STREAM : Delta Theory : Chapter 2 : Logical Cosmology

As we mentioned at the end of the previous chapter, the metaphysical foundation the physical logic proposes, is too scarce to allow discussion regarding physical elements. This is not surprising. Ontologically, consistent metaphysical theories, must refrain from introducing fundamental elements, other than rational consistency itself. Otherwise, inevitably, they could not consistently justify, why some of the elements their foundation includes, exist. In other words, they would shift to the inconsistent metaphysical theories category. Obviously, this limitation creates an explanatory gap, between such an ontological foundation, and any discussion regarding matter. To discuss matter, we must pre-prepare a collection of conclusions, while basing this collection on this ontological foundation. Therefore, in this chapter, we will prepare this collection. Still, shifting between pure rational consistency, into issues regarding physics, demands we formalize this explanatory collection, in a manner fitting the challenge we face, meaning, confronting our existing knowledge in physics. We must formalize our conclusions, in a concise and well-defined manner. Still, I should warn you, this chapter will be far from trivial. While indeed, this chapter is critical for our journey, do not feel bad if you fail to understand it the first time. Nevertheless, try to understand it, before moving on to the next chapter. If you have the spare time, think about it, replay it, and then think about it again. I sincerely hope that eventually, you will understand most of it.
Ok, to begin this effort, let us review what we already learned.
1. Existence necessarily exists, because either our consciousness, or the illusion we harbor a consciousness, must exist.
2. The logical field is the world-in-itself, is space, is time, is existence.
3. A dimension sustains the existence of a consistent regularity. It divides the logical field into two segments. One segment is consistent with the regularity it sustains, while the other segment, is not. Any element which is consistent with the regularity a dimension sustains, exists within it, while any element that does not, cannot exist within it.
4. If the existence of a regularity is possible, meaning, if its existence does not breach the consistency of other already existing regularities, it exists. If the existence of a regularity is impossible, meaning, if its existence breaches the consistency of other already existing regularities, it cannot exist. Therefore, all possible dimensions, exist.

In addition, let us add two new definitions, to help our future discussion.
5. A world, is a collection of dimensions.
6. The world, is the collection of dimensions, our consciousness derives from.

Considering item number four, being possible, is dependent on the world we discuss. Naturally, if a world does not sustain any regularity, it imposes no limitation, and therefore, it can sustain any regularity, consistent with itself. However, once a world sustains some regularities, there might be regularities it could no longer sustain, regardless if they are consistent with themselves or not. For example, if a world, sustains three regularities, or alternatively, if a world, spans three dimensions, and adding one specific dimension to it, would breach the consistency of one of the dimensions this world already sustains, this world cannot span this new dimension. Nevertheless, because this new dimension is consistent with itself, it must exist in the logical field. Moreover, because this new dimension, is consistent with two of the dimensions this world spans, another world must exist in the logical field, which sustains this new dimension, along with these two dimensions. Therefore, the existence of such new dimension, would imply there are two parallel worlds in the logical field, each sustaining only one of the two contradicting dimensions. Moreover, both worlds would span the two dimensions, which are consistent with both. The logical field must allow the existence of both worlds, as they are both consistent worlds. Nevertheless, to prevent inconsistencies between these two parallel worlds, the logical field must disconnect them. In other words, these two worlds must be irrelevant to each other. Indeed, all consistent regularities, exist in the logical field. However, this does not imply the consistency of all regularities within the logical field, must be interconnected. On the contrary, a world is a closed system of regularities, meaning, it is consistent merely with itself.
To ease our discussion, let us add new definitions. A dimension, consistent to a world, is a dimension a world can span. A dimension, which is inconsistent with a world, is a dimension a world cannot span. Such a dimension is transcendent, or alternatively, external, to the world we discuss. Nevertheless, again, this does not imply this dimension does not exist. It can exist in a transcendent, or alternatively, external, world. All worlds are "disconnected" from their transcendent worlds. If a world "connected" to one of its transcendent worlds, both worlds would become inconsistent. The inconsistencies between them, will seep into the regularity sustaining the persistence of their existence, rendering these worlds inconsistent with the logical field. Therefore, both worlds would vanish, or alternatively, nullify.
Nevertheless, two contradictive worlds may still exist in the same world. A world may sustain a regularity, which separates their contradictions. To explain, for every two contradictive regularities, a world may sustain a regularity, which determines these two inconsistent dimensions, cannot "collide" in it. For example, space, sustains such a regularity. Space allows some elements to sustain the regularity of moving in one direction, while allowing other elements to sustain the regularity of moving in the opposite direction. We will call such hosting regularities, hosting dimensions, as the regularities they sustain, allow worlds to host several contradictive elements, which otherwise, could not exist in the same world. Nevertheless, while hosting contradictive regularities is both possible, and self-evident, spanning contradictive regularities, is problematic. The hosting dimensions a world sustains, determine the regularities elements within it can sustain. However, the dimensions a world spans, determine the collection of regularities all elements within it, must sustain. Therefore, had a world spanned contradictive dimensions, it would imply all elements within it must sustain contradictive regularities. Therefore, all the elements within this world, would have to be inconsistent elements. Naturally, the logical field, cannot allow the existence of any of these inconsistent elements, and therefore, such a world must be empty. Therefore, while indeed, such a collection of dimensions, is a world, by definition, it does not satisfy our common concept of a world, meaning, an existing element, which can host the existence of other elements within it.
