The Fourth Dimension

Eugen Schweitzer
[email protected]

Abstract
Plato indicated at different passages of his dialogues deep mathematically
based physical insights. Regrettably the readers overlooked the respective
statements or being full of philology they utterly did not understand those
hints. Respectable translators misinterpreted such statements and therefore
Plato’s respective remarks had not been recognized as substantial knowledge.
Furthermore, Plato often supplemented such basic remarks by dispersed allu-
sions diffusely veiled and often ironically hidden somewhere in his dialogues
by inconspicuous double meanings. However, this mode of intentionally
coded discrete communication had generally not been understood because
such irony is not to everyone’s taste. However, the attempts to reconstruct
Plato’s systematic on the base of admittedly individually interpreted double
meanings lead to a conclusive mathematical-physical cyclical system of di-
mensions. Additionally it was possible to assign Plato’s system of philosophi-
cal ideas analogously to this cyclical system. Plato took the verifiability of the
mathematical-physical results as proof of the systematic of his ideas and fi-
nally as proof of his ethical creed, the unconditional trust in the all surmount-
ing Good.

Plato’s Fourth Dimension

In a passage which deals with the essential difference between under-
standing and reasoning, between knowledge and cognition Plato refers
to the fourth dimension as speeds:
Of course we have to divide the art of measurement into two parts just
as we said. On the one hand we put all the arts which measure number
(arithmon), lengths (mêkê), depths (bathê), breadths (platê), and speeds
(tachutêtas) in relation to what is opposed to them, on the other there
are all those that measure in relation to what is moderate, suitable, op-
portune, needful and all together that is settled as mean value of the ex-
tremes. (Statesman 284e)

1
 The interesting first part of the main sentence here implies a con-
ceptual mixture of terms: number (sg) as a mere mathematical term,
length(s), depth(s), and breadth(s) as geometrical terms (pl) of dimen-
sions, and speed(s) as a physical term of motions. It is known that
Plato considered the first unit of dimensions a number and not a point,
contrasting today’s terminology.
Want of inquisitiveness and preconceived evaluation might have
led the principal translator of Plato’s work into English to find a puta-
tive contradiction in terms in this sequence of terms. In addition, he
seemed to be unaware of any coherence between mathematics, geome-
try, and physics. This might have led to his well intentioned arbitrary
translation of the plural form of the Greek word ‘tachutés’ as the Eng-
lish singular form ‘thickness’ (Fowler H.N.) instead of correctly using
‘speeds’ (Autenrieth) (‘quickness’, ‘swiftness’ in LSJ and ML).
In another passage (Statesman 299e), the same translator interprets
the same term as ‘problem of motion’. These mistranslations have
adulterated the meaning of the originals to nonsense out of all reason.
Yet, despite the fact that there are nearly correct translations e. g. into
the German as the singular form ‘Geschwindigkeit’, none of the count-
less interpreters noticed the comprehensive and unifying meaning in
this combination of mathematical, geometrical and physical terms.
Gaiser, a philologist who researched extensively about Plato’s thinking
about dimensions not even mentioned those quotations regarding this
sequence of dimensions (Gaiser. 107–115).
However, this mixed sequence of terms shows that Plato had a uni-
fying point of view. As the mathematical term set up a geometrical
dimensional sequence followed by a physical term, jointly they can be
looked at as a general link to exponentiation, whereas the mathematical
and geometrical terms also acquire a physical quality. Accordingly
Plato’s sequence of dimensions meets the general geometrical se-
quence of point, line, plane, and space, and the fifth term in this kind of
strange order, being the term ‘speeds’, can be viewed as Plato’s defini-
tion of a physical fourth dimension. Also space(s) as third dimension
applies accordingly to a mathematical and geometrical, as well as to a

2
physical meaning. Altogether, these five terms of consecutive values of
dimensions stand for that type of application of mathematics (mathesis
intensortim, cf. Kant Prolegomena II 24) to the science of nature.

