STREAM : inconsistent : chapter 1 : inconsistency MUST exist !!!

Inconsistency MUST Exist !!!

Yep. This is it. It must. It simply must, and it does not.

Er...urm...What is this nonsense?
Well, you should pay attention, I did not claim inconsistency exists, even though it must not. I claimed inconsistency must exist, and at the same time, it does not. Hence, I claimed inconsistency is indeed inconsistent, and therefore, logically, my claim is valid. Ok?

...
Ahm
...

Woot..dehh...foOK?!?!?

...

Well actually, it is not ok, and it is not ok, specifically because of the notions “Delta Theory” suggested already, with respect to metaphysical inconsistency. Nevertheless, I am neither taking my words back, nor am I breaching my own consistency. It is simply a question of argumentative and metaphysical “scope”.
Still, what does scope have to do with anything? Well, if you remember, in “Delta Theory” we described what elements exist in the world. Elements, which do not adhere to consistency, we defined as "isn't", and claimed they reside “outside” the boundaries of both the external world (which to remind you, is the world the imminent dimensions span, excluding the dimension of consciousness), or our internal mental world (meaning, the world, whose existence is made possible, by the metaphysical function of the dimension of consciousness). Therefore, such elements cannot enter our reality, and therefore, I argued, there is no point thinking about them. I specifically addressed several metaphysically inconsistent elements, such as "the point at infinity" for example, explaining that these inconsistencies simply do not exist, by the very definition of what existence is, meaning, persistence of existence. Actually, in a way, implicitly, the term “inconsistency” suggests a lack of persistence in the logical sense.
However, as I said, this was only a limited scope of discussion. From a broader perspective, such arguments suffer from logical errors, which I attempt to correct with this text. It is very possible I did not believe my own words, as I held on too firmly to the rejection of any sort of belief. Maybe I was tired of thinking, and therefore, unintentionally, I overlooked a few issues. Maybe it took me years of contemplation to realize what I missed.
Nevertheless, I did miss something. In "Delta Theory", we suggested the metaphysical existence of the dimension of consistency, which we deduced from the independent, or alternatively, orthogonal manner, the imminent dimensions span from each other. Each imminent dimension spans from the world, which the other imminent dimensions span already, as well as allow all other dimensions, to span from the world it spans on its own, be it a dimensional cluster, consisting of several dimensions, such as the dimension of space for example (which consists of the three spatial dimensions), or a singular one dimensional world, meaning, a world consisting of but a single dimension. The dimension of consistency was the dimension, from which the dimension of existence derived in its raw form, before the addition of any other dimension. Moreover, we argued, that the same applies to all dimensions, meaning, they all could have emerged from the dimension of consistency, as singular one dimensional worlds. Still, we claimed that metaphysically, because the dimension of consistency is inconsistent, it does not exist in the logical field, meaning, it does not persist to exist. Alternatively, we suggested, that because the dimension of consistency hosts inexistent definitions, in a manner somewhat similar to the manner we host concepts in our minds, the dimension of consistency could be the dimension of consciousness in disguise.
This was a mistake. The dimension of consciousness cannot be the dimension of consistency. Because the dimension of consciousness is the metaphysical enabler for our self-awareness, it must exist (in the sense of persists to exist). However, the existence of the dimension of consistency (as in persistence of existence) is impossible. The dimension of consistency is "visible" to our consciousness, only partially. We can only comprehend its consistent segment. Its inconsistent segment (meaning, the segment, which exists in neither the external world, or our internal mental world), is beyond our ability to conceptualize. However, the dimension of consciousness exists in all we can ever sense or think, and therefore, there is a section of the dimension of consistency, into which our consciousness cannot "enter". Indeed, the external world cannot host elements, in the same manner as the dimension of consciousness. The external world hosts elements spatially, meaning, it demands physical elements must exist independently from one another, while the dimension of consciousness does not, as it hosts elements as recurrences of itself. Nevertheless, the dimension of consciousness does so, only within the "scope" of our internal world, and hence, it cannot yield inconsistencies in the external world, and neither can physical elements, existing in the external world (meaning, elements, which occupy a volume of space), "enter" the dimension of consciousness, and cause metaphysical inconsistencies within it. The two worlds, meaning, the external world, and our internal world, exist independently and separately from one another, and hence, do not host metaphysical inconsistencies, in the same fashion as the dimension of consistency. Indeed, I argued against this possibility, meaning, that the dimension of consistency is the dimension of consciousness, claiming embracing this option, shifts us away from discussing consistent metaphysical theories, and into the inconsistent metaphysical category. Still, honestly, I feel stupid even suggesting the two dimensions are the same, but let bygones be bygones.
However, this is just the tip of the iceberg. I refrained from investigating the dimension of consistency further, as I thought it was a waste of time, because it does not exist. Therefore, I refrained from deducing metaphysical imperatives regarding inconsistency in general, such as the metaphysical imperative that demands inconsistency must exist.
Ok, after apologizing for my past mistakes, and filling up a page with reminders from “Delta Theory”, it is time we get down to business. What did I miss?
Well, I simply forgot that the logical field is not a piece of paper, with logical axioms written on it. Nothing in the logical field is merely “defined”. Everything in the logical field exists. If an element in the logical field does not persist to exist, it must nullify. It cannot be merely a "prescription" how to "make a world". It is the metaphysical enabler, allowing the existence of consistent worlds.
Any world, existing in the logical field, cannot allow metaphysical inconsistencies to enter it. If it would, it could no longer exist in the logical field, and hence, it must nullify. This is the metaphysical function, for which dimensions are responsible, within the world they span. Dimensions segregate elements, which are consistent with the worlds they span, from elements inconsistent with them. If a dimension does not perform this crucial metaphysical segregation, it does nothing, and therefore, it does not exist, as nothing differentiates its existence, from its inexistence. Therefore, because the same applies to all dimensions, if there is no metaphysical inconsistency whatsoever, no dimension could do anything, and therefore no dimension will exist, and therefore, all consistent worlds would have to nullify. However, we exist, and therefore, the world in which we exist, exists, and therefore, if our world is indeed consistent, metaphysical inconsistencies must exist, even in a fashion, somewhat different from “persistent existence”. It simply must be.

And now, a word from our sponsors.

Let us take a short pause, as I think you need it. If you had the pleasure (or displeasure) of confronting “Delta Theory”, you probably remember, it discussed many annoying, possibly hard to understand issues, before discussing anything “interesting”, which arguably, was even more difficult to understand. Well, sadly, I have to inform you, the same applies to the beginning of this text. Before we will discuss cool stuff such as the real gods, angels, and demons, we must discuss some “hard stuff”. While I agree this “hard stuff” is not really interesting, it will prove valuable later. So be warned.
Moreover, we should understand, by discussing issues related with inconsistency, we refer to things, which we cannot fully conceptualize rationally, by their very definition. At best, we can attempt to map the limits of the effects metaphysical inconsistencies have over our world. Considering this text suggests the validity of its predecessor, meaning, "Delta Theory", the best way to achieve this, is by pedantically reviewing our existing conclusions, with respect to the consistent metaphysical foundation "Delta Theory" suggested, meaning, the Physical Logic.
What does it mean? Well, let us analyze the statement “inconsistency must exist”. We deduced this statement from our previous conclusions, meaning, that dimensions must exist. We understood the existence of each dimension, implies that metaphysically, some elements must be inconsistent with it, or alternatively, inconsistent with the segment of the logical field, which this dimension segregates. However, because in the Physical Logic, elements must exist, and cannot be merely definitions on paper, it implies, the existence of each dimension demands that ontologically, there will be actual elements inconsistent with it, or alternatively, inconsistent with the metaphysical segment of this dimension, which exists in our world. Moreover, if the existence of a dimension is imminent, the ontological existence of elements inconsistent with it, is imminent as well.