Still, there is more to it. Worlds do not span their dimensions exclusively. Each partial subset of the dimensions a world spans, is in itself, a world, by definition. We will call such partial dimensional subsets, sub worlds. Surprisingly, worlds cannot host any of their sub worlds. Sub worlds fail to sustain at least one dimension, the world they subset spans. For example, considering space, if an element does not persist to exist in space, it cannot exist in our world, regardless if this element obeys all the other regularities our world sustains. To explain, such an element, fails to satisfy the basic requirements our world imposes, on all the elements it harbors. While indeed, such an element may span the dimensions it lacks, it can also span dimensions, which contradict its missing dimensions. Still, regardless if sometimes, such an element can obey the dimensional requirements of our world, it fails to obey the most fundamental regularity, all elements within consistent worlds must obey. It fails to persist to exist. A sub world, can persist to exist in the world it subsets, or not. Therefore, the existence of a sub world within the world it subsets, is inconsistent, and therefore, the logical field does not allow it. Still, being consistent, the logical field must allow such sub worlds to exist within it, as long as they exist separately from the worlds they subset.
Generally, sub worlds are more flexible than the worlds they subset, meaning, they can host more elements. Each regularity a world sustains, limits the types of elements, which can exist within it. Nevertheless, the more dimensions a world sustains, dimensionally, the elements it hosts must be more complex. This conclusion is not trivial. To explain, let us consider space again. Intuitively, we would think, that because space is three-dimensional, it could host two-dimensional elements within it. Instinctively, we think that because a three-dimensional space, is more complex than a two-dimensional space, a three-dimensional space is more versatile. However, the truth is exactly the opposite. A world spanning only two spatial dimensions, can host three dimensional elements, while a world spanning three spatial dimensions, cannot host two dimensional elements. Indeed, we can draw two-dimensional shapes on paper. However, the shapes we draw on paper, are not existing elements in our world. Physically, the shapes we draw on paper, are merely the markings we made, with the writing tool we used. The two-dimensional shapes we interpret from the paper, exist merely in our thoughts. We generalize the continuity of these shapes, into our generalized concepts of these shapes. Still, spatially, only the paper and markings exist in the world.
As hinted before, all consistent worlds sustain the regularity of persistence, meaning, the persistence of existence. If a world fails to sustain it, it does not persist to exist in the logical field, and therefore, it nullifies. We will define the existence of this regularity, as the dimension of existence. Intuitively, we could think the dimension of existence is universal, meaning, all possible worlds share it. However, again, our intuitions misguide us. We think of persistence in temporal terms, because semantically, the generalization "persistence", implies temporality. However, persistence, is far more versatile. For example, in space, persistence is spatial. Nevertheless, to be persistent, space does not need to expand over time. It can expand in a timeless manner. To summarize, the dimension of existence is different from our concept of time. Indeed, in the context of our world, the dimension of existence converts into the persistence of time. However, it converts into other forms of persistence as well, which we will soon describe.
Generally, different worlds may span different regularities as their dimensions of existence. For example, if all the dimensions a world spans, contradict the dimensions of another world, then obviously, the regularity their dimension of existence sustains, is different. Therefore, they sustain the persistence of their existence separately. Nevertheless, they can both derive from a single hosting dimension, which separates them into two different segments of the logical field. Indeed, in such a case, they share a dimension of existence, which is the dimension of existence sustaining this hosting dimension. However, this dimension of existence, merely sustains the persistence of both worlds within it. To explain, let us consider our consciousness. In our consciousness, we encounter elements which exist in the world (such as materialistic elements), and elements that do not exist in the worlds (such as generalizations, for example). The elements that exist in the world, exist regardless if they occupy our consciousness as sensations, or not. However, in contrast, once we shift our attention from a generalization, it no longer exists in the world. To clarify, supposing we look at the clouds, and see the shape of a bunny. A short time after, the shape of the bunny is no longer visible, while clouds still fill the skies. The clouds persist to exist in the skies, while bunnies no longer occupy our consciousness. While arguably, the shape of a bunny still exists in our memory, it just might be the last time we will ever remember it. However, clouds will persist to exist, regardless if they look like a bunny, or a pizza.
The conclusions we just made, are far from trivial. Therefore, let us summarize them, by updating our list of definitions. In addition, to enrich our terminology, let us begin by adding a new definition.
7. A singular world, is a world, which no other world hosts. A singular world spans its own dimension of existence, which sustains its regularity of persistence.
8. Only regularities can produce contradictions, and therefore, it is impossible to contradict the existence of regularity-in-itself, meaning, the elements which produce the existence of regularities.
9. A dimension of existence cannot nullify, because nullification contradicts the regularity it sustains.
10. A dimension a world spans, is relevant to that world, meaning, it is consistent with it.
11. A dimension is external, irrelevant, or transcendent to a world, if the regularity it sustains, contradicts the consistency of that world.
12. If at least one of a world's dimensions is irrelevant to another world, these two worlds are irrelevant to each other, or alternatively, these are contradictive worlds.
13. A sub world, is a world, which subsets the set of dimensions the world it subsets sustains. Considering the elements a sub world can host, it is less restrictive than the world it subsets.
14. A sub world cannot exist within the world it subsets. However, a sub world can host the world it subsets.
15. A world, and each of its sub worlds, are contradictive worlds.
16. A hosting dimension, sustains a regularity, which allows a world to host at least two contradictive worlds. As long as a hosting dimension hosts these sub worlds, they are not singular, as they share the same dimension of existence.
