The Ghost Dimension

Introduction

Where do ghosts reside? According to the 17th century English philosopher Henry More, they are located in a fourth dimension. A contemporary philosopher claims you find them in black holes.

Once we know where ghosts are, and what they are, we can then work out how to reliably make contact with them and learn their secrets.

Do your eyes reveal existence to you, or are there all manner of things that exist that you can’t see? Since, by definition, your eyes can’t show you anything you can’t see, there could be an unlimited number of things that exist that are invisible to you. All visible things are unseen by blind people. Are there also unseen things to which even those with eyes are intrinsically blind? Are there worlds made of dark matter and dark energy that we shall never see? Are ghosts composed of dark matter rather than normal matter? Do they exploit dark energy?

What we traditionally call light is actually visible light. When it was discovered that visible light was part of the electromagnetic spectrum, it was also discovered that the vast majority of this spectrum was invisible to us. No one knew the spectrum existed until the right theory came along. Then it provided us with access to radio waves, microwaves, infra-red waves, ultra-violet waves, x-rays, gamma-rays, and so on, which have transformed our world. The known universe of existents had expanded despite our eyes, not thanks to our eyes. By this exact logic, there could be any number of existents out there that are undetectable by our senses, hence scoffed at by scientists, yet are just waiting to be activated by the right theory, exactly as with electromagnetism, which is now such a keystone of the scientific edifice.

Sensory reality, so science would like you to believe, is identical to reality. In fact, there is no reason whatsoever, even within the parameters of existing science, to deny the existence of a non-sensory universe. How would we know it doesn’t exist? Since it’s non-sensory, there’s no point in appealing to the senses or sensory experiments to help us know about it. They will tell you literally nothing about what they are incapable of detecting, exactly as eyes can tell you zero about radio waves.

Just as we can have a sensory universe and a non-sensory universe, so we can have intermediate states, things that are sensory sometimes, and non-sensory at other times. Ghosts and spirits belong to this twilight, liminal zone. Let’s say that they exist right on the edge of the visible spectrum, and sometimes, depending on prevailing environmental conditions, they can be seen, but usually they’re just out of sight, but their presence can nevertheless be sensed.

Our eyes do not present reality to us. They detect information, pass it to our brains and minds, where it is interpreted and then represented to us. We have no means of establishing what reality is like in itself, prior to our representation of it. We can only ever access our representation. The representation of something is not coincident with the unrepresented thing in itself. Science, sadly, likes to pretend otherwise.

Our senses collect certain types of information. The information is then heavily processed and interpreted by our brains and our minds. Our brains and our minds (they are not the same thing, as scientists would have you believe), add a vast amount of information to the collected information, which was never present in the original information, hence what comes out at the end as our actual sensory experience is radically different from what the experience originally was before it reached us.

When a tree falls in the forest without anyone to hear it, it produces an event – some kind of potential experience – but given that our ears, brains and minds are absent from the event, hence all the elements that they add to the experience are also necessarily absent, we can draw no comparison at all between the tree falling unheard, and the tree falling heard. They are entirely different things, involving fundamentally different information. Science has never understood this.

It’s crazy to rely on our senses to tell us about reality in itself. Our senses are exactly what prevent us from experiencing reality in the raw. They are the means by which we interpret and represent reality. They do not reveal reality itself, and never can. The whole of science is predicated on how reality is represented to us (as phenomenon), and it tells us nothing about what reality is in itself, prior to representation (i.e. as noumenon).

Science bets the bank on the senses. It has made a catastrophic error. The senses are unreliable and fallible, and have zero necessary, logical connection with reality in itself, unmediated by our senses, i.e. there is no sensory experience you can have that can tell you anything at all about what reality is truly like. All it can tell you about is how you represent, or, rather, misrepresent reality. Different animals have different senses, use their senses differently, have sharper or sometimes duller senses than we do, tune in to different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. Their experienced reality is vastly different from ours. If we had their sensory experiences, we would create entirely different scientific theories. Aliens, with radically different senses from ours, would have radically different types of science from us.

Science is species dependent, mathematics is not. No alien could have a different system of mathematics from us. Mathematics, therefore, possesses a universal character and truth that science lacks. Science never rises above interpretation. Its power comes from mathematics, without which it would be useless. Scientists have never worked out that math is the only true part of science. Science becomes truer the more mathematical it becomes, and it becomes ultimate truth when it turns into pure mathematics, the subject of perfection, the subject of the absolute, the infallible, the incontestable, the eternal, the 100% certain.

Scientists don’t have a theory of ghosts and spirits. So what? Not so long ago, science didn’t have a theory of electromagnetism. What if ghosts and spirits are electromagnetic phenomena that are normally outside our visible reality, but, in certain circumstances, can enter that reality, then leave it again as they choose? Science is hardly in any position to refute this. Before electromagnetism, scientists may well have scoffed at the notion of invisible waves. They may well have sneered and mocked, and said that these were the invention of credulous, superstitious, religious folk who believed in invisible souls and the like. Yet electromagnetism is now central to science. So it goes.