Dimensions as Rectangular Motions

For an accessible and reviewable explanation of the physical quality of
Plato’s forth dimension we have to recognize the unifying structure of
mathematical powers and their physical equivalences. Plato defined the
zero dimension, geometrically represented by a point, as ‘number’, and
the dimension to the power of one is geometrically regarded as line(s),
whereas in physics it is generalized as length(s). We can define d1 (d
for distance) as the result of a movement of a point d0, expressed as d0
· d1 = d1.
The abstract mathematical term of a dimension (power) masks this
notional movement that is pointing indirectly to an undefined time
during the passing of an undefined distance. The movement d1 of a line
d1 in any right angle to its direction forms a plane d2, expressed as d1·
d1 = d2. A further motion d1 rectangular to the extension of a plane d2
gives a space d3, expressed as d2 · d1 = d3 . Space seems due to those
threefold movement to have beside his abstract mathematical definition
as d3 an own concrete physical quality to be considered.
Defining the fourth dimension d4 as rectangular motion d1 of a space
d (respectively volume, body or matter) we get d3 · d1 = d4 or ex-
3

pressed otherwise: If we regard this fourth dimension figuratively as

the motion of a body it meets the notion speed as quantity of the qual-
ity ‘velocity’.
It has to be mentioned that according to the abstract definitions of
the geometrical qualities of dimensions, we use corresponding expres-
sions when we talk about their physical quantities: line –length; plane
– area; space – space and volume; velocity – speed. For example,
speed does not contain the element of direction that velocity has and
determines as magnitude component the quantity of velocity. However,
both definitions contain the notion of movement.

3
‘Unit circle in the Complex Plane’
As we explained, the step from one dimension to the other is a rectan-
gular movement of the foregoing dimension. Four of those rectangular
rotation leads to the 360° of a circle and to an association with the
‘Unit circle in the Complex Plane’ (Figure 1).

i1 = + i

i0 = +1
90°
i² = – 1
i4 = +1

i³ = – i

Fig. 1: ‘Unit Circle in the Complex Plane’

d0 d4 d8 d12 D16

d1 d5 d9 d13

d3 d7 d11 d15
d2 d6 d10 d14

Fig. 2: Spiral Sequence of Dimen-

After the first cyclical turnabout the next circle starts as a new
‘lower cyclic’. And four of such cycles form an upper cyclic of 16
dimensions and so on. We might insert for dimension the shortage d
according to the complex term i at the ‘Unit Circle in the Complex
Plane’. This Unit Circle might be regarded as the plain projection of an

4
infinite simple spiral of dimensions (Figure 2).
For a better survey we can transpose the rectangular steps of the re-
spective quadrants of a first circle into the first column of a table. The
next turn of the circle will be represented by the second column, and
four of such columns constitute an upper cycle with 16 dimensions
(Figures 3, 4, 5, 6).

d0 d4 d8 d12 D16
d1 d5 d9 d13 D17
d2 d6 d10 d14 D18
d3 d7 d11 d15 D19

Fig. 3: Summing up of Dimensions as Pre-stage

of a Matrix

Matrix of Piled-up Cycles i² = –1 j² = –1 k² = –1

of Complex Dimensions
i0 i4 1
i1 i ij = k jk = –k
i2 -1 jk = i kj = –1
i1 i3 -i kj = j ik = –j
LOWER CYCLE i
j1 j2
UPPER CYCLE j
k1
HYPER CYCLE k

Fig. 4: Matrix of Piled-up Cycles of Complex

Dimensions of Lower, Upper, and Hyper Cycles,
With respect to the cyclical principle the further upper and hyper

5
cyclices lead via Hamilton’s quaternions to a method of analysis even
beyond octaves.

Stand ard Mat rix

d -4 d0 + 1 d4 d8 d 12 D 16

d –3 d1 + i d5 d9 d 13 D 17

d –2 d2 –1 d6 d 10 d 14 D 18

d –1 d3 – i d7 d 11 d 15 D 19
.