17. When a hosting dimension nullifies, the contradictive worlds it hosted, can no longer exist within the world that once spanned this hosting dimension.
Considering items fourteen and fifteen, we can deduce, that the less demanding the regularities an element within the logical field sustains, the more they are potent. While this principle is true to elements worlds host, it is even more true to singular worlds, meaning, elements no other world hosts, including the dimensions our world sustains. All of the dimensions our world sustains, can exist as singular sub one-dimensional worlds, and therefore, host more elements within them. For example, space can exist outside time, while time does not require space to exist in the logical field. Still, within our world, time and space are interconnected. Therefore, a regularity must enforce this interconnection, because according to the physical logic, nothing else exists, other than regularities.
We will define the existence of this regularity, as the dimension of causality. Actually, in the previous editions of "Delta Theory", I named this dimension, "the dimension of dimensions". However, after listening to this recording, I understood, the repeated use of the word "dimension", is confusing. Still, essentially, both the term "dimension of causality", and "dimension of dimensions", refer to the same thing. The dimension of causality, forces our world to sustain consistent dimensional complexity. This applies to both the dimension of existence, and the dimension of causality itself. The dimension of causality "treats" both existence, and itself, as two dimensions, consistent with all the other dimensions our world spans. While the dimension of existence converts into the regularity of persistence in time, the dimension of causality, imposes an equality, between regularity and existence. In many ways, the dimension of causality is the abstract space we discussed in the previous chapter. Abstractly, the dimension of causality defines the rules and playground, in which regularities can interact. Still, even if the dimension of causality is the crucial element allowing our world to harbor dimensional complexity, this does not imply that necessarily, the dimension of causality was the first dimension to emerge. Again, each dimension our world sustains, could have existed as a one-dimensional singular world, even before the dimension of causality emerged. Nevertheless, semantically, spanning the dimension of causality, changed the essence of the dimensions our world sustains. The dimension of causality, converted the existence of dimensions, into the existence of multi-dimensional regularities, which we know from our experience. For example, considering space, the dimension of causality converted the existence of space, into the existence of temporal consistent regularities within it. The dimension of causality utilizes causality, to bind the elements our world hosts, with the regularities our world sustains. Therefore, essentially, the dimension of causality harbors causality, in its raw uncorrelated form. Considering this, accidentally, we can solve the explanatory challenge, which mechanical determinism imposes, meaning, what happened before the first "cause". Before causality emerged, there were one-dimensional singular worlds. For example, space, as well as the elements within it, were detached from time. The logical field harbored a collection of spatial states, without any regularity linking them. Still, this is not a temporal precedence. It is metaphysical, meaning, it describes the state in which our world would be, once we remove the dimension of causality from it.

Arguably, of all the dimensions our world spans, the dimension of causality, is the hardest dimension to comprehend, because it filters out possible elements, we cannot even imagine. For example, the dimension of causality filters out the existence of elements, which do not exist in time. Moreover, because the dimension of causality links the persistence of existence and space, it ensures all the elements within our world, are both unique, and non-singular. It prevents elements existing in the world, from existing more than once, while at the same time, prevents this unique existence, from sporadically nullifying. In short, while the functions the dimension of causality seem trivial, it is crucial for the existence of our world, and actually, this is the reason why its function is so hard to comprehend. The dimension of causality enforces the dimensional complexity of our world, and therefore, it is crucial to our ability to do practically anything, including the act of thinking about the dimension of causality itself.
Still, things are even more complicated. Metaphysically, one-dimensional singular worlds, impose an explanatory gap. What is the difference between a one-dimensional singular worlds, and nothingness? To explain, because one-dimensional singular worlds are one-dimensional, they can sustain only one regularity, meaning the regularity of persistence. Such worlds cannot host elements within them. If they did, they could not sustain the persistence of their existence, as this would demand they span an additional dimension, contrary to their one-dimensionality. In short, they can either nullify, or remain empty. Therefore, they do not perform any function we can comprehend, and therefore, the single regularity they sustain, is insignificant. Still, they are consistent worlds, and therefore, they are an "is". They must exist in the logical field. However, this implies there must be an element, which differentiates them from nothingness. There must be a metaphysical distinction, between "is", and "isn't". In short, metaphysically, something must precede existence.
Still, paradoxically, this element cannot exist. But why? Well, as we understood in the previous chapter, existence is an "is". However, metaphysically, the element preceding existence, must harbor both elements which are "is", and elements which are "isn't". In other words, it must be able to harbor elements, which do not exist. In short, it must be an inconsistent element. This inconsistent element serves as the hosting dimension, for both existence, and inexistence. Still, the logical field demands all the elements within it, are consistent elements. Therefore, again, while this inconsistent element is necessary, it cannot exist.
At first glance, this conclusion, is troubling. Our initial assumption was that the world-in-itself is the logical field, and therefore, the world-in-itself is consistent. However, arguably, we now deduced, that existence implies inconsistency, meaning, existence demands the existence of an element, which cannot exist. Therefore, it appears as if we failed to populate the consistent metaphysical theories category, as our candidate, meaning, the physical logic, is inconsistent. However, luckily, this is not the case. We must remember that this troubling element is inconsistent. Therefore, we cannot comprehend it. The very act of "understanding", demands consistency. Indeed, we can name inconsistent elements. However, the names we give to inconsistent elements, do not actually refer to them. The names we give to inconsistent elements, merely hides our confusion, while in actuality, these names refer to nothing. Still, there is more to it. While indeed, we cannot differentiate between one-dimensional singular worlds and nothingness, nothing demands we must be able to differentiate between them.
