Today I would like to prove that a three dimensional object, an object like this a ‘transformer’, is in essence not material neither spatial, but that it is at least made of energy, as Einstein pointed out, or an inner force as Aristotle and Leibniz pointed out. A later question of how that energy can be formed, for example via idea-thoughts, raises the question how one can enter and partake in ideas and who created them. These questions are prepared, but not raised neither answered directly in this particular video blog. Another way to interpret this prove is that it proves the mathematical zero-dimensionless point does not exist. It appears for our senses in our everyday ordinary use of our senses that objects are material and are in space therefor are both material and spatial. Space is defined mathematically within the argument meaning it is homogenous and quantitative meaning no place in space is qualitatively worth more in itself than any other place. The argument consists of four steps connected to four fingers that together should form a hand. The connection also enables you to memorize better. I hope you will shake this hand, my hand, in becoming actively passive for this argument, so you may grow an extra hand to receive more insights from more video blogs or blogs or books. Step 1: the index finger. Is to realise that space is not material for matter exists in space therefor space itself cannot be spatial. Material objects are finite so space is not finite, thus infinite. Both infinitely big and small. Step 2: pink. if a three dimensional object consists of two dimensional flat planes and these planes consists of one dimensional lines with a length these lines must consist of zero dimensional points and more over must consist of infinite amount of point for a plane consists of infinite amount of lines and three dimensional objects consists of infinite amount of planes. Step 3: middle finger. In answering what a point is I can make my point! If a point is material it has a certain length or width and that would make a finite line consisting of infinite points making it an infinite line and making three dimensional object infinite and as big as space. At this point we could also conclude that there is just one material object, but that is clearly wrong for that would mean you and I are the same. Which is clearly not the case for we are both endowed with singular souls that can move their own bodies via the spirit. Step 4: ring finger. Could the point be infinitely small as an infinite small space, a dimensionless point? No for if the point is zero and a line consists of infinite amount of points we have to calculate infinity times zero which is zero. If a line does not have a size an object does not have a size. Concluding: thumb. So an object is neither material nor spatial. What is it? First of all the object is in time so I would suggest it is a temporary. What is time? That I will answer later, but for now I would state that the object is a temporary inner force that is fourth dimensional insofar it is a force and five dimensional insofar it is temporary. When talking about incongruent counterparts, entangled objects like my two hands, I will even prove that these objects are outside space and that space is inside your hands. Is that a logical necessary conclusion? Not at all for this argument could also just conclude that points are pointless and that points, lines and planes do not exists, but objects do exists in a numberless dimension. Mathematics is not the way to discover what the object is and even the words object and dimension is too mathematical. And the word ‘energy’ is too scientific. I have never met or seen an object and would rather speak about phenomena with inner force that are encountered. When encountering phenomena, a hand shake with another human for example or an encounter with a dog, it is useless to speak about phenomena that are outside a mathematical homogeneous space. Space is qualitative speaking in terms of here, there, nearness, something far away and higher and lower. These qualities are not merely subjective contrary to an objective mathematical space. If the salt is not near it is ridiculous to ask you to pass me the salt and it is also not a coincidence that if we think about what is outside space we look upon the heavens. So before you feel the urge to go to the next video gaze upon the heavens at least five times!

• published: 10 Jan 2015
• views: 12