Big Bang and dimensional growth

[Jacerie]

In my study of physics and cosmology I keep seeing a disturbing assumption with regards to the formation of the universe. There seems to be a pervading belief that the universe was spontaneously brought into three dimensional being. Unless our current understanding of dimensional structure is flawed, all higher dimensions must be built upon the framework of the lower dimensions which they incorporate. Therefore, at some point, our universe had to progress through the lower dimensions to arrive at our current observable state.

This dimensional growth is crucial to our universe as each dimension imparts fundamental laws upon the whole.

Singularity - no universe, just unlimited potential.
First Dimension - Expression of light.
Second Dimension - Expression of polarity and electromagnetism.
Third Dimension - Expression of gravity and material universe.

[allynh]

This brings up an odd point that I have noticed over the decades.

People start with what are called "First Principles".

First principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_principle

The problem is, depending on when they define their "First Principles" they usually have nothing to do with Reality. There view of:

Ab initio is a Latin term meaning "from the beginning" and is derived from the Latin ab ("from") + initio, ablative singular of initium ("beginning").

rarely stands up over time.

- Until we actually build a bubble of Real, from scratch, we won't know what is required.

Your description so far is a poetic, esoteric, good beginning for a:

Just-so Story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story

I love Just-so stories. They are incredibly useful tools for asking the questions that may lead to finding answers. The danger comes in when answers start showing up, and people get enamored with the answers themselves and then go off in strange directions.

An example is the Periodic Table.

It was only a few hundred years ago when people began separating the various elements from the natural structures that they are found. The Periodic Table is a purely artificial construct. Atoms are usually found in association with other atoms. Those natural associations are important to remember.

It's like if someone took a fly and cut off the antenna, legs, wings, etc..., and laid them out on a slide, then declared, "This is a Fly". No it's not. It's a bunch of fly parts, it is no longer a fly.

It's that viewpoint that leads to the current problem of people trying to understand how "consciousness" came from "life" and "life" came from "un-living matter".

They have taken the purely artificial Periodic Table to be Reality, and fail to see that there is no "un-living matter".

They have started from "First Principles" that are not actually "First".

So you need to ask yourself if the standard "3 dimensions" actually can be separated into many different dimension.

Cartesian coordinates are a fun "Just-so story" that is useful for many things, but so are cylindrical coordinates, and spherical coordinates.

Notice, cylindrical and spherical coordinates do not lend themselves to thinking of space as made up of many dimensions.

- Can you express your concept using cylindrical or spherical coordinates rather than cartesian coordinates.

If so, then you may have more than just another Just-so story.

[jacmac]

Although I am interested in looking at "living matter" as possibly part of a continuum
which includes what is called "non living matter",
I don't see the need to have a problem with the periodic table of Elements.
After all, have not a lot of people gotten very rich finding veins of gold and silver in the ground ?
These are but two examples of elements not existing in "natural structures."

AS for dimensions; this is how we talk and measure. Dimensions are not real THINGS.
Dimensional growth is not real, nor is the Big Bang. IMO.
Jack