But why? Well, first, one-dimensional singular worlds cannot exist in our world. If our world was to host them, they would no longer be singular. Therefore, as far as we know, one-dimensional singular worlds, might not exist at all. Indeed, we can subset the dimensions our world sustains, into one-dimensional singular sub worlds. However, being sub worlds, again, they cannot exist in the world they subset, meaning, they cannot exist in our world. Still, there is a more fundamental reason. The whole idea of differentiating between the existence of one-dimensional singular worlds and nothingness, is of a generalized nature. To explain, the logical field is an existing logical construct. Its existence does not require we understand it. It merely requires consistency. Therefore, essentially, one-dimensional singular worlds, do not impose a metaphysical problem. They merely reflect the limit of our ability to understand.
Still, to ease our discussion, we will name this inconsistent element, as the dimension of consistency. While indeed, the dimension of consistency does not exist, abstractly, it differentiates between consistency and inconsistency, quite like the dimension of existence, differentiates between existence and inexistence. However, because inconsistency does not exist, the dimension of consistency does nothing, and therefore, it does not sustain a regularity, and therefore, essentially, it is not a dimension. Therefore, it cannot exist in the logical field, and therefore, there is no point analyzing it further.
Still, regardless, methodologically, we found a fruitful method of metaphysical analysis. From now on, we will analyze each new dimension we discuss, in two respects. First, we will analyze the manner the dimensions we already discussed, span this new dimension. Secondly, we will consider this new dimension as a one-dimensional singular sub world, and analyze the manner it spans the dimensions it does not subset.
But why? Well, we must compensate for the arbitrary manner, by which we compile our cosmology. The order by which we explore the dimensions the world sustains, is intuitive. We could have decided to analyze it in a different order. For example, because essentially, the dimension of existence is a regularity, we could have decided the dimension of causality, is more fundamental than the dimension of existence. Therefore, we could have discussed the dimension of causality, before the dimension of existence. Still, had we not followed this method of analysis, we could have neglected discussing some issues. For example, we could have neglected the seemingly problematic aspects, one-dimensional singular worlds impose, and therefore, we could have overlooked the problematic aspects the dimension of consistency imposes on our metaphysical foundation. Indeed, we managed to solve these problems. However, this solution is not trivial, and had we not solved it now, potentially, it could have been far harder to solve later.
In the same spirit, it is best we update our list of definitions.
18. The dimension of causality, is a sub world, which the dimension of existence spans.
19. The dimension of causality, ensures causality links dimensions, consistently. The regularity it sustains, renders all the elements the world hosts, consistent and relevant to the dimensions the world sustains.
20. Because the dimension of causality is a dimension, causality is a regularity, is time, is space, is the logical field.
21. The dimension of existence sustains the persistent existence of the dimension of causality, as well as all other dimensions, which the dimension of causality incorporates into the world.
22. The dimension of causality preserves its consistency with the dimension of existence, by determining the dimension of existence, is the regularity of persistent existence, meaning, existence in time.
23. The dimension of consistency is the hosting dimension of the dimension of existence. Therefore the dimension of consistency, cannot exist within the span of the dimension of existence.
24. The dimension of existence preserves its consistency with the dimension of consistency, by determining consistency exists, while inconsistency does not.
25. The dimension of consistency, exists only where consistent causality exists, meaning, only within the span of the dimension of existence. Therefore, the dimension of consistency, does not require a dimension of existence, and therefore, it cannot yield a one-dimensional singular world.
26. The dimension of consistency is an inconsistent element, and therefore, it is not a dimension. Therefore, it is consistent with the dimension of causality, as it does not add a dimensional requirement, nor contradict any existing dimensional requirement.
27. The dimension of consistency, does not exist.

Having explained the essence of regularities, existence, dimensions, time, and causality, it is time we confront the issue of space, meaning, the physical space in which we exist. We will define the dimension of space, as the existence of three independent dimensions, all of which, sustain the regularity of spatial expansion. Because the dimension of space sustains regularities, then obviously, it is consistent with the dimension of causality. Furthermore, as we already mentioned, spatial expansion is a type of persistence. To explain, space persists to exist, no matter how far we go, or in what direction. Therefore, the dimension of space is consistent with the dimension of existence. Indeed, the independence of the three spatial dimensions implies, each spatial dimension can host elements independently. However, these elements could not exist in our world. If one of the spatial dimensions, hosts an element, while at least one of the remaining two spatial dimensions does not, it implies this element does not sustain consistency, with at least one of the dimensions our world sustains. Therefore, this element exists within a sub world of our world, and therefore, as we already understood, it cannot exist in our world. Therefore, all elements in the world, must exist within the span of all three spatial dimensions, and therefore, we can treat the dimension of space, as a single entity.