Fig. 5: Unified Pattern of a Matrix of Piled-up Values

Visualisation of Plato’s Physical Dimensions

Plato’s sequence of physical dimensions can be projected to the ‘Unit
Circle in the Complex Plane’ and the respective matrix might serve for
a better understanding of the continuation beyond the fourth dimen-
sion. Plato’s physical dimensional system is based on a self motioned
fundamental force which enables the step from d0 to d1 and so on.

6
 d0 +1 d4 d8 d12

d1 + i d5 d9 d13

d2 –1 d6 d10 d14

d3 –i d7 d11 d15

Fig. 6: Standard Matrix Pattern

lengths (lines)

i1 = + i

depths (planes) 90°

i0 = + 1 (number)
i2 = - 1
i4 = + 1
speeds
i3 = - i
breadths (solids)
Plato‘s 4th Dimension: Statesman 284e and mult.
Fig. 7: Plato’s Sequence of Dimensions adopted to
the ‘Unit Circle in the Complex Plane’

7
 Speed as Moved Space
d0 +1 d4 d8 d12
point selfmotioned
space = veloc.
selfmotion speed v
d1 + i d5 d9 d13
selfmotioned
point = line
length s
d 2 –1 d6 d10 d14
selfmotioned
line = plane
area A
d 3 – i d7 d11 d15
selfmotioned
plane = space
volume V

Fig. 8: Speeds as Moved Spaces

The projection of this spiral as ‘Unit Circle in the Complex Plane’
is exactly related to Plato’s sequence of dimensions (Figure 7), which
also can be demonstrated in the corresponding matrix (Figure 8). The
consequence regarding time and its interdependence can be exempli-
fied in an extended matrix of respective dimensions (Figure 9).

4th Dimension
d -4 d0 +1 d 4 d8 d 12
point speed
d –3 d1 +i d5 d9 d 13
time line
d –2 d 2 –1 d6 d 10 d 14
plane
d –1 d3 –i d7 d 11 d 15
space

v = d 4 = path / time = d 1 / d -3
t = path / speed = d 1 / d 4 = d -3

8
 Fig. 9: The Relation of Speed and Time
As we define speed as a distance covered in a past time, we usually
express speed by the formula ‘speed is equal path per time’ or v = s / t.
Transcribed into those dimensions it is: d4 = d1 / time, we can solve
this equation after the time and we get the result: time = d1 / d4 = d-3,
which means that the comprehensive notion ‘time’, related to a three-
dimensional space, be the inversion of the global notion of this three-
dimensional space: d–3 = 1 / d3, or TIME = 1 / SPACE (Figure 10).
This definition of a three-dimensional-space-related time d-3 as in-
version of such space meets a surprising coherence between the gen-
eral notion of ‘spacetime’. Simplified speaking, this coherence could
mean that the passing three-dimensional time corresponds with the
universal three-dimensional expanding space being a three dimensional
universe. It is now a new paradigm that the physical dimensions of
time and space are like one coin with two inverse sides.
The continuous expansion of the universe caused by the underlying
self-motion measures time like the frequency of calibrated clockwork:
1 / time = d3 . “He (God) made an eternal image, moving according to
number, even that which we have named Time” (Timaeus 37d).
With a negative exponent as d–3 time is quasi one-directional
backward orientated and therefore irreversible. Summing up, this ex-
amination shows that time is determined by its position in the cyclic
system being the inversion of the summing up of all quasi third dimen-
sions of space of all revolving cycles. Inversion of a complex dimen-
sion means it’s mirroring on the real ordinate into the unreal values.
This mirrored image of space d3 as the dimension of time d-3 being
with its negative exponent an inversion of space is an unreal complex
value, a mere arithmetic value.

