We have to concede that we are living in a kind of not completely known medium like fishes in the water. And not to forget: We as living beings form a system, too, and thus the same argument refers to ourselves. The main aspect becomes interaction, while those two systems remain an area accessible only by indirect methods, what probably just means recursion or simulation.
The uncertainty relation by W.Heisenberg and the mathematical work on fuzzy logic by L.A.Zadeh appear to make impossible exact prove of findings based on these both methods involving continuous rationality by ignoring singularities. It illustrates the limitations to recognize one such dimension sharply at the same time as another one.
Essential appears to be how to introduce axiomatic. Tentatively time could be accepted as primordial entity and called imaginary according to the description in classical mechanics (e.g. by complex numbers for oscillations), and more elaborate in quantum mechanics. Not in contradiction to the context at hand, time could, by following this way, be most easily understood as parent generation of three real spatial dimensions forming as kind of a triplet. Such splitting conceived in principle as being fuzzy ought to be observable only under such special stipulation as qualified, for instance, by the de-Broglie-experiments depending, of course, on kind of quantization.
In classical physics spatial dimensions are used as being given by axiomatic when starting any description of nature. If we now dare to look for dimensions of development itself, could recursion be possible between existence and development? Clearly doing this we start melting physics and philosophy.
The classical way to do in physics something like this is to first choose or pick axioms fulfilling basic (essentially mathematical logical) assumptions and constants of order zero. From them, by admitting influence from outside, a linear force called pulse and mechanics of first order can be added forming what might be called a static dimension, and thus a static corresponding interaction. Thus static in this sense will be meant as involving mathematically only constant and linear and not quadratic terms. Only friction, but no back-feed are in this stage taken into account. This means limitation to the near-by range. In a following step allowing multi-directional outside influence (perturbations) leading to circular motion and back-feed, oscillations and fields can be considered leading to a dimension called dynamic in this context and described by quadratic terms or second order terms. In a third step motions of spatial bodies show attraction and form trajectories under the influences of transformation between mass and energy according to the Einstein law. Becoming more complex they also form spirals and vortices generating angular momentum fields that can make up a long-range network according to the Maxwell equations. Their descriptive use of the words “divergence” and especially “rotation” may be indicative
Angular momentum fields of those vortices are usually described by a sum of vectors for overall-rotation and of particle spin. This latter magnetic part emits radiation in perpendicular direction according to the right-hand rule. Admitting limited own knowledge little seems to be known about the energy being emitted by growing air vortices and whereto it disappears, when a vortex vanishes in a hurricane dissipating energy by friction. This situation is only more or less the same one in the macroworld of galaxies or in the microworld of the spin of elementary particles. In both cases the annihilation or demonstration of that energy remains difficult and requires to assume the existence of unknown forms of mass and of energy composing large parts of the energy supposedly existing in the world (in actual terms the interaction involving dark matter and dark energy).
By the time the vortex of a galaxy or even the entire universe takes on more and more angular momentum and may underlie deformation by giving off energy one-sidedly. This is observed in galaxies and especially for the Milky Way. They rotate in stable form as long as the two strongest main components of it reside in its extreme opposite ends. But the intermediate part apparently might grow causing instability.
During space flights the Russian cosmonaut V.A.Dzhanibekov observed sudden very surprising switches of direction of bodies flying and rotating in frictionless space. If such bodies have a shape different in all three spatial dimensions, the intermediate component of the angular momentum can grow stronger than those of the opposite ends. Energy cannot be diverted by friction thereby forcing a new kind of singularity. Such switch of direction, for sure, can only occur in not too big systems.
Galaxies or especially the universe are not able to exert such an enormous switch of direction under such conditions. Therefore a huge singularity completely disintegrating it has to cause the death of these enormous entities and will conserve only the angular momentum vector. This vector, however, is composed, for instance according to its cgs-dimensions, by the two factors of action and time. In addition to these two parts such a disintegration could be imagined to cause a lot of small background noise serving as perturbations in the subsequent formation of new entities and showing up by background radiation.
After formation of vortices and radiation from them the three-step process thus will not end at this point. This means to conceive a circular process which ought to couple to the beginning and might mean the generation or rather the transferral of axiomatic laws and constants being possibly slightly changed out of vortices when these seemingly vanish but actually might transform. They can deliver time and energy for beginning again with a new static cycle by making available mainly those two ingredients conserved in the huge angular momentum vector.