Considering our definition, potentially, space is infinite. But why? Well, had space ended at a specific point, beyond that point, it could no longer persist to expand. However, according to our definition, the dimension of space sustains the same regularity, at any point in space. Again, the dimension of space is an existing regularity. It is not an element in space. Therefore, it does not matter how far a point is from us. Once the dimension of space can no longer sustain the regularity of expansion, it ceases to persist in its entirety. Therefore, had space "ended" at a specific point, it would no longer be consistent with the dimension of existence. Furthermore, because the dimension of space will no longer sustain a regularity, it would not sustain causality, and therefore, it would no longer be consistent with the dimension of causality. In short, the dimension of space would no longer exist in the logical field, and therefore, it could no longer harbor physical elements, such as you and me, for example. Indeed, some areas of the universe may be less populated than others. Nevertheless, empty space, is just as spatial as populated space.
The dimension of space divides the logical field into two segments. One segment, is consistent with the three spatial dimensions, and therefore, it exists in the world. The other segment, is inconsistent with the three spatial dimensions, and therefore, it does not exist in the world. We will define the elements the dimension of space harbors, as points. All points are consistent with all three spatial dimensions. Indeed, there might be elements which are consistent only with two or one of the three spatial dimensions. However, again, the dimension of space could not harbor these elements. Still, even if points are consistent with all three spatial dimensions, they lack any context. In themselves, points cannot form any shape or distance. To formalize shapes or distances, other dimensions must "slice" subsets of points, from the potentially infinite amount of points, which the dimension of space harbors. Still, currently, we have not discussed such dimensions.
Arguably, the dimension of space appears to be less fundamental than the dimension of existence, or the dimension of causality. This is understandable. As we mentioned in the introduction chapter, our division of space into three spatial dimensions, is subjective. Our consciousness continuously determines the distinction between height, width and depth. Therefore, without our senses, space is meaningless. Moreover, intuitively, we could argue that even if we lose all our senses, we could still harbor a consciousness. We could still sense existence. To summarize, intuitively, space is not as significant as the previous dimensions we discussed.
However, these intuitions are wrong. The dimension of space, is as fundamental as the dimension of existence, or the dimension of causality. Obviously, our body requires a space to exist in. Without it, we could not have a body, and therefore, we would sense neither existence, nor causality. In fact, we could have begun our discussion by analyzing the dimension of space, before analyzing either the dimension of existence, or the dimension of causality. To explain, we could have argued, that the world first emerged as timeless space, which began to persist in time, only later. Because all dimensions divide the logical field into two segments independently, no dimension is dependent on the existence of any other dimension. Therefore, our world could have spanned its dimension in any order. Moreover, there cannot be a specific order, by which the world must have spanned its dimensions. Actually, this is not surprising. Because temporality is sustained by one of the dimensions our world sustains, meaning, the dimension of existence, the dimensional spanning order must occur "out of time". Therefore, obviously, temporal terms such as "before" and "after" cannot apply to it.
Still, there is more to it. The dimension of space imposes a challenge, similar to the challenge we faced, while discussing one-dimensional singular worlds. Because space is potentially infinite, intuitively, we could think spatial infinity exists. To explain, if space is infinite, it must actually stretch out to infinity. However, had space actually "reached" infinity, it would have implied, there was at least one point at infinity. However, this is impossible. Again, as we already understood, the regularity the dimension of space sustains, demands nothing interrupts its spatial expansion. Therefore, had there been a point at infinity, there would have had to be points beyond it, and therefore, this point could no longer be at infinity. Still, again, this is not a metaphysical problem, but rather a side effect of our generalized thought patterns. Spatial infinity is not an element in the world, but rather a product of our contemplation. The dimension of space does not demand the existence of spatial infinity. The dimension of space merely demands the persistence of the regularity it sustains, meaning, spatial expansion. To explain, once the world spanned the dimension of space, along with the dimension of existence and the dimension of causality, the spatial expansion of the dimension of space, converted into spatial expansion in time. Therefore, potentially, if time is infinite, space must be infinite as well, as it has an infinite amount of time to expand. However, temporal infinity can stretch both into the future, and into the past. If our world is infinitely old, the dimension of space already had an infinite amount of time to expand. Therefore, if the world is infinitely old, it implies that currently, space expands from infinity to infinity. While indeed, science does tell us the world emerged out of the cataclysmic event, we know as the big bang. However, the big bang theory, merely discusses the manner, by which matter emerged. The big bang theory does not discuss the expansion of empty space. Therefore, even if matter did emerge out of a "big bang" of some sort, it does not imply the space in which matter expanded into, did not exist prior. Moreover, nothing obliged space to begin its expansion, only after the world spanned the dimension of existence, and the dimension of causality. Space could have been infinite to begin with. Still, this would imply spatial infinity is not spatial infinity at all, as at every moment, space surmounts its previous size. To summarize, considering the manner by which we defined the dimension of space, spatial infinity is an inconsistent element, and therefore, it cannot exist. Essentially, spatial infinity is identical to the distinction, between one-dimensional singular worlds, and nothingness. Both merely represent our confusion, and the limits of our ability to comprehend. Actually, the same applies to the age of the world, meaning, temporal infinity, or alternatively, the first "cause". They all belong in the inconsistent segment of the dimension of consistency.