9
 Time as Inversion of Space

d-4 d0 +1 d4 d8 d12 D16

point
d–3 d1 + i d5 d9 d13 D17
time line
d–2 d2 –1 d6 d10 d14 D18
plane
d–1 d3 – i d7 d11 d15 D19
space

Fig. 10: The Relation of Time and Space

The Linear Aspect of Time

d-4 d0 +1 d4 d8 d12 D16

point
d–3 d1 + i d5 d9 d13 D17
time line
d–2 d2 –1 d6 d10 d14 D18
plane
d–1 d3 – i d7 d11 d15 D19
space

Fig. 11: Time and Line are Linear

Time has with reference to the ‘Unit circle in the Complex Plane’
the cyclic position at d–3, which corresponds to the cyclic position of
the linear dimension of d1. Explicitly, the linear aspect can be seen
regarding both, time and line being in the second row of the matrix
(Figure 11), even in an agglomerated manifold of cycles. This might
explain why we experience the passing of time as rectilinear.
The seemingly stable three-dimensionality of the experienced space

10
is the result of the superposition of all those loci of all third dimensions
of all upper cycles. This seemingly matches the experienced space with
its ruling imagination of a three-dimensional Euclidian Space. How-
ever, this kind of space here holds more than the result of ordering
axioms that served as a feasible arrangement for Newton’s inertial
frame. Here all spaces are contained in each other forming one just
seemingly stable universe like a Hausdorff Space. Though, based on its
self-motioned origin, this agglomerated space is more comprehensive,
it is not static, but dynamically expanding as ‘Platonic space’ like our
observed universe. According to these discoveries time does not really
exist, it is just fictional. It can only be measured as the past, as past
expansion of space, as an image of a factual difference of self-moved
expanding space.
This space-time relation may perhaps correspond in a certain way
to the space-time continuum of modern physics. Einstein combined in
a visionary synopsis space and time creating as a unifying notion a
single construct called the ‘spacetime’ continuum. Hereby space being
three-dimensional, and time regarded as one dimensional, are assigned
together to play the role of a fourth dimension. Einstein needed a com-
plex auxiliary mathematical construction to connect those dimensions
of time and space to the not comprehendible indistinct and artificial
notion of a seemingly four-dimensional construct called ‘spacetime’.
However, Einstein recognized a interrelation of time and space and the
application, of their mathematical coinage, even if unnecessarily com-
plicated and unimaginative, made modern physics more efficient sim-
plifying and unifying a large number of physical theories concerning
supergalactical as well as subatomic levels. Now however, it is a men-
tal experiment to dare thinking outside this box and to analyse the cog-
nition that the internalisation of the term velocity meets the definition
of the fourth dimension simply better. The acceptance of Plato’s in-
sight, that time is just the inversion of an expanding space, simplifies
his physics.

11
The Interconnection between the Dimensions
Mechanical physics mainly is based on the fundamental notions of
mass, length, and time. Those notions can be used to describe any con-
dition of every simple physical situation or process. In classical phys-
ics the concepts of those notions are not concerned with each other.
E.g. in classical mechanics time is treated as one dimensional, universal
and constant and the respective universe has three dimensions of an
independent 3-dimensional space containing independent 3-
dimensional masses.
However, today’s elementary physics takes it for granted that there
is some kind of interrelation between those fundamental physical di-
mensions. In Einstein’s relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated
from the three dimensions of space, because in his understanding the
rate at which time passes depends on an object's velocity relative to the
speed of light and also the strength of intense gravitational fields of
masses which can slow the passage of time. However, this mutual in-
fluence of speed and mass is simply a mere effect and not the reason of
the interconnection of time and space. In Plato’s physics the factual
reason of the interconnection of all physical dimensions is the dimen-
sional configuration of all physical values as result of the self moving
expanding basic power leading from one dimension to the next. It
looks like the natural increase of potencies, like vivid mathematics
with potencies growing from one dimension to the next, inspiring fan-
tasies about fractional powers and their images in nature.
The problem of trying to understand this kind of theory of relativity
is the limited imagination of a physical fourth dimension connected
with the question of the physical meaning of further dimensions.
Mathematically there is no problem to realize an unlimited sequence of
powers.

