations is analogous to a collection of hands, pushing the sheet upwards together, and forming bigger "bumps". Nullification is analogous to a spontaneous flattening of a bump, while thought and repression are analogous, to interactions between such sheet covered hands, either inflating or deflating a "bump", respectively.
Still, with respect to this metaphor, we do not see any hands. The sheet rises by itself. While we interpret the shapes it produces, as hands pushing from beneath it, these "hands" do not exist separately from the sheet. During our experience with this sheet, we named many repeated patterns, occurring above its base. We learn to ignore the fabric of the sheet, and care only for the shapes rising from it. Still, the sheet produces these patterns, regardless how we name them, or if we notice them at all. In fact, the very act of naming patterns the sheet sustains, is yet another pattern it exhibits.
To summarize, only the logical field exists. The logical field is the only element that can produce any element within it, or cause elements it produced to interact, including elements within our consciousness. Therefore, sensations cannot "poke holes in the sheet". Had a sensation (generalized or otherwise) tore holes in the sheet, it would imply the sheet tore itself. In analogy, this would mean, that the logical field contradicted itself. However, this is impossible, as metaphysically, the logical field is consistent, by definition. Furthermore, there is only one sheet. Therefore, nothing exists but the sheet. Our consciousness is an area in the sheet, where the sheet folded and covered itself. Every change occurring on one side of the fold, affects the other side of the fold. To explain, our self-awareness, is similar to the sensation we feel in our fingers, as we grab a piece of cloth. Because we sense our existence in both sides of the cloth, we believe we feel our own fingers, and not an external element. We dismiss the fact we sense the cloth, as the cloth appears passive, when compared with the strength of our grip. However, from the "perspective" of a single finger, it has no way of knowing, the finger pushing against it, is its own. Furthermore, had the opposite fingers not pushed against it, we would have given greater attention to the cloth. The same applies to our consciousness. Had we not taken for granted the belief we sense our existence, we would have understood we sense something other than ourselves. We would have understood we sense the logical field.
Still, what does it mean? Is our consciousness located, in a special "folding area" in our brain? Are the neurons in our brain pushing against each other? Does consciousness fold space?
Well, obviously, we cannot answer such questions yet, as currently, we only defined the logical field. We claimed that only the regularities the logical field sustains, exist. We have not defined "space", meaning, we have not defined where these regularities exist. Considering our metaphysical foundation, answering this question is not trivial. To explain, If a regularity is to exist, it must exist within "something". However, metaphysically, regularities cannot exist within the logical field, as again, the logical field is a generalization in our minds. Its meaning is not an existing object. Therefore, the existence of regularities, implies a spatial dimension of some sort. However, to ensure the persistent existence of this spatial dimension, a regularity must exist, a-priori.
But why? Well, again, according to the physical logic, only the regularities the logical field sustains, exist. Therefore, the only type of existence possible, are regularities. Therefore, there is no other choice. Had the space in which regularities exist in, not existed, they would have no element to affect, and therefore, they could not compose the world. To conclude, the persistent existence of space, must be a regularity. Without it, space would simply nullify. Moreover, the existence of any sort of space, demands the regularities it sustains will preserve its integrity. To explain, theoretically, any type of space, could persist to exist, while sporadically disintegrating into several subspaces. For example, considering the three dimensional space we know, without a regularity sustaining its integrity, it could have split into several worlds. While indeed, for us, such an event appears absurd, the truth is, we are simply accustomed to our reality.
In short, generally, persistence is not trivial. There is a great difference between being possible, and being persistent. For example, while winning the lottery is possible, winning the lottery every week, is a much tougher "challenge".
To conclude, according to the physical logic, we cannot separate the existence of space, from the existence of some sort of regularity within it. Ontologically, any existing space must be an existing regularity, and therefore, semantically, the concepts "space", and "existing regularity", are identical. Moreover, with space being a dimension, the same applies for all the dimensions we know, meaning, regularities define dimensions, and the existence of dimensions, reflect the existence of regularities sustaining them.
To summarize, the logical field sustains the existence of dimensions within it. In fact, according to the physical logic, dimensions are the building blocks, compiling the world. Therefore, we could explore the world the physical logic describes, by exploring its dimensions. Instinctively, we are acquainted with the three spatial dimensions. In addition, according to modern science, time is a dimension as well. Still, we did not define any temporal or spatial dimension, in a manner consistent with the physical logic, as our common definitions for time and space, are ambiguous. Intuitively, we think of time and space in terms such as schedules, locations, and directions. Our common definitions of time and space, have little to do with the existence of regularities. Therefore, we must redefine the nature of the dimensions we know, in a manner consistent with the physical logic.