To summarize, while intuitively, the dimension of space does not appear fundamental or problematic, metaphysically, it as challenging as the dimension of existence, causality, or consistency. Because we are familiar with space from our experience, we predetermine many misguided notions regarding it. For example, while indeed, we understood the dimension of space harbors points, intuitively, we believe points should exist in the space in which we exist. However, this is impossible. The manner by which we defined points, implies they are consistent, merely with the dimensions we discussed. Still, dimensionally, the world in which we exist is far more complex. Again, without spanning or hosting additional regularities, the world we described so far, would be empty. However, if our world spans more dimensions than those we discussed, then obviously, the dimensions we discussed so far, are merely a subset of the dimensions the world spans. Therefore, points can exist only within a sub world of the world in which we exist, and therefore, points cannot exist in our world. While arguably, points do exist in external worlds, essentially, points are merely the name we give to the persistent existence of causality, in a manner consistent with the three spatial dimensions. Indeed, points are consistent elements, and therefore, they exist in the logical field. However, without additional dimensions, they are simply inaccessible. To summarize, while intuitively, we think points exist in our world, in actuality, they cannot. While obviously, the points we think about instinctively, do refer to locations in space, such points are not existing elements in our world. They exist as spatial markers in our minds, or alternatively, spatial definitions, such as "here", "there", "ten meters forwards", and the likes. However, ontologically, these definitions refer to inconsistent elements, and therefore, they belong in the inconsistent segment of the dimension of consistency. In short, they do not exist in the logical field.
To summarize, understanding the dimension of space, is far from trivial. Still, problematic as it is, we have managed to incorporate space into our cosmology. Therefore, let us update our list of definitions.
28. The dimension of space, sustains the persistence of expansion, of the three spatial dimensions, which exist independently.
29. Points, sustain the persistent existence of causality, in a manner consistent with the three spatial dimensions.
30. The dimension of space preserves its consistency with the dimension of existence, by determining space, is the persistent existence of spatial expansion.
31. The dimension of space preserves its consistency with the dimension of causality, by determining space, sustains causality.
32. The dimension of space preserves its own consistency, by determining that because spatial infinity, is not an existing element in the world, there are no points at infinity. Spatial infinity is a generalization in our minds. It belongs in the inconsistent non-existing segment of the dimension of consistency.
33. Any dimensional spanning order is possible.
34. There cannot be a single exclusive dimensional spanning order, to any world existing within the logical field.
35. The dimension of consistency harbors definitions. Any definition, which represents consistent regularities, exists within the logical field. Definitions, which fail to satisfy this requirement, do not exist.

Adding the dimension of space takes us a significant step into the world we know. Unlike abstract terms, such as existence and causality, space is something we can visualize. However, methodologically, there is a problem we somehow overlooked. The world we described cannot facilitate a complete metaphysical theory. Indeed, we have not yet discussed the manner by which the world produces our consciousness, and therefore, arguably, we should not worry about satisfying the completeness criterion yet. Still, even if we agree to postpone the discussion regarding the completeness criterion, we must ensure we can still satisfy it, in principle. Obviously, we can delay the discussion regarding the essence of sensations, or the differences between thought and sensory. Currently, for all we know, the essence of sensations could be similar to the essence of matter, and therefore, possibly, once we understand the essence of matter, we will understand the essence of sensations as well. However, even if we postpone the discussion regarding the differences between the different changes in states of consciousness, meaning, thought, sensory, repression, and nullification, we cannot proceed without understanding the fundamental similarity between them. To explain, ontologically, we must introduce change into our world.
The world we described so far, cannot change. Indeed, it persists to expand in space and time, and it obeys causality in some abstract manner. Still, essentially, the world we described, is static. To explain, the expansion of empty space, does not involve motion. The points in space merely surmount and stretch into infinity. Therefore, to put it in motion, we must incorporate an additional existing element into our world. Therefore, because the physical logic demands that all the elements existing in our world, are dimensions, the world must span an additional dimension, which we will call, the dimension of motion.
Still, because the world we already discussed, spans the dimension of causality, all the elements our world hosts, must be consistent with all the dimensions our world spans, including the dimension of motion. Therefore, to exist, all the elements our world hosts, must exhibit change. Therefore, essentially, spanning the dimension of motion, converts the causality, which three-dimensional points sustain in time, into the existence of three-dimensional flows of causality. Even elements we perceive as static, such as matter, for example, must sustain constant change. Again, just as in the distinction between one-dimensional singular worlds and nothingness, it does not matter if we can recognize or perceive this change. If indeed, the world is a logical construct, it must be consistent with the dimensions it spans. Therefore, within our world, change must exist everywhere.
Naturally, this conclusion is not trivial. Intuitively, we divide the physical world into solid matter, and forces that manipulate solid matter. Indeed, scientific experimentation shows, changes occur on the sub atomic levels. For example, particles constantly move in space. Electrons revolve around their nucleus. Photons, which arguably, are not even particles, beam in light speed. Still, the dimension of motion is even more demanding. The dimension of motion determines, that to exist, an element must change. Movement in space cannot suffice. Regardless if an object is the size of the sun, or the size of an electron, all solid physical elements must "move" in their entirety. To exist within the span of our world, matter must be consistent with the dimension of motion, and therefore, matter must be a flow of causality. To summarize, within our world, nothing is solid. Still, we perceive objects as solid, and therefore, the solidity of the objects we perceive, is an inconsistent element.
While this conclusion is dramatic, actually, we do not require the physical logic to deduce it. In fact, there is no better option. To explain, let us suppose solid objects exist, such as rocks, for example. Indeed, rocks feel solid. However, if rocks are solid, while the matter from which they are made is not, then they are as solid as our thoughts about them. To explain, if the matter which composes a rock is not solid, then essentially, its physical manifestation, does not add any attribute to our subjective impression from it.