Mass and Energy

Now we put the question after the dimensional valence of mass, which
provisionally had been postponed. As force can be defined as the cause

12
for a change of the state of movement of a body, ‘force’ can be defined
as ‘mass multiplied by acceleration’ F = m· a. This general definition of
force F = m· a can be dissolved after mass: m = F / a. (Figure 12). Now
we have additionally two unknowns, force and acceleration. The di-
mensional valence of acceleration can easily be found through its usual
definition as change of speed per amount of time. As the mathematical
value of speed is d4, the valance of acceleration is accordingly a = v / t
or d4 / d-3 = d7. As the cycle of dimensions starts with d0 as beginning
of a dimensional development initiated by a self motion, it might be
concluded that this first position d0 is a genuine power. Since Plato
reserves the value d0 for the minimal original force of self-motion, it
implies that to denote a concrete physical force requires starting with at
least the valence of the next upper cycle, which is dimension D16.

Determination of Mass
d-4 d0 +1 d4 d8 d12 D16
power1 F velocity v power2 F
d–3 d1 +i d5 d9 d13 D17
time t mass m impulse p
d–2 d2 –1 d6 d10 d14 D18

d–1 d3 –i d7 d11 d15 D19

acceler. a

m P = F / a = D 16/d 7 = d 9

Fig. 12: Dimensional Determination of Mass

As the first position of the second lower cycle is found to be veloc-
ity and not per se a genuine power, it might be taken into serious con-
sideration that the physical valence of this D16 as starting dimension of
the next upper cycle being an image of the paradigm force d0 has to be
regarded as a substantial power. Hence, in this new system of interde-
pendent physical dimensions, further types of forces after d0 must have
the dimensions D16, D32, and so forth (Figure 12).

13
 Those dimensional valences of acceleration as d7 and force as D16
enables us according to the derivation of today’s definition of force to
write the definition of mass being m = F / a in dimensions as D16 / d7 =
d9. Now the question is how our dimensional valences of force and
mass comply with the dimensional system.
The position of forces at d0, D16, D32 and so forth is a conclusive and
continuative result which leads us as next step to the classification of
energies within this dimensional system. The usual definition of me-
chanical energy is force multiplied by path. Expressed in powers of our
dimensional system it is E = d0· d1 = d1. The cyclical development also
means that in each upper cyclic we find the next form of energy as
E2 = D16· d1 = D17or E3 = D32· d1 = D33. In further cycles, the physical
values of the respective energy are repeated in respective graduations.
This implies multiple forms of energy.

The Elements
In the cosmology of his Timaeus Dialogue, Plato described the inner
relationship of elements: “air being to water as fire is to air, and water
being to earth as air is to water” (Timaeus 32d).
FIRE : AIR = AIR : WATER = WATER : EARTH
a : f(a) = f(a) : f ´(a) = f ´(a) : f ´´ (a)
d1 : d 5
= d 5
: d 9
= d 9
: d13 = d–4
This ratio is not a mere triplasion logos as Euclid describes it in his
th
10 Book (a : b = b : c = c : d). Plato’s sequence of ratios implies an
inner relation of the elements. The mathematical consequence is to
regard the elements physically as dimensions with a common base.
In relation to modern physical terms, ‘sun’ stands for the primor-
dial, self moved ‘power’ of the Good, and the element ‘fire’ is the im-
age of the ‘sun’ and represents ‘energy’ (Figure 13). Though there is
little knowledge about Plato’s physical terminology, the physical
meaning of his elements correspond with modern definitions: fire =
energy, air = aether, water = mass, and earth = impulse.