To do this, let us consider the following illustration. On the left, we see a two dimensional square. To add an additional spatial dimension to this square, and transform it to a box, its entire two-dimensional area, must expand in the dimension of depth. Adding such a dimension, changes nothing in the original square. The same applies to the logical field. Adding additional dimensions cannot change the dimensions the logical field sustains already. Therefore, theoretically, there is no limit to the amount of dimensions the logical field can sustain, as long as no dimension damages the consistency of other dimensions, as in analogy, it would be the same as damaging our initial square, while expanding it to a box. Considering our consciousness, as long as it does not damage the consistency of the spatial and temporal dimensions, it can exist independently from them. Essentially, our consciousness can sustain dimensions (meaning, existing regularities), different from those the spatial or temporal dimensions sustain.
Still, while there is no restriction over the amount of dimensions the logical field can sustain, the more we cluster dimensions together, the less potent dimensions become. To explain, let us consider our box. To reach the back of the box, we must traverse the entire depth of the box, continuously. Before we added depth to the square, its surface was always tangible to us. However, now that we expanded its depth, it is not. We cannot "skip" this distance. We cannot ignore the continuity of its depth. If we did, meaning, if somewhere along the depth of the box, the continuity of its depth was interrupted, it would no longer be a box. It would "split" into two adjacent boxes.
The same applies to dimensions. Once we cluster several dimensions together, meaning, once we exist within the span of several dimensions at once, we cannot take "short cuts". We cannot ignore the regularities some of the dimensions in the cluster sustain. We cannot generalize a consistent process, give it a name, and expect recalling this name, will produce a result, identical to the process we generalized. While indeed, we can do this in our minds, and surely, generalizations allow us to think about things, which would be too complex to think about otherwise, once we utilize generalizations, we detach our thoughts from the metaphysical nature of the logical field. In other words, we detach from reality.
To explain, supposing we had a box with ten apples in it, while we need a hundred apples. Utilizing our knowledge in mathematics, we can divide a hundred by ten, and so, we can conclude, we require ten such boxes. Indeed, ten such boxes would suffice. Basic mathematical functions, such as division and multiplication of natural numbers, are defined consistently. However, obviously, we cannot multiply the box we have by ten. We must go to the store, and fetch another nine such boxes. We cannot neglect the physical aspects of the problem we face, by generalizing the processes this problem suggests, and treating them as an abstract idea. Once we remove the concrete physical limitations from a problem, we remove its meaning. To clarify, once we remove the physical restrictions from a problem (for example, the amount of time it takes to reach the store, or the amount of work we need to do, to raise the funds we require to purchase these apples), we remove the physical benefits as well. Considering the apples, removing the physical limitations, implies revoking the spatial implications of the problem, and therefore, we revoke our ability to eat these apples. Once we use the abstract idea of mathematical multiplication, the apples become abstract as well.
Therefore, while the physical logic is consistent and logical, it cannot suffer from inconsistencies and paradoxes, such as Russell's paradox for example. To explain, Bertrand Russell, a philosopher and mathematician, found a paradox in set theory, which we now know as "Russell’s Set". Russell’s Set, is the set of all sets, which do not contain themselves. Obviously, if a set contains itself, it cannot be in Russell's set. However, if it does not contain itself, then it must be in Russell's Set . While indeed, this paradox troubled "Set Theory", it does not challenge the physical logic, as according to the physical logic, the meaning of the term "set" does not exist. Still, there is an additional concrete reason, why Russell's Set cannot exist in the world. To clarify, regardless if the elements in this set are abstract ideas, or concrete physical elements, we simply could never finish its construction. With each step in its construction, we must still fulfill at least one more task, meaning, to either add, or remove, the set from itself. Therefore, the generalization "Russell's Set" does not represent a set at all. Once we remove the semantic meaning of the term "set", "Russell's Set" transforms into a process that never ends. Therefore, "Russell's Set" could never appear in the world, because to transform from an idea, into a real set, meaning, a collection of items, this process must end. Therefore, while indeed, "Russell's Set" exposed inherent flaws of "Set Theory", again, it does not challenge the physical logic. On the one hand, "sets" do not exist in the logical field. On the other hand, infinite processes do exist in the logical field, as arguably, the persistent existence of space, embodies such a process.
To conclude, again, while the meaning of generalizations can lead to paradoxes, we cannot map such meanings onto elements in the world, and therefore, whenever we generalize, we distance ourselves from the limitations and circumstances of actual occurrences. Considering the box metaphor, generalizing is similar to "teleporting" to the back of the box, without traversing its depth. Generalizations breach the limitations of temporal and spatial consistency, just as breaking the spatial continuity of the box, breaks it in two.