Such an extremely sudden and big event has to go on with giving off enormous amounts of energy. This can be a well likely source of gamma ray bursts (GRb). Such an explanation is supported by the established fact that these GRB never have their origin within the milky way in supernovae, which are caused by various types of explosions and especially observed within our galaxy but also elsewhere.
In addition a possibility not necessarily to be excluded could be to conceive a four-dimensional “4D-world” as kind of a living being in an unknown medium, possibly kind of neutrinos and photons very weakly interacting between them in a similar manner as atoms and molecules in water as a medium for fish, but also according to the Einstein formula giving a quantized equilibrium between matter and energy.
Such ideas up to now could be dismissed immediately as unallowed speculation, but can have heuristic value. They now find possible support in new measurements of the Hubble constant for the expansion of the universe. It comes out that this speed Is significantly different when measured close to our galaxy or far away in the universe.
Thereby a continuous circle process ought to be imagined to come about without needing or finding at all a scientific justification to talk about terms like creation and annihilation. Those traditional concepts thus appear as far more speculative and less justifiable than the above ideas. In contrast to the notion of creation they can be narrowed down to make up at least an approximate system of orientation for purposes in life situations. Laws would not preexist, but form out of “structuring chaos”.
The concept itself seems to be fuzzy. This is not meant as a joke. Existence and development might be conceived only under conditions of fuzziness practically understood as synonymous with uncertainty.
At this point, and a point is something without dimension, the question of borders again arises. The only border that can and must be assumed philosophically at this stage is between existence and development. Falling back into logic a real triplet formed from imaginary time could be assumed, namely existence, border and development. In such a concept, as parent generation possibly nothing else but time can be assumed. An external influence acting upon this border cannot be excluded to have generated existence and development quasi on both sides of the border like entities with positive and negative spin. As a model we could compare photosynthesis at a membrane under irradiation by sun light generating considerable amounts of energy from “tiny” photons. Such a triplet then could be imagined to enter into a next generation by a singularity having as outcome splitting up into existence, new border and development. This might be similar to events succeeding in transitions between generations of fractals. It does not need involvement of the notions of creation or emergence, but only of singularities between generations like “the well known” birth and death.
Borders have to have holes, channels, perforations, limited height or whatsoever, because no closed system can be assumed. A “police” as gentle as possible might reduce the influence of discontinuities. As a matter of high probability the fate of the system ouight to depend very much on them. But how do or how should or how could those borders look alike? They could be comparable to spacial borders between houses or countries or planets or to borders limiting time between ages like between the middle ages and the future or between youth and adults. Think about voting or retirement and even interactions between cultures, working fields, languages, sexes, feelings, forms of art, tracks or similar societal aspects, or even most likely as a superposition of all these contributions.
Thus borders have to exist as a consequence of fuzziness, but to be semi-permeable. As an inverse consequence of such borders life itself must be fuzzy. These ideas allow to explain beauty of movements, beautiful music, beautifully changing colors or landscapes conceived as beautiful. First of all for us ourselves, for beautiful living beings, plants and animals, for partners, children and imagination, who might want to close borders, but also to erase borders for them? That is similar to the action of poisons or anarchists. Another example may be the strict but arbitrary decision that people are allowed to vote only starting at their birthday of possibly 18 years or to work till the age of 65 years. While being convenient for maintaining more or less absolute power for those leading a society, this situation is however condemned to finish without net result because of lacking existence of completely tight walls.
Last not least considering to ask about responsibility is, of course, allowed, but such qualities like quantities would also have kind of a fuzzy fine-structure and can be adored like beauty for a while until it dies meaning recycling and thereby nourishing recursion.
In a society neither rules nor responsibilities nor nowadays climate changes nor extreme economic polarization can be fixed by exact rational methods. All these four dimensions possibly selected of our life are supposed to be fuzzy, because rationality does not seem to be imperative. This does not at all mean that rationality is bad or superfluous. But other shares have necessarily to be added leading to complex superposition. Therefore, however, our life as part of nature can be felt as divinely beautiful.