To summarize, the existence of physical solidity, does not imply there are physical elements, which other solid physical elements construct. The existence of physical solid elements, demands there are physical elements in the world, which do not change. However, empirically, objects such as rocks, change. Again, physical experimentation shows, that the particles which compile matter, move constantly. Moreover, even on the sub atomic levels, experimentation clearly shows, that particles are constantly in motion. Still, even if particles were not in motion, obviously, we could not attribute physical solidity to the vacuum space that spans between particles, or the vacuum space that spans between their ingredients. Vacuum space is anything but "solid". Therefore, to find physical solidity, we must first decompose matter into its non-dividable elements, as only these elements could be solid. In short, for physical solidity to exist, elementary particles must exist.
However, this is implausible. But why? Well, let us assume elementary particles exist. If elementary particles exist, then obviously, they fill some volume. If not, nothing would differentiate them from empty space. Still, what could fill this volume? An elementary particle does not possess an internal structure, by definition. Therefore, whatever fills its volume, cannot be particles. Therefore, either the volume of an elementary particle is empty, or it could sustain flows of causality. Still, physically, both vacuum space and flows of causality are not solid matter. Therefore, at best, we could attribute the solidity of elementary particles to their crusts. Still, what could be the essence of this crust? Again, these are elementary particles. They do not possess an internal structure. Therefore, their crust cannot possess an internal structure as well. Therefore, again, even if this crust is "thick", within its "thickness", there can only be flows of causality. To explain, the crust of elementary particles could be multi-layered. Still, essentially, we can divide each layer to two thick-less crusts, one internal and one external, separated by a layer of flows of causality. Still, again, what could be the essence of these crusts? They are not thick, and therefore, their volume is zero. Essentially, nothing distinguishes these crusts from empty space, as they cannot fill space. Therefore, what makes them solid? Well, we have two options. First, we could again argue, that essentially, these crusts are the product of flows of causality. However, again, this implies they are not solid. These crusts flow, and therefore, obviously, they are not static. To explain, while indeed, crusts and flows are two different elements, it is possible for a flow to appear as a crust. For example, a jet of water, spraying out at an enormous pressure, forms such a "flowing" crust. Secondly, we could argue that while these crusts do not possess any volume, they are not flow. Essentially, this implies that rocks and the crusts of elementary particles are identical, as both exist independently from their internal structure. Still, if we consider these crusts are not flows of any type, do not possess an internal structure, and do not fill any volume, then arguably, their entire existence is paradoxical. While we could insist these crusts exist, essentially, nothing demands it. Therefore, considering the alternatives, it is more plausible to accept solidity does not exist, even without adopting the cosmology the physical logic proposes. Apparently, insisting physical solidity exists, is ambiguous at best, if not completely nonsensical.
Still, as with the previous dimensions we discussed, introducing the dimension of motion into our world, introduces its own set of challenges. While arguably, the idea that existing three-dimensional flows of causality produce matter, is not as far-fetched as the existence of elementary particles, this does not imply we understand the essence of these flows. Motion is an idea in our minds, or alternatively, a generalization. It does not exist in the world in this abstract form. Spanning the dimension of motion implies, motion actually exists. Points must actually move in space, and form flows of causality. Still, just as the dimension of space cannot contain any shape or distance, without spanning or hosting additional dimensions that would "slice" point from space, motion cannot exist, without the world spanning or hosting additional dimensions that would bring specific flows into existence. To explain, flows affect points in space. A single point in space can sustain flows in any direction. Still, if all flows were to exist in parallel, then for every flow a point sustains, it must sustain an opposite flow as well. Indeed, we have not yet discussed the essence of these flows, and therefore, the term "a flow in the opposite direction", is ambiguous. Still, because our definition of space did not include polarities such as forwards and backwards, then essentially, a flow in one direction, and a flow in the opposite direction, are equally possible. Still, we should remember, that even if there is no problem with the existence of opposite flows within the world we discussed so far, we did not populate this world yet. Moreover, because we have not introduced dimensions to differentiate between flows, then obviously, we cannot differentiate between the flows that exist within the world we discussed. We cannot isolate a single flow, regardless of its direction or point of origin. Similarly, we cannot isolate a flow, which is opposite to it. However, once we introduce elements into our world, flows must affect them. Naturally, the elements we will introduce into our world, either by spanning or hosting additional dimensions, will have to be consistent with the dimensions the world already spans, including the dimension of motion. In other words, the elements we will introduce into the world, must move in space. However, if the elements we will introduce into our world, will move in all directions at the same pace, the physical state of the world could not change. For the physical state of the world to change, there must be an "imbalance" between flows in different directions. If not, the equilibrium the world will sustain, will prevent any motion, rendering the existence of elements within the world, inconsistent with the dimension of motion. In such a case, essentially, nothing will "happen" in the world. In other words, no causality will occur between the elements in the world, and therefore, the elements in the world will be inconsistent with the dimension of causality. In short, all the elements in the world would become inconsistent, and therefore, they could not exist in the logical field. Still, if no element exists in the world, it implies the world does not span or host any dimension, and therefore, again, inevitably, our world must be empty. However, because we exist in the world, this is impossible.