Still, what about time? Modern physics tell us time is a dimension. Still, our discussion is metaphysical. Why should we define time as a dimension? Dimensions represent the existence of consistent regularities, which do not affect the consistency of any other dimension. They are analogous to space. Furthermore, if we consider the logical field as a "space", we could say dimensions are subspaces of the logical field. If a dimension vanishes, the regularity it sustains ceases to exist. In analogy, once we remove the dimension of depth from our previous box, the box would no longer have depth. Still, if time is a dimension, what will vanish once it nullifies? Without time, any change a regularity inflicts ceases to occur, and therefore, the regularity ceases to exist. To explain, regularities do not exist within dimensions. The changes regularities inflict are dimension in themselves. Therefore, without time, the logical field must vanish. Still, the logical field produces all the elements in the world. Therefore, unlike dimensions, time is not a subspace of the logical field. The logical field is either identical to time, or the product of time. To explain, either the logical field produces itself, or not. However, because the logical field includes all the consistent elements in the world, if time both produces the logical field, and is different from it, it implies, time might be an inconsistent element. Nevertheless, because nothing exists without time, metaphysically, it must exist.
To conclude, the physical logic has at least two variations. In one, the consistent physical logic, time is space, is the logical field, is the essence of the world-in-itself. In this variation, the world-in-itself is completely consistent. In the second variation, the inconsistent physical logic, there is at least one inconsistent element in the world-in-itself, which is time. However, inconsistent elements are impenetrable to consistent analysis. Furthermore, let me remind you, we are attempting to populate the consistent metaphysical theories category. Therefore, within the context of this text, the inconsistent physical logic will not interest us. The similarities between the consistent and inconsistent versions of the physical logic, are insignificant, as they do not share the same metaphysical category, and hence, essentially, the inconsistent physical logic, is no different from the metaphysical theories religions endorse.
However, the consistent physical logic, is different. Indeed, we could claim, the logical field is the "essence of god". However, this implies that god is consistent. God is the logical field. God is impotent of any meaning. Only the inconsistent version of the physical logic, allows god to be something beyond cold logics, beyond proof, and meaningful. A "consistent god" has nothing to offer.
Therefore, let us continue on the path we selected, where all elements in the world are dimensions. Dimensions embody the regularities they sustain, meaning.
1. A dimension sustains a segment of the regularities, which the logical field sustains.
2. The regularity a dimension sustains, divides the logical field into two segments. In one segment, the regularity exists, while in the other segment, it does not.
3. The regularity a dimension sustains, does not affect the consistency of the regularities any other dimension sustains.
While indeed, we agreed that within the consistent physical logic, time is space, is the logical field, our use of the term space, might be misleading. The sensation of being in a three dimensional space, is clearly of a "generalized" nature. To clarify, whenever we look in a specific direction, our consciousness senses three spatial dimensions, and divides the logical field into three segments, meaning, three spatial dimensions. Each division is different. Whenever we change the direction at which we look, we see a completely different division of the logical field, into three subspaces. Therefore, there is no absolute division of the logical field, into three spatial dimensions. Our personal division of space, into height, width, and depth, interprets the space in which we exist, in a manner, which is meaningful to us. Still, this division has little to do with the amount of dimensions the logical field sustains. To explain, obviously, the logical field is consistent with this division. Moreover, the logical field is consistent with even more subjective divisions, occurring in our consciousness. For example, color represents another such division, as we can divide the world between elements which are red, and elements which are of a different color, while obviously, "being red" does not damage the consistency of other dimensions. Furthermore, the color "red", exists within our world, as according to contemporary physics, the regularity photons sustain, produces it. The same applies to sounds, smells, or even moods, and mood swings.
These are all dimensions by definition, as they represent divisions of the logical field. Furthermore, because the logical field produces the illusion our consciousness exists, then obviously, the logical field does not contradict these divisions. Nevertheless, the logical field does not demand their existence, and neither does our consciousness. To explain, we can change these divisions. For example, hallucinogenic drugs can mutate these divisions. To summarize, our consciousness determines the manner by which we sense the dimensions the logical field sustains. It selectively filters the dimensions the logical field sustains, before they appear in our consciousness, as sensations.
