DIMENSIONS
An Ontological Exploration of Dimensions, Geometry and Scale
Within the Fractal Framework, dimensionality is not approached solely as a mathematical way of describing space. Instead, it explores whether dimensions can also be understood as different forms of organization.
This introduces an important distinction between dimension and scale. Although both concepts relate to organization, they do not describe the same thing. This distinction also gave rise to the need for an independent ontological numbering system for dimensionality within the Fractal Framework.
Dimension & Scale
Within the Fractal Framework, dimensionality refers to a way in which organization can be described geometrically. A point, a line, a plane and a volume, for example, can be used to represent different forms of geometric organization.
Scale Relativity describes something different. Scale relates to the level of organization at which we consider a structure. What can be regarded as a complete unit at one scale may, at another scale, be examined as an organization consisting of multiple components.
A cell, for example, is a recognizable biological unit, but it can simultaneously be examined as an organization consisting of smaller processes. That same cell is also part of a larger organism. Its geometric dimension does not necessarily change, but the scale at which we consider it does.
Dimension and Scale are therefore different properties of organization. However, they do not necessarily have to be completely separated. A geometric structure can, for example, exhibit fractal characteristics, while a scale-relative organization can simultaneously possess geometric properties.
Within the Fractal Framework, it is therefore explored whether dimensionality and scale can represent two different organizational directions emerging from a common information-entanglement organization.
The central question is:
How do dimensionality and scale relate to one another when both are considered as different ways of describing organization?
The Ontological Numbering of Dimensionality
In conventional mathematics, a single point is considered a 0-dimensional structure. A line has one dimension, a plane has two dimensions, and a volume has three dimensions.
This numbering is mathematically clear and remains fully valid within the Fractal Framework when discussing existing mathematical or physical models.
However, a different question arose within the ontological reasoning of the Fractal Framework:
"What preceded the first distinguishable point?"
If the point is the first geometric representation of a distinguishable unit of information, then, from the starting principle Everything is Process, we can ask whether a state can be conceived prior to this first differentiation in which the potential for organization is present, but no distinguishable geometric organization yet exists.
For this reason, the Fractal Framework distinguishes fd-D0 = Potential.
fd-D0 is not a geometric dimension and does not correspond to conventional mathematical 0D. It is an ontological reference position in which the potential for organization is considered to exist prior to the first distinguishable unit of information. From that point onward, the Fractal Framework uses its own ontological numbering:
fd-D0 = Potential
fd-D1 (= 0th dimension, conventional 0D)
The first distinguishable unit of information, geometrically representable as a point.
fd-D2 (= 1st dimension, conventional 1D)
Organization as a line or string.
fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D)
Planar geometric organization.
fd-D4 (= 3rd dimension, conventional 3D)
Spatial geometric organization.
This numbering does not modify mathematics. It is an additional ontological method of description that seeks to make room within the Fractal Framework for the question of what precedes the first geometric differentiation.
Therefore, whenever a dimension is referred to within the Fractal Framework, its own numbering is used, followed by the corresponding conventional mathematical numbering in parentheses. When existing mathematical or physical theories are discussed, it is explicitly indicated whenever conventional dimensional notation is being used.
fd-D3 (2nd dimension) as a Geometric Space of Organization
Within this numbering system, fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D) occupies a special position.
Not because the Fractal Framework asserts that reality is fundamentally two-dimensional, but because a two-dimensional geometric space of organization offers an interesting opportunity to investigate the relationship between Information, Entanglement and geometric organization.
Multiple fd-D1 units (= 0th dimension, conventional 0D) can be represented as individual points within an fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D) geometric description. When these points are connected relationally, geometric structure can emerge.
This provides a straightforward way to investigate how distinction and relationship can give rise to organization. The point represents a distinguishable unit of information, while the relationship between such units can be represented geometrically.
Moreover, a two-dimensional space of organization does not have to be limited to simple geometric figures. Within fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D), complex, quasi-geometric, fractal and chaotic patterns can also be represented.
The dimensionality of the descriptive space therefore does not automatically determine the complexity of the organization that can be described within it.
This leads to an important research question:
Can fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D) be investigated as a fundamental geometric space of organization in which information and relationships organize themselves, without thereby presupposing that physical reality itself is two-dimensional?
This question forms an important part of the further exploration within the Fractal Framework.
From Geometric Representation to Reality
A geometric representation is not the same as the thing it represents. A point, a line, a plane or a cube are geometric concepts used to describe certain properties of organization. The geometric form itself does not automatically constitute the ontological reality to which the description refers.
A cube, for example, can be used to represent fd-D4 (= 3rd dimension, conventional 3D). Our fd-D4 space is therefore not itself a cube. The cube is a geometric representation of certain properties of three-dimensional organization.
This distinction is essential within the Fractal Framework. Geometry can make visible how a structure is organized, but this does not establish that reality itself is necessarily constructed in the same way.
The same applies to dimensionality. A higher-dimensional structure can be represented in a lower-dimensional representation. However, what becomes visible in that representation does not necessarily contain all the information of the original structure.
For this reason, the Fractal Framework distinguishes between the dimensionality of the representation and the possible dimensionality of what is being represented.
This gives rise to a further research question: can an organization described within fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D) manifest itself through a different form of organization within fd-D4 (= 3rd dimension, conventional 3D)?
This does not mean that the Fractal Framework claims that three-dimensional reality is a projection of two-dimensional reality. It is a research question concerning the possible relationship between different forms of organization.
The further exploration of this question, and in particular the possible relationship between fd-D3 (= 2nd dimension, conventional 2D) and fd-D4 (= 3rd dimension, conventional 3D), is examined separately on the fd-D3 page and in the accompanying papers.
Within the Fractal Framework, one distinction therefore remains central:
The description is not reality itself.
Geometry and dimensionality provide us with ways to make organization visible and open to discussion. The ontological question begins where the representation ends: what does the representation actually tell us about the organization of reality?
Change Your Perspective
The Fractal Framework hopes that, after reading this page, you have become interested in the ontological philosophy it presents and find yourself wondering whether our way of perceiving reality is merely one perspective within a much greater whole.
Discover more about these ideas in the books and documents available for free download through the Fractal Framework. Prefer a brief introduction? Then explore our webpages, blogs and introductory articles, where the key concepts are explained in an accessible way.
Maak jouw eigen website met JouwWeb