So what are these imminent inconsistent elements? How should I know? Let us simply “ask” the imminent dimensions. Still, for the course of our next discussion, let me remind you, within the context of “Delta Theory”, the terms “consistent elements”, and “dimensions”, are interchangeable. While indeed, inconsistent elements are not dimensions, metaphysically, they are inconsistent, and hence, arguably, they are neither "not dimensions". Therefore, for the time being, it is best you refrain from questioning their metaphysical essence.
Ok, let us begin our review.

1. The dimension of existence.

According to the dimension of existence, all elements existing in our world, must persist to exist. An element that is inconsistent with the dimension of existence, would exist, but never persist to exist, not even for the shortest duration. Mistakenly, we could think, an element, which persists to exist, but does not exist in our world, is inconsistent with the dimension of existence as well. However, if an element persists to exist "outside" the span of the imminent dimensions, meaning, in a transcendent, or irrelevant world (the two terms are interchangeable), it is irrelevant to the dimension of existence, and therefore, cannot yield metaphysical inconsistencies in our world. Intuitively, we could argue, that elements, which “sometimes” fail to persist to exist are inconsistent with the dimension of existence as well. However, if that was the case, we could have just as well claimed, all particles existing in our world, are inconsistent with the dimension of existence, as potentially, all particles can participate in chemical and electromagnetic interactions, or undergo radioactive decay, changing their physical properties, and hence, fail to persist to exist. Essentially, such claims confuse metaphysical inconsistency with consistent change, which we will discuss in a following item.
No. Even if an element undergoes inconsistent change, if theoretically, it can persist to exist, it is not inconsistent with the dimension of existence. On the contrary, it is the inexplicable nullification of this element, which represents a metaphysical inconsistency with the dimension of existence. Moreover, if we consider the elements responsible for such inexplicable nullifications, we can deduce, that had the elements causing such nullifications persisted to exist, these nullifications would represent consistent changes, rather than inconsistent changes, as we could find causative justification for these nullifications. In short, if an element persisted to exist, and then, nullified without a causative justification, it must be due to the effect of an additional inconsistent element, and not because the element that nullified, is itself inconsistent.

2. The dimension of causality.

According to the dimension of causality, all elements existing in our world, must adhere to the multidimensional demands of the imminent dimensions, or alternatively, the metaphysical demands of multidimensional causality. An element that is inconsistent with the dimension of causality, would exist in the world, but will not “obey” any existing regularity or causality. Similarly to as with the previous item, we could think, an element, which exists "outside" our world, is inconsistent with the dimension of causality, as its metaphysical detachment from our world, would easily allow it a similar metaphysical “freedom”. However, again, such an element would be an irrelevant, or transcendent element, or alternatively, dimension. To clarify, the same metaphysical detachment, which allows such an element to disregard the multidimensional metaphysical demands of our world, relieves our world from the need to confront the regularities such an element sustains, and hence, such an element cannot impose a metaphysical challenge over our world. Indeed, an element existing in our world, which is inconsistent with but a few of the imminent dimensions, represents a metaphysical inconsistency with the dimension of causality. Still, we should not confuse the apparent existence of such an element, with an inconsistent element. To clarify, to be aware of the existence of such an element, it must either exist as a physical element in the external world, or appear in our consciousness, as recurrences of the dimension of consciousness. If the element exists merely in our consciousness, essentially, it has no imminent dimension to contradict, other than the dimension of consciousness, and hence, there is no dimensional subset, to which it can adhere, as the smallest dimensional subset to which it can adhere, is the dimension of consciousness itself. Arguably, we could suggest, our consciousness consists of other dimensions, such as the dimension of pain, whose existence we suggested in “Delta Theory”. However, we should remember, we defined the dimension of pain quite poorly, and in any case, its existence is not a metaphysical imperative, as we can undermine it, with the use of narcotics. Now, let us consider the second option, meaning, the option where physical elements existing in the external world, fail to adhere to the demands of some of the imminent dimensions. According to “Delta Theory”, the imminent dimensions determine the physical attributes of such elements, and hence, without the metaphysical ensemble, which the imminent dimensions embody, they must exhibit attributes, radically different from those we can recognize. For example, if an element fails to persist to exist, not even for the shortest duration, naturally, we could never “spot it”, regardless of the agility of our empirical instrumentation. Therefore, the fact we can identify both the existence of such an element, as well as its incompliance with one or more imminent dimensions, suggests that similarly to as with the previous item, the element is a consistent element, which an additional inconsistent element manipulates. In fact, arguably, such an element does not represent a metaphysical inconsistency at all, as by adhering to the demands of a subset of the imminent dimensions, implicitly, it suggests, it is consistent with one of the sub worlds of our world. Therefore, the actual metaphysical inconsistency such an element represents, is different from the one we perceive. The metaphysical inconsistency it represents, is the act of “insertion” of an element, consistent with but a sub world of our world, while its metaphysical attributes remain consistent. Therefore, this “insertion” must occur due to an additional element, which is the true “identity” of the element, responsible for such metaphysical abnormality.