To summarize, while all flows are equally consistent with the logical field, within our world, the existence of all flows simultaneously, or alternatively, the infinite flow, is impossible. We cannot distinguish a flow that does not affect any element in the world. In many ways, the existence of a flow that does not affect any element in our world, is similar to the existence of one-dimensional singular worlds. While it can exist in the logical field, it cannot exist in our world, as it does not produce physical change. Moreover, once we apply the infinite flow on an element in the world, it can no longer exist, because it cannot move. Therefore, the infinite flow can neither affect any spatial element, nor exist in our world in any spatial manner. To summarize, within our world, the infinite flow is both an "is" and an "isn't", meaning it is an inconsistent element. Therefore, just as spatial infinity, the infinite flow belongs in the inconsistent segment of the dimension of consistency. The infinite flow is a definition, that does not refer to an existing element within our world. Moreover, being a definition, obviously, it does not change. Therefore, it cannot exist within the span of the dimension of motion.
In contrast, the dimension of motion is consistent with the dimensions we already discussed. The dimension of motion preserves consistency with the dimension of existence, by converting existence, into changes occurring in the present. To clarify, the present is the only "time frame" in which changes can occur. The state of the world changes, only as time progresses, from the past into the future. To be more specific, the dimension of motion implies, that within our world, only the present exists. While arguably, the state of the world in the past or the future, could repeat the transition between different points in time, the states of the world, which exist in other points in time, cannot appear in the present. To explain, in the present, physical elements already occupy space. While indeed, there are many empty areas in space, the state of the world includes these empty areas. Therefore, if different points in time would occupy space in the present, it would imply the consistent persistence of the world in the present was interrupted. The state of the world in the present failed to persist to exist consistently, and therefore, the state of the world in the present, is no longer consistent with the dimension of existence. Moreover, the world failed to sustain causality, as causality demanded a different continuation to the previous state of the world. To explain, if we throw a ball, causality demands the ball would zoom in the direction of our throw. However, if a different state of the world was to suddenly appear, this would not happen. Instead, we could find ourselves with the ball back in our hands. Therefore, this would breach causality, and therefore, the dimension of causality would not allow it. Moreover, once the persistence of the world is interrupted, the world cannot persist to exist in the future, as the world would have already nullified. In short, if other points in time were to exist in the world, the world could no longer exist. However, obviously, the world exists, and therefore, this is impossible. Considering the dimension of causality, again, the dimension of motion converts causality into the causality that transpires between flows in space. Obviously, nothing can occur in space without motion. Without motion, spatial causality ceases to exist in space.
Moreover, there is an even greater link between the dimension of motion, and the dimension of space. Indeed, as we already mentioned, the dimension of space could have expanded to infinity, even without time. However, the dimension of motion converted this timeless expansion, into expansion through motion in time. The dimension of motion placed each state of the dimension of space, at a specific point in time, meaning, the time at which space was in this specific state. It ordered the different states of space in a manner consistent with the regularity of spatial expansion, allowing space to perpetually grow, as time progressed. Still, the dimension of space did not order the states of space, because of a special affinity with order. It merely had to preserve consistency with the dimension of space. Had the dimension of motion "ordered" the states of the world in a manner that did not preserve the regularity of spatial expansion, it would contradict the dimension of space, and therefore, could not exist in the same world with it. Therefore, essentially, once the world we already discussed, spanned the dimension of motion, the existence of our world, converted into a process of persistent spatial expansion. In many ways, this expansion is similar to the notion the big bang theory proposes, and arguably, it can explain the empirical findings supporting this theory. Still, this expansion refers to empty space, and not the elements within it. Indeed, as empty space became larger, it had more "room" to host elements within it. However, this does not imply, elements had to fill it. Moreover, the expansion of space does not imply the world began its expansion from zero size. To explain, if space is infinite, it implies it was always infinite. If not, space would have had only a finite time to expand, meaning, from the time it was of zero size, until now. Therefore, space would have a limited amount of time to expand in, and therefore, its size could have accumulated to merely a finite sum. However, currently, there is no way to prove these notions, and therefore, it is best we avoid them, as they are not crucial to our effort.
To summarize, let us update our list of definitions:

36. The dimension of motion sustains the regularity, which determines that every spatial flow exists, if it is consistent with the world, and with itself.
37. The dimension of motion does not allow the existence of motionless solid matter. Matter must sustain motion in its entirety, and not merely move in space.
38. The dimension of motion preserves its consistency with the dimension of existence, by determining existence is persistent consistent change.
39. The dimension of motion preserves its consistency with the dimension of causality, by determining that within the world, only existing three-dimensional flows can sustain causality.
40. The dimension of motion preserves its consistency with the dimension of space, by determining the existence of space is the product of its persistent expansion in time.
41. The dimension of motion preserves its consistency with the dimension of consistency, by determining the dimension of consistency harbors static definitions, and therefore, the dimension of consistency cannot exist in the world.
42. The dimension of motion preserves its own consistency, by determining any flow of causality is possible, including opposite contradictive flows. However, within the world, their existence in parallel, meaning, the infinite flow, cannot exist.
43. Once the world spanned the dimensions of consistency, existence, causality, space, and motion, space had to expand in time. However, this does not imply space began at zero size.

To summarize this exhaustive chapter, we successfully introduced existence, causality, space, time, and motion, into our world. Still, as we mentioned before, the world we described so far, is empty of elements. Therefore, obviously, we have not yet finished describing the dimensions our world sustains. Nevertheless, unlike the abstract elements we discussed in this chapter, the elements we still lack (such as distances and matter, for example), are accessible to physical experimentation. Therefore, they deserve a more concrete discussion. In other words, we need to compile a new explanatory foundation for physics. Let us see if we are up to the challenge...