All scientific ideas are just waiting to be falsified. There is no such thing as scientific truth, only science’s current best guess as to what the truth might be, yet what counts as best guess in science is never anything other than speculative. Science, not that it likes to tell you, is an expression of the philosophy of materialism and empiricism. If you instead changed its philosophical underpinning to idealism and rationalism, scientists would then be telling you completely different things! No scientist can explain to you why you should accept empiricism and materialism rather than rationalism and idealism. Most of them don’t even understand that there’s a choice. They are clueless about why they subscribe to the particular philosophy they do. It’s an unchallenged part of their paradigm, of their brainwashed groupthink. Scientists have always been not only philosophically illiterate, but actively hostile to philosophy. Since philosophy is the science of clear thinking, this is a serious and fundamental drawback in the scientific method.

Eventually, science will be compelled to accept a mathematical theory of invisible souls. Reason and logic demand it. In fact, the theory already exists. It’s called ontological mathematics, and it is championed by the philosopher Mike Hockney who has mathematized Leibniz’s theory of monads and turned them into mathematical minds defined by a precise mathematical formula, thus making them entities that can be inserted into scientific equations.

The Fourth Dimension

The English philosopher and theologian Henry More who proposed the existence of a spiritual fourth dimension was a great influence on Isaac Newton, arguably the world’s most celebrated scientist of all time. Today, people are familiar with Einstein’s idea of spacetime, which has been characterized as a four-dimensional Minkowski continuum where a time dimension is added to the familiar three dimensions of space. In Henry More’s day, time was not the fourth dimension. Instead, More supplemented the standard, fixed three spatial dimensions with a dynamic spatial dimension that could grow or shrink in size, depending on circumstances.

More used the example of light to illustrate what he was talking about. If you switch on a light, it immediately fills the whole space available to it. If you switch off the light, the light instantly vanishes from the space. So, light has a variable relationship to space. It can be part of the space at one instant, and absent from it at the next. A physical object such as a table occupies the same space in all circumstances, but light changes to accommodate whatever space it finds itself in. The fundamental question is this: when photons aren’t visible in spacetime, are they still in existence somewhere else, where they are not visible, e.g. in a dimensionless singularity outside space and time, a place of mathematical minds/monads/souls? In fact, are minds actually made of light? Is light the means by which mind and matter interact? Can light enter and leave spacetime, i.e. does it possess exactly the dynamic relationship to spacetime that More contemplated?

More thought of spirit as a kind of living or intelligent light: active light with its own will and agency. Like light, it could choose to fill the entire space available to it, or, so he proposed, it could choose to fill any proportion of that space, even to the extent of a vanishingly small amount. It could fully penetrate an object such as a table, and then withdraw from it later. It was able to do such a thing because it was operating through the variable fourth dimension.

As the spirit occupies more space, its spiritual density decreases, and as it shrinks into smaller spaces, its spiritual density increases. A spirit could thus reveal itself to a human observer, then vanish from view just as quickly.

Science is in no position to criticize such a theory. After all, some versions of string theory refer to twenty-six dimensions, only four of which correspond to Einsteinian spacetime. The rest are all rolled up to the point of near invisibility. M-theory has eleven dimensions, of which seven are hidden. Wikipedia says, Although a complete formulation of M-theory is not known, the theory should describe two- and five-dimensional objects called branes and should be approximated by eleven-dimensional supergravity at low energies.

As for quantum mechanics, it relies on an unreal, abstract mathematical wavefunction. Where does this wavefunction exist? What is its relationship to dimensionality? Isn’t the wavefunction of quantum mechanics itself a kind of ghost?!

Science has lost its grip on dimensionality. Long gone is the easy-to-understand absolute space and absolute time of Newton. Science is now willing to accept all sorts of weird and changeable dimensions. The only type of dimensionality it emphatically rejects is the zero dimensionality (dimensionlessness) suggested by Descartes to account for how mind differs from matter. For Descartes, mind (i.e. thinking substance = consciousness) was unextended and indivisible, while matter was extended and divisible.

Henry More instead proposed an extended dimension for mind, hence his scheme is much harder for science to reject. He made this a dynamic dimension, and science has no fundamental problem with this since it is willing to roll up and compactify dimensions. It’s only because scientists are so fanatically committed to the ideology and dogmatism of materialism that they refuse to consider a spiritual (mental) dimension, interacting with the dimensions of the material world.

Ghosts

Descartes famously conceived of two substances: 1) immaterial thinking substance with no extension, and 2) material non-thinking substance with extension. Thinking substance (mind) was indivisible, while non-thinking substance (matter) was divisible. For Descartes, then, matter is the opposite of thinking. Mind is thought and matter is non-thought, or matter is solid stuff and mind is non-solid stuff.

Henry More subsequently asserted that since Descartes’ unextended spiritual, thinking substance is not located in the spatial universe, it doesn’t, and can’t, exist anywhere at all, i.e. More, like modern scientists, could not conceive of existence outside space and time. To counter Descartes, More introduced the concept of extended yet indivisible spiritual substance: thinking substance that could exist in the spatial universe.

More’s universe consisted of: 1) extended, divisible matter, incapable of penetrating other things, and 2) extended, indivisible, immaterial spirit, capable of penetrating other things. Spirits, in other words, could flit through matter and even through one another, while remaining