3. The dimension of space.

According to the dimension of space, all elements existing in our world, must expand consistently in all spatial dimensions. An element, which is inconsistent with the dimension of space, would expand inconsistently in at least one of the three spatial dimensions. Still, to exist in our world, an element cannot “refrain” from existing in one or more of the three spatial dimensions, as if it does, it will not exist within the span of the dimension of space, but rather in one of its two-dimensional or one-dimensional sub worlds. In such a case, it would not share our space, and hence, we would not be able to recognize its existence. To clarify, if an element fails to expand consistently in one of the three spatial dimensions, it implies one of the two.
First, it may “refrain” from existing in one spatial dimension, for example, in the dimension of depth. Now, if we attempt to rotate this element physically, making its edge along the direction of depth, become its width, either its previously inexistent edge, would reemerge along the width dimension, or one of its edges, which existed prior, would suddenly nullify, because as we suggested, such an element does not expand in the dimension of depth. To clarify, on the one hand, because previously, this element failed to expand in the dimension of depth, essentially, it has no spatial attribute to exhibit along the dimension of width, and hence, it cannot reemerge along this dimension. Therefore, if its edge, which previously expanded in the dimension of width, disappeared as well, after this rotation, it would exist in neither the dimension of width, nor the dimension of depth, leaving it with but one dimension in which to expand, meaning, the dimension of height. Therefore, we can easily nullify this element altogether, with an additional rotation, causing its edge along the dimension of height, to shift to the dimension of depth. On the other hand, if after the first rotation, its edge, which previously expanded in the dimension of width, was not to disappear, it would imply the element expands in the dimension of width, contrary to its metaphysical essence. Intuitively, we could argue, we can refrain from rotating such elements, and hence, rid ourselves of such problems. However, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, the dimension of motion (which we will discuss in the next item), demands all elements must exhibit change along all three spatial dimension, and hence, arguably, such spatial fixation, is impossible.
Secondly, we can claim, the element expands infinitely in one or two spatial directions. However, in such a case, not only would this element remain consistent with the spatial dimensions in these directions, metaphysically, it would be identical to these spatial dimensions. Therefore, it would imply, the dimension of space hosts itself, contrary to the local manner, which according to “Delta Theory”, the dimension of space hosts elements within it. Moreover, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, it is possible, only one of the three spatial dimensions is a hosting dimension, with the other two sustaining the persistent existence and multidimensionality of space. To clarify, using the diagonalization mathematical technique, we can show how it is possible to “squeeze” a three-dimensional space, into a one-dimensional space, and hence, failing to expand in one of the three spatial dimensions, could just as well represent an invalid misinterpretation of the regularity the dimension of space sustains. In short, arguably, failing to expand in one or two of the three spatial dimensions may not represent a metaphysical inconsistency, but rather our confusion with respect to our own terminology. Moreover, if we reconsider our ability to rotate elements in space, essentially, we cannot restrict spatial inconsistency to one spatial dimension, and hence, inevitably, elements inconsistent with the dimension of space, must expand inconsistently in all three spatial dimensions. Furthermore, similarly to as with the previous items, spatial expansions in transcendent, or irrelevant spatial dimensions, do not impose a challenge for the dimension of space, and hence, cannot yield metaphysical inconsistencies in our world. In addition, inconsistent spatial expansions do not include “holes” in the fabric of space, such as our common notions of black holes for example, as the existence of such holes imply the dimension of space is itself inconsistent, rather than merely the elements, which space hosts. To clarify, if space fails to expand in some regions of our universe, it implies, the dimension of space fails to sustain its regularities over these regions, and hence, in these regions, space both exist, and does not exist, meaning, it is an inconsistent element. Still, because the regularities the dimension of space sustains are universal, such inconsistencies are not limited to these regions, but rather contradict the metaphysical essence of the dimension of space in its entirety, suggesting it is equally inconsistent throughout the universe. Moreover, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, arguably, black holes may merely be regions in our universe, where the repelling force, which the empty space in the center of a galaxy generates, matches the repelling force, originating from the vastness of empty space surrounding this galaxy. Therefore, arguably, black holes may not impose a metaphysical challenge whatsoever, let alone a metaphysical inconsistency.
No. Metaphysically, inconsistent spatial expansions are spatial expansions, which are inconsistent with the demands of the dimension of space, meaning, they do not occur at the constant “rate”, in which spatial expansions occur usually. Such spatial expansions occur either faster or slower than consistent spatial expansions. Still, we should note, this “speed” is different from local velocities in space. To clarify, again, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, the dimension of space encapsulates its own “copies” of the dimension of existence, and the dimension of causality, allowing it to exist “outside” the flow of causality in our world, meaning, to expand, without the need for additional dimensions, and hence, be capable of hosting dimensions in it, in the manner space hosts physical elements. This is the “speed” of expansion to which we refer, meaning, the ability to expand, “faster” or “slower” than space itself. Such expansions defy the obligation to remain consistent with the elements the dimension of space hosts in any segment of space, and hence, allow elements, which metaphysically, are inconsistent with the dimension of space, to exist anywhere in our world simultaneously. To clarify, such elements can “block” the progression of physical elements along their consistent spatial trajectory, without previously remaining stationary at the spatial point of collision. Similarly, such elements can trace the trajectory of physical elements in the future, without having to actually cross the distance of these trajectories. In short, elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of space, can exist everywhere in space at the same time. Moreover, such elements can utilize their metaphysical potency, analyzing future trajectories of physical objects, and returning to these physical objects with this information, and therefore, essentially, they may prevent physical events from happening, while breaching the limits of physical causality. Moreover, such elements can “synchronize” events, which physically, are impossible to “synchronize”. This metaphysical capability can easily lead to paradoxes. For example, if we think of two such elements playing a game of rock-scissors-paper, both with the intention to win, arguably, it is impossible to know who will be victorious, as both are equally capable of knowing the current movements of their opponents, and hence, both can equally change their gestures “at the last moment”.

4. The dimension of motion.

According to the dimension of motion, all elements existing in our world must exhibit constant consistent change, in each of the imminent dimensions. An element, which is inconsistent with the dimension of motion, would exist in the world, while failing to exhibit consistent change, in any imminent dimension. To clarify, with respect to “Delta Theory”, elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of motion, will exhibit changes, which contradict the manner they should have changed, had they been consistent with the three dimensional flows of causality in our world, or alternatively, the intermatter flow. Still, we can refine our understanding regarding such metaphysical inconsistencies, by considering the different imminent dimensions separately. For example, if we consider the dimension of existence, and its inherent metaphysical connection with the continuity of time, such changes do not adhere to the continuity of time, and therefore, elements, which exhibit such inconsistent changes, are “timeless”. If we consider the dimension of space, elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of motion, convert the potency to cause changes, which contradict consistent spatial expansions (such as those we described in the previous item), to actual physical changes. Moreover, if we consider the dimension of causality, such inconsistent changes would breach the independency between dimensions, causing changes occurring in one dimension, to affect changes occurring in a different dimension, without a consistent causative justification. Still, as we suggested on “Delta Theory”, the dimension of causality is difficult to conceptualize, and hence, to ease our confusion, it would be better if we refrain from providing examples for such inconsistent changes. Furthermore, arguably, the examples we provided, exemplify such changes already. Again, similarly to the previous items, while changes occurring outside our world may change in manners, which are incompatible with the manner our world changes, such changes are irrelevant to our world, and hence, yield no metaphysical inconsistencies within it. Moreover, if an element fails to exhibit any form of change in our world, it cannot exist within the span of the dimension of motion, and therefore, if such an element was to appear in our world, it would imply, its existence embodies an inconsistency with the multidimensional metaphysical demands of our world. Therefore, while indeed, such an element would contradict the dimension of motion, the inconsistency, which it will exhibit, will be with the dimension of causality, rather than with the dimension of motion.

5. The dimension of matter.
According to the dimension of matter, all physical elements existing in our world must adhere to the demands of the intermatter flow, meaning, all physical elements consist of flows, which are consistent with all other existing three-dimensional flows of causality. An element that is inconsistent with the dimension of matter would exist physically, while refraining from adhering to the universal laws of physics, or alternatively, to the intermatter flow. For example, such elements may breach the size uniformity, which almost all atomic and subatomic particles exhibit. Alternatively, such elements may fail to collide with other particles, which lie along their trajectories, or recline from responding to gravity. In addition, with respect to our conclusions regarding metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of space, such elements may exceed the speed of causality. Considering this, we could argue, the subatomic particles known as neutrinos are such elements, as neutrinos fail to collide with many particles, and according to empirical experimentation, may be able to travel at a velocity faster than the speed of light. Still, this is unlikely. To clarify, because neutrinos still adhere to some laws of physics, and considering our suggestions, with respect to metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of causality, arguably, inconsistent elements may merely affect neutrinos, causing them to exhibit metaphysical inconsistencies. While it is hard to determine why such inconsistent elements choose neutrinos for their manipulations, essentially, nothing restricts them from such a selection. Moreover, because in “Delta Theory”, we refrained from fully analyzing the dimensional cluster, of which the dimension of matter consists, arguably, there might be consistent explanations for our empirical findings, with respect to neutrinos. Therefore, just as in “Delta Theory” we refrained from analyzing the dimension of matter in full, we should not make unfounded assumptions with respect to neutrinos. Again, similarly to all previous items, flows, which are consistent with our world but do not exist in it, either fail to exist, or exist in a transcendent, or external world, and hence, impose not metaphysical challenge for our world, meaning, they cannot yield metaphysical inconsistencies within it.