The same applies to our dreams. During a dream, our consciousness completely detaches itself, from the manner by which it divides the logical field into dimensions, during wakefulness. Obviously, the logical field allows this. Still, this does not change the manner by which our consciousness interprets the logical field during wakefulness. Moreover, the wakeful world persists, while dream worlds repeatedly nullify. Therefore, arguably, our dream worlds are located underneath the wakeful world, in the ontological hierarchy. To explain, our self-awareness is a product of divisions of the logical field into dimensions, which existed prior. Considering our previous cloth metaphor, the cloth persists to exist, regardless if we grab it or not. Therefore, the existence of our consciousness does not have to be continuous. The world can exist, without us thinking or sensing our existence. For example, when we pass out, our body “pauses” the continuity of our consciousness. Still, biologically, our body persists to exist, uninterrupted. Therefore, it is either that the regularities our body sustains, produce our consciousness, or that our consciousness persists to exist, even without us sensing it. To clarify, it is possible, our subconscious is persistent and continuous, while our self-awareness, is not. Still, this implies, our subconscious divides the world into dimensions, as well as generates the regularities, which govern our interactions with the material world. To explain, if the material world does not produce our self-awareness, something else must produce it, and link it with the material world. However, from our experience, we did not encounter such an agent. We only know our consciousness, and the elements that appear within it. While we can call it our subconscious, we can just as well call it god. Still, regardless, this "agent" is alien to our consciousness. Moreover, arguably, this "agent" prefers the material world, over our consciousness, as apparently, it "cares" more for the continuous consistent existence of the material world, than for the continuity of our consciousness. Therefore, while it is possible this "agent" is our subconscious, this option is at the very least "bizarre", as it implies, this "agent", which undoubtedly, is an inherent part of our existence, created a world especially for our consciousness, while "caring" more for the world it created, than for the consciousness for which it created it.
To summarize, while nothing obliges it, it is more plausible the material world produces our consciousness. In other words, if we define "dimensional derivation", as the process in which a dimension appears, in a manner consistent with the regularity another dimension sustained already, it is more plausible the dimension of consciousness (meaning, the dimension, which produces our self-awareness) derives from the materialistic dimensions. Still, again, currently, we cannot prove this claim, and therefore, it would be better to avoid this issue for now. To summarize, for the course of our discussion, it is best to think of our consciousness as a dimension the material world produces, where other regularities (meaning, dimensions) repeatedly appear and disappear. Thought, would be the intentional insertion of a new regularity, a new dimension, into our consciousness. Repression, would be an intentional removal of a dimension from our consciousness. Indeed, defining sensory and nullification poses a tougher challenge, as their definitions are dependent on essence of the elements producing our self-awareness. Still, regardless what these elements are, sensory and nullification do not derive from our dimension of consciousness. Considering sensations and constructs of sensations, these are simply the elements, which thought, sensory, repression, and nullification, affect.
Still, why should regularities exist? Well, actually, there is no reason. Still, arguably, this is not a problem, because according to the physical logic, the meaning of the term "reason", does not exist, as it represents a generalization. Still, there is more to it. Preventing the existence of regularities, is not trivial. In fact, only existing regularities may prevent the existence of other regularities, as any possible element we can think of, exhibits an existing regularity. Every element must sustain the regularity of persistence, meaning, the persistence of its own existence. Once it no longer persists, the regularities it prevented before, become possible again, meaning, these regularities become consistent with the logical field, and therefore, they must exist within it, as according to the Physical Logic, any possible world, meaning, any collection of existing regularities, consistent with both themselves, and the existence of our world, exist.
To conclude, to form a consistent metaphysical explanation for the essence of our consciousness, our best bet is to explore the regularities the materialistic dimensions sustain. Actually, this is the reason I named the physical logic as I did. The physical logic determines that the essence of matter is logical and consistent, and therefore, allows the existence of matter in the logical field. Still, it determines this only implicitly. Again, as I mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the arguments the Physical Logic suggests, are minimal, as essentially, the physical logic merely determines that only regularities exist. That is all. No additions. All that ever existed, all that exists now, and all that will ever exist, are regularities. Time is the existing regularity of persistence, producing the "space", in which other regularities may exist, meaning, the logical field. Therefore, all is the logical field. Still, again, there is no "field". The logical field is merely a generalization, which aids our discussion, with respect to the essence of the world-in-itself.
Actually, the physical logic demands even less. To clarify, on the one hand, as we already understood, existence is a regularity, meaning, the persistence of existence, and therefore, we can omit the word "existing" form the concept "existing regularities", as metaphysical regularities include "existence", by default. On the other hand, because the regularities the logical field sustains are consistent flows of causality, and not their description or prescription, and because the meaning of the concept "existing regularity", is identical to the meaning of the concept "existence", essentially, the physical logic merely demands "existence". Still, because the existence of either our consciousness or the illusion it exists, is obvious, then actually, the physical logic demands nothing other than consistency. However, had we removed the consistency limitation, there would have been no point to discuss anything anymore, as without consistency, we can understand nothing. Therefore, to conclude, adopting the physical logic as the metaphysical theory in which we believe, is identical to not adopting any metaphysical axiom, apart from our own existence, and the validity of rational discussion. In short, the physical logic demands we refrain from belief.
Still, how are we to build a world, filled with matter, life, consciousnesses, distances, etc., from such a minimal foundation? We require a richer ontological basis. We need to build a cosmology, in which physical elements could interact, and from which life and consciousness, could emerge.

Ok, everyone. Pack your bags.

We are moving out.