14
 Analogies
d0 +1 d4 d8 d12
16
D SUN STARS MOON EARTH
GOOD True Beautiful Moderate
d1 + i d5 d9 d13 d-3 = t
FIRE AIR WATER EARTH
brave wise just temperate
d2 - 1 d6 d10 d14

d3 - i d7 d11 d15

Fig. 13: The Analogy of Elements and Ideas and their Images

Theory of Ideas (Forms) + the GOOD / the One

Idea of the Idea of the

True Good
the GOOD
i2 = - 1 i 0 = + 1 ONE

Idea of the Idea of the

Beautiful Moderate

The One: Parmenides 142a – The GOOD: Republic 509b

cf: the One = the GOOD: Aristotle, Metaphysics 1091 b 13-15

Fig. 14: Plato’s Theory of Forms (Ideas)

By the way, Plato’s ‘Theory of Forms’ corresponds analogously
with his mathematical-physical cognitions. As proof may serve the
tradition of Aristotle that Plato identified the GOOD with the ONE
(Aristotle, Metaphysics 1091, b, 13-15) (Figure 14)

15
Matrix and Symmetry
Filling the matrix with interdependent physical dimensions is like dis-
covering the white areas on a map of an unknown landscape. However,
in summarising it can be stated that it is possible to fill the general
matrix of coherent physical dimensions with nearly all actual main
physical definitions at least to the terms shown in Figure 15. Most of
those definitions have a relation to Plato’s texts, the rest is deduced
from the modern SI-definitions and is accordingly classified.
This basic matrix (Figure 15) offers a playful approach to achieving
interdependence and coherence between all physical sectors (e.g. vi-
brations, electricity, magnetism, optics, and even atom physics) and
their specific values, as a unifying principle. In this kind of matrix, all
physical definitions of all physical sectors will find an interactive cor-
rect place (Figure 17, 18) (Schweitzer. 145)
Some definitions as for example ‘force’, ‘energy’, ‘performance’ or
‘resistance’ are subject of several sectors of physics. Other dimensional
positions have different physical definitions or denominations as for
example the position of ‘mass’ is in the sector of electricity connoted
with ‘inductivity’ which points to a deep inner relation of the ad-
dressed sectors of physics, or as another sample, ‘energy’, ‘capacity’,
and ‘charge’ occupy the same position in this basic cyclic of dimen-
sions (Figure 17, 18) (Schweitzer. 145). Hopefully the matrix will
cause physicists to fill white spots in the matrices.
When searching the dimensional position of all known physical
definitions in all fields of physics it can be observed that some of the
dimensional definitions of certain fields of physics overlap with their
position the igniting cycle and reach into the next upper cycle, how-
ever, there they will show up in an expected typical position.

16
 Matrix of Mechanical Units
d-4 d0 +1 d4 d8 d12 D 16
d4+16n gravitat.
power1 velocity potential resistance power2
d-3 d1 + i d5 D21 d9 d13 D 17
path aether
time energy1 mass impulse energy2
d-2 d2 –1 d6 d10 d 14 D 18
plane density pressure
d-1 d3 – i d7 d11 d15 D 19
space accelerat. inertia

Fig. 15: Matrix of Actual Physical Units

Basic definitions

meter (m) = d1
kilogram (kg) = d9
second (sec) = d-3

power mkg/sec2 = d 1 d 9 /d - 6
velocity m/sec = d1/d - 3
energy m2 kg/sec 2 = d 2 d 9 /d - 6
aether m 2 k g / s e c 2 · m/sec = D17d4
density kg/m3 = d 9 /d 3
acceleration m/sec2 = d 1 /d - 6
grav.potential kg/m = d 9 /d 1
mass kg = D 1 6 /d 7
inertia kgm2 = d9d2
resistance kg/sec = d 9 /d - 3
impulse mkg/sec = d 1 d 9 /d - 3
pressure m· kg/sec 2· m2 = d 1 d 9 /d - 6 d 2
time m/m4 = d 1 /d 4

