A lot of what can be done with pictures of reality is not possible in reality itself. A model or a virtual reality is governed by other laws than the actual one. Still, that does not mean that there are no laws there.
Thus the presence of — as far as we can see — universal laws of nature does not indicate that there is actually one unique reality and that something following those laws cannot be virtual as well, on a very deep level. Or that those laws do not depend on the way the world is received and represented.
The opposite is much more likely: that reality is always somehow pictured and virtual.
After all, there is no logical distinction between a virtual and the actual reality.
The familiar three-dimensionality is one possible structure of space. Many others are possible, too. Although the expression “possible” may be misleading here, since every possible structure is actually existing. No matter whether or not it is presently realized. Like a program, which exists, no matter that it is currently active — or not.
Space embraces all possible structures, as a framework, so to speak, allowing each structure to appear. Nonetheless, space does never appear without any kind of structure.
In our system structures may be placed, roughly speaking, somewhere between space and thing. Unlike those they are flexible and dynamic.
If we comprehend and represent a temporal series of events or stages, a process, as a whole, then these stages come to lie side by side, establishing a spatial dimension, so to speak.
That’s all there is to it. That way we get the whole process at a glance. We know what happens, what did happen and will happen.
Spatial arrangement is the expression of knowledge, space is always a space of knowledge, and knowledge is always spatial. Knowledge is the ultimate dimension (of space).
Every space has a specific structure, which means that its content is arranged in a certain manner. This arrangement may be traced back to some underlying program, or it may be regarded itself as kind of program, a rule, a pattern observable all-around in that space, in all that is happening there.
The structure is all that matters; the program is just a possible description of this phenomenon. A description laying particularly stress on activity. As well as establishing a relationship to knowledge.
“Structure” is often preferable because it does not implicate anything like some foreign creator or so. It says nothing about its origin. But if using this term we should nevertheless keep in mind the other implications of “program”, activity and knowledge. They are essential.
In order to communicate with one another, two programs need a third one interconnecting them.
As a rule, the communication is partial. Neither program is aware of every activity of the other. Parts of program A interact with parts of program B, thus establishing a connection. In this way a new program C is formed. With its own space.
The program-spaces penetrate one another, their superposition is a space of its own. Although there is no sharp distinction. Localization in one space does not exclude localization in any other. But of course there are many things occuring only in one of those interpenetrating spaces. Each space is in its way unique.
Programs are different, they have quite another quality than mechanical objects, a further dimension, so to speak. The dimension of knowledge. They embody knowledge. They are bodies of knowledge.
Furthermore, they are much more obviously related to activity; they do not appear but in operation. So they can also be regarded as bodies of activity. Both bodies go far beyond the scope of any familiar notion of thing, pointing up the spatial nature of everything existing. And maybe giving an idea of how spaces communicate.
The overwhelming success of mechanics during the past centuries left no real choice: the whole world was to be seen as a unique stubborn machanism — and consequentially has been adapted better and better to that ideal.
Today, in the era of computers, one might say: the whole universe is following one program. Which seems to be even worse. Perfection taken to the next level, even more alien to our nature, more inscrutable.
Upon a closer look, however, it becomes obvious that groundbreaking changes are happening. Programs are no mechanical apparatuses.
A space is the entirety of a thing’s potential places or states. Every such point is reachable by motion. So, in this sense, it represents the corresponding motion. While the space represents the entirety of potential motions. Motion, after all, is the activity bound to a particular space, the activity characteristic of it.
A program is a representation of a space. The space boiled down to a point, so to speak. Transportable and reproducible. Objectively —
— provided the proper context.
Both pictures are real, both lessons are taught by experience: that reality is one, unique, all-embracing — and that there are many different realities.
Here we consciously choose a point of view that brings together seemingly contradictory things. The unity so arising is a dynamic one that goes ahead. Step by step, stage after stage. So it multiplies, inevitably creating a multitude. With contradictions — clamoring for a new uniting point of view.
In view of the plurality of spaces mentioned before we may be inclined to speak of a multitude of realities and that we live in a multiverse rather than in one universe. But fact is that always only one space at a time can be real for us. And this space is in no way experienced as being limited. It is endless. And so it is the whole. It is the one and only all-embracing space.
Though in the next moment it will have become history, a limited notion, a narrow view. NOW that we see the whole picture…