6. The dimension of life.
According to the dimension of life, each particle, which exists in our world physically, governs the manner our world persists, in a small region around it, while responding to the relation between its external state, meaning, the state of the intermatter flow at the outskirts of the particle, and its repeatedly changing internal state, meaning, the spatial location and metaphysical function of the contingent dimensions, which the particle harbors. Elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of life, would restrict a particle from responding consistently to its external and internal states. Moreover, if a particle fails to respond to both its external and internal states, it suggests, its physical state does not change, and hence, it may exhibit a metaphysical inconsistency with the dimension of motion. Furthermore, if empty space would exhibit a physical behavior, similar to that of a particle, meaning, if empty space would obey both the intermatter flow, and its shifting internal contingent dimensional states, it would yield a metaphysical inconsistency with the dimension of life, as arguably, without a dimension of life, meaning, without the dimension, which according to the Logical Physics, coils within the volume of each particle, empty space cannot “store” contingent dimensional states, and hence, cannot respond to them. For example, if empty space would “block” the progression of physical elements, be it particles or photons, it would yield such metaphysical inconsistencies. Actually, such metaphysical inconsistencies are similar to the metaphysical inconsistency we attributed to the dimension of space, hence, deeming it yet another example, how the various imminent dimensions allow the realization, of the potential for metaphysical inconsistencies, which metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of space suggest. Still, considering the fact that such physical abnormalities do not involve the dimensions, which coil within the volume of each particle, such physical abnormalities may not represent metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of life, but rather metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of matter, as at such occurrences, the dimension of life is not “present”. Moreover, possibly, considering that such physical behaviors relate to the absence of a dimension of life, or alternatively, the dimension, which coils within the volume of each particle, arguably, such physical occurrences may be responsible for our empirical findings, with respect to the existence of antimatter. Still, this is but a broad suggestion, and in no way is it crucial for our understanding of metaphysical inconsistencies, as arguably, antimatter may represent yet another feature of the physical behaviors the dimension of matter determines, which as we confessed in “Delta Theory”, we lack the empirical knowledge and facilities, to analyze in full. Still, even if theoretically, we can understand the essence of elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of life, due to our lack of ability to measure the effects of contingent dimensions over our world, unless it is obvious to see, meaning, unless particles fail to respond to the universal laws of physics (such as, for example, particles, which fail to respond to gravity), we will find it extremely hard to differentiate such metaphysical inconsistencies, from the “normal” physical behaviors of particles. To clarify, just as we cannot measure what contingent dimensions should affect a particle currently, and hence, be able to predict its alleged random behavior, we cannot determine if a particle “strayed” from the behavior it should have exhibited otherwise. At best, we can theorize, particles behaved in an improbable manner, such as “synchronizing” the behaviors of several dislocated particles, or inexplicable shifts in the manner life forms evolve. Still, considering our suggestions in “Delta Theory”, with respect to our dimension of consciousness, which “allows access” to our internal conscious world, to all the neurons in our brain, regardless of the physical distance between them, arguably, even such synchronizations may not represent metaphysical inconsistencies, but merely our misunderstanding, with respect to the dimensions governing our world. Still, generally, we can assume that if we witness elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of life, their physical behaviors will be radically different from the behaviors of particles or life forms. Such elements do not adhere to consistency, and hence, their existence will not depend on sustaining kinetic equilibriums, in the same fashion as life forms, regardless if their behaviors will be somewhat similar to those of life forms or not. They will not undergo the cycle of life, and not obey the design of their gene pools, originating from their biological ancestors. Moreover, with respect to our conclusions regarding metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of existence, and the dimension of causality, such elements will not consist of the particles, or empty space, which exhibit these metaphysical abnormalities, but rather be additional, possibly undetectable elements, which govern these obscure occurrences. Furthermore, we should note, that similarly to as with the previous items, any similar behaviors, occurring in a transcendent or external world, do not challenge the consistency of our world, and therefore, cannot yield metaphysical inconsistencies within it.

7. The dimension of consciousness.
According to the dimension of consciousness, all elements existing in our internal mental world, or alternatively, all sensations, which potentially, can exist in our consciousness, must consist of contingent dimensions, which the dimension of consciousness hosts as manifestations of itself. An element, which is inconsistent with the dimension of consciousness, must affect our consciousness, without appearing as a single or several sensations in our minds, or alternatively, without adhering to any cognitive causality. Therefore, such elements cannot be generalizations, abstractions, and concepts. To clarify, while indeed, in “Delta Theory” we repeatedly argued, generalizations, abstractions, and concepts, cannot exist in the external world, regardless of our possible convictions they can, they still exist in our consciousness, and adhere to causality, even if in a somewhat different fashion, from the manner physical elements adhere to causality. Generalizations, abstractions, and concepts, are the product of the completeness deltas cognitive mechanism, which metaphysically, is no different from any other born instinct, such as the instincts which make us feel hunger, thirst, and the likes. Inconsistencies with the dimension of consciousness are different. Such inconsistencies change our mental world, without any possibility of us tracking the reason why these changes occurred. Moreover, such metaphysical inconsistencies exclude the effects of narcotics and biology on our psyche, as by studying our biology, and the manner narcotics manipulate our consciousness, we can track these effects. For example, with some discipline, we can predict we will tend to be more hostile to people, whenever we fail to sleep properly, for a substantial duration. In contrast, inconsistent elements are neither predictable in the future, nor traceable in the past, and our lack of knowledge, with respect to the connection between our biology and our cognitive dispositions, is by no means enough, to yield metaphysical inconsistencies. Still, we should emphasize, that elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of consciousness, must still exist as manifestations of the dimension of consciousness. To clarify, as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, the dimension of consciousness is the metaphysical enabler for our ability to sense anything. Therefore, regardless if an element yields metaphysical inconsistencies, unless it manipulates recurrences of the dimension of consciousness, or alternatively, unless it manipulates the sensations in our minds, it cannot affect our consciousness. To clarify, similarly to as with the previous items, such elements are irrelevant to the dimension of consciousness, and hence, cannot yield metaphysical inconsistencies within it. Moreover, arguably, the same applies to any other consciousness, because as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, the metaphysical function of the dimension of consciousness, is uniform to all consciousnesses, and considering the relative biological uniformity all humans exhibit, it is improbable different human brains utilize different dimensions, to sustain this identical functionality, meaning, to allow the existence of our self-awareness, and our cognitive generalization capabilities. Furthermore, because as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, we care only for cognitive occurrences in our psyche, which close or open deltas in our minds, or alternatively, remove or inflict sensations of pain into our consciousness, we should expect we will be aware of such metaphysical inconsistencies, only if they cause us pleasure or pain. Nevertheless, nothing limits the variety in which we will sense them. For example, such metaphysical inconsistencies may cause us to feel hungry or “full”, while neither our body, nor any of our cognitive inclinations will demand it. Alternatively, such metaphysical inconsistencies may cause us to error, while performing a task, which our brain converted into a learned instinct already, and by the same coin, may allow us to successfully perform a cognitive task, which our neurological disposition should not allow us, without first training our brain, by repeating the task several times, over a prolonged duration. Similarly, such elements may change the composition of the sensations compiling our faith and beliefs, shifting that which we take for granted without justification, meaning, without us first understanding why we should change our persuasions, or without comprehending the benefits such changes promise us.