Fig. 16: Secured Definitions on One-Dimensional Basis

17
 Matrix of Dimensions - Mechanics
D16 d 0 +1 d4 d8 d 12
power velocity m-4 gravity-poten. resistance
performance energy-dose mass-flow
F v c ϕ *m(t)
mkgs–2 ms–1 m2kgs–3 kgm–1 m2s–2
kgs–1
D17 d 1 +i d5 d9 d 13
length path kin. viskos. mass time m–3
work energy aether m3kgs-3 impuls-moment
l E V m t P
m m2kgs–2 m2s–1 m–1kgs kg mkgs–1 s
D18 d 2 –1 d6 d 10 d 14
area density mass.str.dens. pressure
volum-stream energ.density
A ζ l p
m2 kgm–3 m3s–1 kgm– 2s–1 kgm m–1kgs–2
D19 d 3 –i d7 d 11 d 15
volume -space acceleration inertiamom.
frequency dyn. viskos.
R a B
m3 s–1 ms–2 kgs–1m–1 kgm2 m–1

Fig. 17: Matrix of SI Units of Mechanics

Matrix of Dimensions - ELT

D16 d0 +1 D20 d4 D24 d8 D28 d12
elt.power voltage elt.current permeability elt. resistance
permittivity performance
U ε V I P W A µ0 R Hm– Ω
kgm2s–3A–1 N kgm2s–3 Js–1 1 kgms–2A–2
m2kgs–3A–2
D17 d1 +i 21
D d 5 D25 d9 D29 d13
charge, elt.flux aether inductivity
magn.flux
elt.capacity elt.resistivity
q C C F J L H Θm We
2 –2 –1
kg–1m–2s4A2 As m2s–1 m–1kgs kgm2s–2A–2 Kgm s A Vs
D18 d2 –1 D22 d6 D26 d10 D30 d14
elt. moment magn.moment elt.charge-
current density density
me m η
msA Cm Am – 2 Am2 kgm Cm–3
D19 d3 –i 23
D d 7 27
D d 11 31
D d 15
magn. magn. flux elt.flux-density
field-strength density elt.field-strength
H B T E
Am–1 kgm -2 ms –2 kgs A Wbm mkgs–3A–1 Vm–1
?2 ? 1 –1

Fig. 18: Matrix of SI Units of ELT – Some White Spots to be Defined

18
 Once more it has to be registered that within this dimensional sys-
tem of physical definitions all SI-basic units - not only meter, seconds,
and kilogram - can be expressed by the powers of the one single unit of
self motion (Schweitzer. 145).
The repeated and condensed upper cycles of dimensions with the
same basic physical definitions let the slight hope arise that by this
reviewable dimensional system of physical definitions a superordinate
system as unifying concept of different sectors of physics could be
thinkable.
The cyclical system of physical dimensions evocates the most inter-
esting hypothesis that all of those dimensions in this cyclical system
are always interconnected because all of them are based on the basic
unit of self movement and any unit’s size may influence the others to a
certain degree at any stage or any process. It is the standpoint of the
observer, his viewing direction, and his intention which let him register
the selected and expected influences.
In any case, the here deduced matrix of physical dimensions as po-
tencies on a complex base might as humble result serve to check
physical formulas corning their correctness or detecting the dimensions
of single terms of such equations just by adding or subtracting the re-
spective exponents of their dimensional values. Especially students
might take pleasure in comparing this Platonic system of interdepend-
ent units with the SI-catalogue of physical units.

Aether
A remarkable result of the matrix is regarding the utmost speed, the
speed of light, and the consistency with Einstein’s E = mc² or D17 = d9·
d8. Furthermore, in light of the classification of physical units the seri-
ous question arises, what the matter between energy and mass, E· c or
d1· d4 = d5, or in the next cyclic D17· d4 = d21 etc., could be? This me-
dium between energy and mass might as working hypothesis be re-
garded as ‘aether’ (Figure 15, 16). For Plato ‘aether’ is just the clearest
kind of the element air (Timaeus 58d). In the late 19th century, theories

19
were discussed regarding the aether as a luminiferous (light-bearing)
medium responsible for the propagation of light. Einstein ranged be-
tween refusal and acceptance of the aether theories (Kostro). Today,
the majority of scientists refute the existence of an aether medium,
although a number of physicists promote the belief in such medium.