8. The dimension of consistency.

Huh? Well, at first, I thought of omitting this dimension from our analysis of metaphysical inconsistencies, as arguably, the existence of the dimension of consistency is itself inconsistent, and self-referencing definitions are the prescription for useless tautologies. Still, considering that the subject of our discussion is metaphysical inconsistencies, I figured, “Why not? Let us give it a try”, and unsurprisingly, doing so yielded unexpected results. The dimension of consistency demands nothing from the external world, or from our internal mental world. Therefore, if an element is inconsistent with the dimension of consistency, metaphysically, it must demand “something”, and indeed, there are such elements, as according to the physical logic, both the external world, and our internal mental world, demand consistency. Therefore, both worlds are inconsistent with the dimension of consistency. To explain, the dimension of consistency suggests two options. On the one hand, if the dimension of consistency exists, metaphysically, there “is” at least one inconsistent element, which is the dimension of consistency itself. On the other hand, if the dimension of consistency does not exist, then nothing can be inconsistent with it, including inconsistent elements, and therefore, metaphysically, the existence of inconsistent elements is consistent with the world-in-itself, as nothing prevents it. To clarify, while inconsistent elements cannot exist within the external world, or our internal mental world, nothing prevents their existence outside these worlds, as the only element, which possibly, could exist outside the metaphysical boundaries of these worlds, meaning, the dimension of consistency, and which potentially, could prevent the existence of such inconsistent elements, does not exist, and hence, cannot prevent their existence. Therefore, metaphysically, inconsistent elements can exist, even if they cannot exist in the logical field. Actually, this is not surprising, as only consistent elements can exist in the logical field.

Yes.

Indeed.

Bla bla bla.

Ok, so what did we gain from this review? Well, apart from a possible headache (which will pass, I can assure you), we compiled a list of attributes, describing metaphysical inconsistencies, with respect to the dimension they challenge. While indeed, we already understood such inconsistent elements must exist, still, are there different types of inconsistent elements? To clarify, considering metaphysical inconsistency with the dimension of consciousness for example, obviously, it is irrelevant to the dimension of space, because as we explained in “Delta Theory”, physical elements existing in space cannot enter our consciousness, and neither can sensations exist in space as physical elements. Therefore, elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of space, can be irrelevant to the dimension of consciousness, and hence, it suggests, the two types of metaphysically inconsistent elements, are of a different metaphysical essence.
However, things are a bit more complicated. In what way? Well, before we answer this, we should understand, all of the metaphysical inconsistency types we reviewed, must exist. But why? Well, if you remember, in “Delta Theory”, we suggested all dimensional spanning orders must be possible, and hence, each dimension could have been the first dimension to emerge. Being as such, it must have “filtered out” its own type of inconsistencies from the world it spanned. Therefore, all eight types of inconsistencies must be, or there would have been at least one dimensional-spanning order, which could not have been, contrary to the imperative metaphysical independency between dimensions.
Still, must all inconsistent elements share the same eight inconsistency attributes, or are there different types of inconsistent elements, each assigned to a different dimension?
Well, to answer this, let us rethink what these inconsistent attributes actually mean. If we consider elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of causality, such elements do not adhere to any regularity, and therefore, such elements are limitless by their very definition. Therefore, claiming such elements must adhere to the regularity, which any dimension sustains, would negate their metaphysical essence. Therefore, at the very least, we know that if an element is inconsistent with the dimension of causality, it must be inconsistent with all of the dimensions our world spans, and therefore, must share all eight inconsistency attributes.
This is a metaphysical imperative, which mere “potential” cannot suffice. To clarify, possessing the ability to realize an attribute, without actually realizing it, in itself reflects adherence to regularity, or alternatively, adherence to a dimension, and therefore, contradicts the metaphysical essence of such elements. Therefore, even if arguably, we can show a link between the eight inconsistency-attributes, such as in the case of metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of space, and metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of matter, essentially, such effort is pointless. If inconsistent elements must exist, it implies, they simply must exist. If there is a “location”, somewhere along the dimensions of our world, which does not segregate inconsistent elements from entering it, then at this location, metaphysically, some of the dimensions of our world do nothing, and therefore, these dimensions do not exist in this location. However, because according to the Physical Logic, all elements in our world must exist within the span of the imminent dimensions, wherever a dimension does not exist, the world does not exist as well, and neither does its contents. Therefore, to populate our world, inconsistent elements must always share all of the inconsistency attributes. The question whether these attributes can appear separately, is irrelevant to the external world, and our internal mental world. No matter how or why, in the context of our reality, inconsistent elements must always sustain all of the inconsistency attributes in parallel. If we choose to analyze these attributes separately, it should be merely for the sake of argument or contemplation.
As you probably noticed, while reviewing the essence of metaphysical inconsistencies, with respect to the different imminent dimensions, we repeatedly rejected metaphysical inconsistencies, which are irrelevant to our reality. You should rightfully ask “Why?” What is the difference between metaphysical inconsistencies, which are relevant to our reality, and metaphysical inconsistencies, which are irrelevant to our reality? Are relevant metaphysical inconsistencies more “real” than irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies in some way?
Well, the answer is no. It has nothing to do with the question “What is more real”. No. As we repeatedly suggested, irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies simply do not “challenge” our world. They do not contradict our world, as they exist in other transcendent worlds. Moreover, even if suddenly, some of the imminent dimensions of our world became inconsistent, irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies would still not enter our world, as nothing obliges them to do so. Irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies do not negate the dimensions of our world, and nor do they inflict implicit metaphysical inconsistencies. They exist in other worlds, worlds, which might be different from ours. For all we know, these worlds can be as consistent as the worlds we know from our experience, meaning, the external world, or our internal mental world. Irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies are relevant only to the worlds they affect, just as the dimensions of a world are relevant only to that world. To clarify, with respect to irrelevant metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of existence, meaning, elements, which persist to exist, but do not exist in our world, actually, if we think about it, such elements are consistent elements, which simply exist in other worlds. For such elements to possess the ability to challenge the consistency of our reality, additional elements must “bridge” the worlds in which they exist with the external world, or our internal mental world, and hence, allow the insertion of these elements into our reality. Indeed, the existence of these additional “bridging” elements, embodies a metaphysical inconsistency, as their metaphysical function would contradict the consistency of either the external world, or our internal world, and the world from which these elements originated. To be more specific, such elements would challenge the consistency of the dimension of causality, which prevents interrelations between the imminent dimensions, as well as with any other transcendent dimensions. Therefore, metaphysically, being inconsistent with the dimension of causality, such “bridging” elements must possess all of the attributes of metaphysical inconsistency, meaning, they must exhibit metaphysical inconsistency with all of the imminent dimensions. Moreover, if indeed, the world, from which these elements originated, is consistent, such a “bridge” would yield metaphysical inconsistencies, relevant to both worlds.
Relevant metaphysical inconsistencies are different. As we explained, the imminent dimensions of our world are actively “filtering” relevant metaphysical inconsistencies from entering our world. If metaphysically, our world became inconsistent, elements, which exhibit relevant metaphysical inconsistencies, would roam into our world, administering havoc, as they propagate all of the attributes of metaphysical inconsistency. In such an event, the external world, or our internal mental world, would surely nullify, and to prevent such an imminent cataclysmic event, the imminent dimensions are actively “restricting” relevant metaphysical inconsistencies from entering both the external world, and our internal mental world, and hence, validate their metaphysical essence.
Still, what does it mean to say "The imminent dimensions restrict relevant metaphysical inconsistencies from entering our reality”? To clarify, if relevant metaphysically inconsistent elements can exist in neither the external world, or our internal mental world, from where can they enter our reality? What is the score? Do inconsistent elements exist or not?
Well, again, to answer this question, we have to reconsider the “scope” of our discussion. Indeed, relevant inconsistent elements exist in neither the external world, or our internal mental world, as the imminent dimensions restrict them from entering our reality. However, once we ascend one level in the metaphysical hierarchy, relevant inconsistencies can exist, meaning, relevant metaphysical inconsistencies exist in the world-in-itself.

And now, a blast from the past.

If you remember, in the introduction chapter of “Delta Theory”, we decided to restrict our conceptual journey from discussing the world-in-itself. Understanding we can never know the true essence of the world-in-itself, we decided to save ourselves the trouble, and limit our discussion, only to issues related with the world, meaning, the world we know from our experience.
However, this does not mean the world-in-itself does not exist. Again, I find myself correcting a past mistake. What I failed to understand in “Delta Theory” was that the Physical Logic implies a separation between the external world, our internal mental world, and the world-in-itself. The metaphysical function of the imminent dimensions yields this separation. Allegorically, the imminent dimensions wrap a “metaphysical wall of consistency” around our reality. We cannot “puncture” this “wall”, as we ourselves are consistent elements. Nevertheless, inconsistent elements may still exist outside the scope of this metaphysical protection, and due to their limitless nature (which we previously deduced), these elements exist everywhere in the external world, and our internal mental world, "behind" this "wall" of consistency. If this "wall" will ever "crack", inconsistent elements would pour into the external world, and our internal mental world, from the scope of the world-in-itself. Moreover, we should emphasize, that because we gain our acquaintance with our reality through metaphysical recurrences of the dimension of consciousness, if this allegoric "wall" will ever "crack", inconsistent elements would pour into our own consciousness.
This conclusion is not trivial. When thinking about the imminent dimensions of either the external world, or our internal mental world, we tend to think of something vast, happening galaxies away, so grand and beyond us, we might not even know about it. However, because as we concluded, such metaphysical cataclysmic events require the involvement of elements, which are inconsistent with the dimension of causality, metaphysically, they must be inconsistent with all dimensions, including the dimension of consciousness. Therefore, the world, in which such a cataclysmic event will transpire, will be our own mental world. We will not have the luxury of “looking the other way”, as in such an event, there simply will not be any “other way” at which to look.
Still, there is more to it. Because metaphysically inconsistent elements must “be”, and because as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, our consciousness is a consistent element, such metaphysically inconsistent elements cannot exist in the external world, or our internal mental world, and therefore, their existence implies that the metaphysical “scope” in which they reside must exist independently from both, meaning, the world-in-itself must exist independently from both.
In “Delta Theory”, we reclined from making such deductions, because we could not determine whether the world-in-itself exists separately from our internal world, and hence, suggest the existence of a metaphysical “scope”, where elements could reside "outside" of our own personal internal mental world. For all we knew, the world “ended” once we no longer existed in it, be it that we were unconscious, hallucinating, dreaming, or dead. However, now that we have established the existence of elements, which lie beyond the boundaries of our personal internal mental world, we can deduce that the world-in-itself persists to exist, with or without the dimension of consciousness. The dimension of consciousness is but a tenant in the world-in-itself, just as all dimensions are, and so is our subjective self-awareness. Our personal mental world cannot encapsulate the world-in-itself. Moreover, because as we suggested in “Delta Theory”, the manner our animal body manipulates contingent dimensions in our brain, yields our self-awareness, and because our animal body exists in the external world, meaning, as a physical element, and because physical elements cannot enter our internal mental world, and last, if the external world is indeed consistent, and hence, cannot host inconsistent elements, metaphysically, it implies the separate existence of all three worlds, meaning, the existence of the world-in-itself, the external world, and our internal mental world. Indeed, as we suggested in the introduction chapter of “Delta Theory”, the world-in-itself produces all elements, be it worlds, or inconsistent elements. Therefore, the existence of both the external world, and our internal mental world, depends on the world-in-itself. Still, both worlds, meaning, the external world, and our internal mental world, exist independently from one another. Indeed, during our discussion, we differentiated between the external world, and our internal mental world. However, at no point could we assert the existence of any world, other than our internal mental world, an assertion, which we just validated.
Ok, so what is so special about that? Well, to better understand the significance of this conclusion, let us consider our dreams. In dreams, our consciousness exists in a world, different from the world we know during wakefulness. In “Delta Theory”, we did not put much significance to these worlds. We suggested these are contingent worlds, which exist independently from the external world. Still, once we establish the world-in-itself exists independently from both the external world, and our internal mental world, we can deduce, our existence as consciousnesses implies a metaphysical relation between two metaphysically independent consistent worlds, meaning, the external world, and our internal mental world. To clarify, indeed, during wakefulness, our consciousness responds to the external world, and hence, remains somewhat consistent with it. However, while dreaming, the external world, and our own personal internal contingent mental world become irrelevant. Events can transpire in our dreams, which have no effect on the external world, and vice versa. Still, as the word “contingent” suggests, this duality is hierarchical. We dream because the external world makes us dream, while usually, we reenter wakefulness, not because we wish it, but rather because our animal body “decides” we should attend to more pressing matters. While dreaming, there is real unique brain activity, without which we stop dreaming, suggesting the existence of the dream worlds we visit, depends on the external world. Furthermore, by establishing that the external world persists independently from our internal contingent world, we can deduce, our animal body persists to exist, regardless if our consciousness resides in a dream. Moreover, we do not dream the same dream every night. The worlds we visit in our dreams are not as persistent as the external world.
Ok, cool, but why is this worth mentioning?
Well, let us consider our suggestions, with respect to metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of consciousness. Such metaphysical inconsistencies occur without adhering to any type of causality, be it cognitive, or physical. Now, let us review our previous conclusions. We understood that if metaphysical inconsistencies were to enter the external world, or our internal mental world, they will pour into either worlds in an unstoppable (or better said “limitless”) manner. In addition, we understood that inconsistency must exist (or better said, inconsistency must “be”). We know our consciousness represents a consistent world, but more to the point, metaphysically, this world embodies the entity we are. It is the metaphysical enabler, allowing us to become aware of all other dimensions, and without which we will simply not exist. Still, the existence of our personal mental world depends on the metaphysical function the dimension of consciousness sustains, and therefore, considering the fact we can sense our own existence, the dimension of consciousness must exist, and so do relevant metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of consciousness. Moreover, because these relevant metaphysical inconsistencies, must be inconsistent with the dimension of causality, their potency is limitless, and hence, they must somehow affect our consciousness. Indeed, the dimension of consciousness prevents these relevant inconsistent elements from existing in our internal mental world. Nevertheless, the dimension of consciousness cannot restrict inconsistent elements from affecting our consciousness, because if it did, it would undermine the metaphysical essence of these relevant inconsistent elements.
And this is exactly what happens right under our noses. What do you think happens whenever we dream? In “Delta Theory”, we suggested dreams are but a side effects of a biological optimization processes our animal brain performs, an ability we attained through evolution, allowing the brain to free some of its neurons, from their necessary functions during wakefulness, and hence, be able to perform neurological processes, which our animal brain cannot perform otherwise. Furthermore, scientific experimentations have shown, sleep deprivation can cause us to go into a state of coma, and may even result in death. To summarize, there is an imperative biological reason why we sleep and dream, just like all other animals do.
However, dreams represent more than merely the fulfillment of a biological necessity. To clarify, as we understood, our internal mental world exists. Therefore, as we dream, the worlds we visit are existing worlds. Still, while dreaming, we find ourselves in worlds, different from the external world, which adhere to different “rules” than the ones the external world adheres. The fact our animal brain embodies a metaphysical “anchor” for these worlds changes nothing, as the actual physical location within our brain cells, where dream related brain activity occurs, does not appear in any way within our dream worlds.
Furthermore, our dream worlds do not suffer from any inherent lack of detail. Unlike artificial worlds, such as those we know from computer games for example, the sense of richness or vividness dream worlds deliver is not inferior to that which we sense from the external world. Our dream worlds do not suffer from insufficient detail, or “poor artificial intelligence” considering the people or beings we encounter in our dreams. Essentially, there is nothing “lesser” about dream worlds. Furthermore, as we return to reality, there is no reason to think these dream worlds nullify, just as it would be wrong to think that the external world nullifies whenever we dream. Dreams end simply because our body requires the service of our consciousness to deal with the needs of the body, such as the need to eat, drink, or any other survival requirement. We leave these worlds, just as we “leave” the external world, whenever we go to sleep.
Still, how does this relate to metaphysical inconsistencies? Well, when we are awake, we react to the external world. When we dream, we react to a dream world. Even if we consider hallucinations, when we hallucinate, when we see things that are not there, metaphysically, our consciousness is “in” these schizophrenic worlds. Our consciousness is a consistent element, and hence, it cannot exist in two worlds at once, as if it did, it would breach the independency between dimensions, and hence, become inconsistent with the dimension of causality, meaning, it could not perceive or manipulate elements originating from the external world, such as the contingent dimensional sensory we receive from our senses. Ok, so what is the problem?
Can you not see it? Off course you can. You are simply so used to this “problem” that you fail to recognize it. Let me ask you, how do you know you dream? How do you know you hallucinate? How do you know you are awake? How do you know you shift between worlds? Can you not see all these worlds are fucking irrelevant?!?
To clarify, indeed, our dreams may consist of elements we encountered and memorized from the external world. Still, again, the events occurring in our dreams do not occur in the external world. Indeed, usually, our memories of our dreams are vague. Still, sometimes, we manage to remember our dreams quite vividly. In such cases, we will find sensations in our memories, which did not originate from the external world, and by responding to these sensations, we may cause changes in the external world, without any causative justification for it, originating from the external world. Still, again, usually, when we wake up, somehow, the exact details of our dreams vanish, while within a dream, we do not feel as if we suffer from a memory deficit. Why is it like that? Why are we not forgetful while dreaming, while we are forgetful of our dreams once we wake up? Why can we not remember the dream worlds we visited?
There could be many explanations. Perhaps, while dreaming, parts of our brain exists in the dream world, and as we leave this dream world, these parts of our brain become irrelevant to the physical structure of our brain within the external world, and hence, we lose the memories we “stored” in our “dream brains”. Arguably, there is no real problem with this possibility. Irrelevant “dream brains” remain irrelevant to the brain existing in the external world, along with all memories we “stored” in these alleged “dream brains”. Actually, in a way, such "dream brains" resemble the manner computer program store local variables only within the scope of the functions that defined them.
Nevertheless, again, it is not a clean sweep. Somehow, we manage to store some memories of our dreams in our physical brain. Moreover, with respect to narcotic hallucinations, such as those we experience from LSD for example, while indeed, such hallucinations are not completely irrelevant to the sensory inputs we receive from our senses, during such hallucinations, these sensory inputs merge with sensations our brain stores in memory, such as our memories of different animals for example, and hence, the mental world in which our consciousness resides during such hallucinations, is different from the one we know when we are sober. Nevertheless, unlike dream worlds, we do not forget the memories of our hallucinations, memories, which can radically change our behaviors after, and hence, cause changes in the external world, which arguably, may have no causative justification in the external world. To clarify, while indeed, essentially, such hallucinations are the product of chemicals on our neural architecture, it is possible the manner our brain reacts to these chemicals, exceeds beyond any deterministic mechanicality.
Still, even if such hallucinations are consistent with the mechanicality of our animal body, in effect, our consciousness routinely renders irrelevant worlds relevant to each other, and hence, imposes a metaphysical challenge on the metaphysical function, which the dimension of causality sustains. To clarify, there is no reason to think this metaphysical inconsistency occurs only when we dream or hallucinate, as arguably, such metaphysical inconsistencies may occur whenever we feel detached from the sensations we receive from the external world, while meditating over ideas, as while meditating, our thoughts cause irrelevant worlds to affect one another. Indeed, within the “scope” of our consciousness, this is not really a problem, as the dimension of consciousness hosts all our sensations as recurrences of itself, and hence, metaphysically, the different worlds appearing in our thoughts do not exist independently from one another. The different worlds appearing in our thoughts are but mutations of a single world, or alternatively, a single consciousness. Still, these worlds are both different and irrelevant to the external world, and yet, they affect it.
Actually, these changes reflect more than merely metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of causality. This is understandable. Metaphysical inconsistencies with the dimension of causality, imply a disregard to the metaphysical functions of all dimensions. To clarify, if we consider what happens as these irrelevant worlds affect one another, the irrelevant worlds in our thoughts do not persist to exist, but rather appear and disappear according to the “rhythm” of our thoughts, meaning, these worlds fail to adhere to the metaphysical demands of the dimension of existence. If we think in spatial terms, the spatial consistency and continuity of our mental worlds is “breached”, as arguably, each of the worlds occupying our consciousness possesses its own separate “space”. Furthermore, our internal mental worlds do not cause physical change in the external world. Our internal mental worlds can merely motivate us to manipulate the external world differently than we would otherwise. Indeed, we could argue, that because our consciousness embodies an internal mental world, which exists independently from the external world, it does not need to adhere to the demands of the imminent dimensions, as our internal mental worlds exist independently from the external world. Still, if we consider the immobility of our thoughts, meaning, our ability to conceptualize abstract concepts, while keeping them in our minds without changing, while our consciousness constructs them, arguably, they are more than merely irrelevant to the external world. The concepts in our minds are inconsistent with our consciousness, which continuously changes, while these concepts remain “static”. Furthermore, while indeed, all mental worlds are equally contingent, they still consist of dimensions, while the mobilization of ideas between our mental worlds cannot be the product of dimensions. It can only be the result of a metaphysical “bridge”, which can undermine the dimension of causality, and the metaphysical independency between dimensions.
This metaphysical “bridge”, is indeed, an inconsistent element. To clarify, I am sure you all know the feeling of falling asleep, the moment in which you enter a dream. It happens instantaneously. You do not go through a "process". You just "pop" into a dream world. Whatever is allowing this migration between mental worlds, exists for a very short duration (if we can call it a “duration” at all). Furthermore, if we consider the manner by which the brain utilizes this shift between mental worlds, it is as if the biology of our brain can summon this shift at will. If a dimension allowed these shifts, it would imply, other physical elements, meaning, other dimensions, are capable of spanning and nullifying this dimension at will, meaning, this dimension is dependent on other dimensions by its very definition. In short, not only does the element allowing us to shift between mental worlds cannot be a dimension, it does not even "behave" like a dimension. However, according to the Physical Logic, all elements existing in our world are dimensions. If we “breach” this “rule”, we simply deem the world inconsistent, which again, would imply, inconsistency must exist. Therefore, whatever enables this migration is inconsistent with dimensions. Still, from the daily experience of migrating between mental worlds (as we go to sleep for example), we know it must exist (or “be”), and therefore, again we can conclude, inconsistency must exist. Moreover, again, considering that our animal brain can summon this metaphysically inconsistent "bridge" at will, it suggests, our biology manipulates the effects of inconsistent elements over the dimension of consciousness. In fact, this type of manipulations may be the true essence of the dimension of pain, whose existence we suggested in "Delta Theory". To clarify, it is possible, the dimension of pain is not a dimension at all, but rather a manifestation of the effects metaphysically inconsistent elements have over our consciousness. If so, it would imply, inconsistent elements are the true cause for the emergence of all deltas in our psyche, meaning, inconsistent elements are the cause for all our wills and sores, as well as arguably, the metaphysical essence of our causes, purposes, and meanings. Still, this is only a hypothesis.
Moreover, arguably, it is possible, the effects of this “bridge” exceed the boundaries of our consciousness, as inconsistency is prone to affect all contingent dimensions. To clarify, contingent dimensions are contingent, and hence, are somewhat “disposable”. Therefore, arguably, their insertion or removal from the external world, may not challenge the consistency of the external world. Therefore, considering that in “Delta Theory”, we suggested all particles respond to their internal contingent dimensional dispositions or states, arguably, wherever there is matter, or even, wherever there is light, metaphysical inconsistency exists.
Actually, I am not saying anything new. If all I wanted was to prove "inconsistency must exist", I could have simply referred to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and be done with it. According to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, within every logical system, there are some true statements we cannot prove. Therefore, Gödel's incompleteness theorems practically prove that if “Delta Theory” is correct, or even only partially correct, inconsistency must exist. To clarify, because the Physical Logic claims that both the external world, and our internal mental world, adhere to rational consistency, Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply, there are "things" in the world, which we cannot explain rationally. Therefore, if the Physical Logic is indeed consistent, it implies there are metaphysical elements, which the Physical Logic cannot explain, and which must both exist, and be inconsistent. To clarify, this is an imperative deficit, from which all logical systems suffer, and by claiming that metaphysically, the world adheres to logic, implicitly, we must accept the existence of metaphysical inconsistencies.
However, Gödel's incompleteness theorems leave us with but the knowledge, that we cannot explain everything consistently, and that there must be inexplicable inconsistent elements. Still, what are these inexplicable inconsistent elements? What is explainable and what is not? Why is something inexplicable? What are the limits of that which we can explain? What are the attributes of the inexplicable?
As we stated in the beginning of "Delta Theory", its purpose was never to unveil the true essence of the world, but rather learn more about our lives. In the introduction chapter of “Delta Theory”, we explicitly confessed, we will never be able to truly “know” the essence of the world-in-itself. Therefore, I find little significance in the fact we can prove that “inconsistency must exist”, with or without referring to Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Still, Gödel merely discussed abstract logical systems. He did not refer to consistent metaphysical theories. To clarify, in the introduction chapter of “Delta Theory”, we classified metaphysical theories according to their inconsistency categories. First, we mentioned metaphysical theories such as Zen, which wish to undermine rational thought altogether. We called such metaphysical theories “completely inconsistent metaphysical theories”, as according to their teachings, inconsistency should be embraced as “the truth”. Secondly, we mentioned “inconsistent metaphysical theories”, which explain some aspects of our existence inconsistently, while providing consistent explanations for other aspects. In this category, we included all religions, as well as empirical sciences. Last, we mentioned the consistent metaphysical theories category, which at the time, was simply empty. With “Delta Theory” (or more specifically, the Physical Logic), we attempted to populate this category. However, now we learn that even within the Physical Logic, inconsistency must exist.
So what is the score? Did we fail to find a consistent metaphysical theory? Have we just discredited the consistency of the Physical Logic?
Well, the answer is no. What the Physical Logic claims is that inconsistency does not exist in the world, and by the term “exists”, we specifically meant, “Persists to exist”. Elements, which never persist to exist, do not cause inconsistencies, regardless of their metaphysical function. Therefore, the Physical Logic manages to “dodge” Gödel's incompleteness theorems, exactly because it is not an abstract logical system. Because the Physical Logic deals with metaphysics, and not abstract logic, it has the luxury of placing elements, which it cannot explain rationally, outside the “scope” of the world, be it the external world, or our internal mental world. Abstract logical systems cannot make such claims, as they merely represent ideas. Abstract logical systems cannot exclude from existence elements, whose existence we can deduce from such systems, because unlike metaphysics, in abstract logical systems, defining an element, is equivalent to determining an element exists in these systems. However, when discussing metaphysics, the very concept of “existence” is open to interpretation. If done consistently, we can exclude from existence, all the elements, which a consistent metaphysical theory cannot explain rationally.
And this is exactly what the Physical Logic does. It defines the limits of metaphysical inconsistency, and then claims it does not exist in the external world, or our internal mental world. Still, metaphysically, inconsistency remains a part of the world the Physical Logic describes. Hence, we can deduce, Gödel's incompleteness theorems do not apply to metaphysical theories automatically. Still, again, considering the significant role inconsistency has over our consciousness, allowing us to shift between mental worlds and contemplations, surely, it must exist (or “be”), regardless if our metaphysical theory is consistent.
To conclude, regardless of what we believe in, through careful rational analysis of our world, we will always reach the conclusion that metaphysically, inconsistency must exist. If we believe in a completely inconsistent metaphysical theory, we will believe metaphysical inconsistency encapsulates our entire experience in this life. If we believe in an inconsistent metaphysical theory, then inevitably, somewhere along the arguments supporting our persuasion, there will be concepts, which we cannot explain rationally (such as the answer to the question “What was before the beginning of time?” for example), and for all intended purposes, the metaphysical existence of elements we cannot explain rationally, reflects a metaphysical inconsistency. Still, considering the conclusions we reached in this chapter, even in consistent metaphysical theories, inconsistent elements, which are limitless in both potential and ability, must exist, and actually affect our reality. Due to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, we know such elements simply must be. Still, they are inconsistent, and hence, we cannot analyze them rationally, and therefore, to avoid them, the best we can do is segregate them, by metaphysically placing them outside the external world, and our internal mental world, while separating both worlds from the world-in-itself. Nevertheless, metaphysically, these inconsistent elements still exist, within the world-in-itself. Therefore, metaphysically, regardless of what we believe, and regardless if we want to think about it or not, inconsistency must exist. Furthermore, because inconsistent elements are limitless, and because metaphysically, inconsistent elements must actually exist, they must be omnipotent. They must actually possess the potential and powers, equivalent to that of “gods”.
However, as we suggested at the end of “Delta Theory”, because the Physical Logic assumes nothing but consistency and existence, the same conclusions regarding metaphysical inconsistencies apply to practically any metaphysical theory. The only elements or entities, which theoretically, can negate the existence of these omnipotent inconsistent elements, must at the very least be equivalent in potential and power to these inconsistent elements, for the mere act of negating their metaphysical potency. Therefore, in effect, such elements are inconsistent elements as well, as to negate such omnipotent elements, at the very least, metaphysically, they must match their inconsistency attributes. And so, we come to the disturbing conclusion, that regardless of what we choose to believe, there is something in the world-in-itself that has unlimited potential and power, and which really affects our reality.

And this is where we will shift to the next chapter.