Plato’s Unifying View of the World

After this short unifying view of physics and ethics, derived from
Plato’s circular sequence of dimensions and his dimensional sequence
of elements (Timaeus 32d), we have in a kind of dihairesis consider
Plato’s way of thinking, which he explained at the sample of a circle
by the graded valences of intellectual stages of reflection (Letters VII
342a-344c) (c.f. Laws X 898a; Timaeus 47b,c, 90d). Also Plato’s
Analogy of the Line understood as a divided outline of circle surliness
his circular thinking. Thus Plato found by his cyclical system of pow-
ers on a complex base a unifying view of the world with its coherent
sub-worlds. It was a philosophical challenge to dissect Plato’s unifying
structure of metaphysics (Schweitzer. The Atlantis Irony).

UNDER - THINKABLE WORLD REASON

STANDING 1
i = +i
PHYS+MATHS ETHICS
INTELLIGIBLE WORLD of IDEAS
WORLD
the GOOD TRUTH
i2 = – 1 i 0 = + 1 the ONE
i4 = + 1
WORLD
of THINGS WORLD
and BEINGS of SHADOWS
POLITICS FICTION of MYTHS
i3 = – i
BELIEF VISIBLE WORLD CONJECTURE
Fig. 17: Plato’s Worlds and Thinking Order

20
Plato’s Reason for Encoding his Cognitions
Plato argues that during a serious dialectical process, the cryptic logos
will talk to those who are qualified, or remain silent with those who are
not qualified (Phaedrus 275d–276a). Plato worried that his teachings
might fall into the wrong hands (Republic VII 536a–b, and VII 537c–
539d) (Phaedrus 275e) (Letters VII 341e). He clearly says that he is
hiding the fundamental principle in cryptic expressions so that incapa-
ble people, who might laugh at it, could not possess it (Letters II 312d–
e and II 314a). However, he also recognized the danger that a broad
general knowledge of his teachings could endanger the education of
qualified persons who are necessary to perpetuate the republic and the
constitution (Republic VII 536a–b). Plato offered his posterity the pos-
sibility to tackle his mirrored words in accordance with everyone’s
individual skills and abilities. So everybody has the chance to success-
fully unravel his coded messages according up to his mental level and
nobody must in any way feel discriminated. On the other hand, Plato
prearranged that only a few persons would be able to find the hidden
truth through logic (Republic VII 532d–e).

Conclusion
Plato had definitely access to the field of complex numbers and com-
plex geometry, but unfortunately, no one was able to follow him. It
was not until the Renaissance when complex figures were discovered
again, and it took more than 2000 years until Gauss formulated the
principles of complex mathematics. For Plato, his general insight into
complex mathematics seemed to have been a reasonable basis for his
understanding of physics. And he used his respective physical cogni-
tions as analogon for the order of his ideas and finally as proof for his
ethical creed, the cognition of the Good. He used the cycle of powers
of complex values also for explaining the way of thinking. Subordinat-
ing the classification of his philosophy to this circular system offered
him the differentiated view of the world and its subdivisions with their
respective intellectual requirements. Insofar this circular dimensional

21
system meant to him a unifying view of the factual world, natural sci-
ences, humanities and ethics.
In the natural scientific respect, the here updated Platonic unifying
system of physical dimensions shows clearly the interrelation of all
physical dimensions based on a primordial power of self-motion. The
here demonstrated interconnections at Plato’s physical dimensiology
are de facto reviewable and can be demonstrated by accordingly check-
ing all physical formulas. Additionally there is a lot of space for detect-
ing new physical correlations.
It was a philosophical challenge to at least partly dissect Plato’s
mostly gradually ironically coded unifying structure of metaphysics by
thinking outside the box. This modest attempt to adopt Plato’s physical
insights to today’s traditional physics is the first speculative access to
the trial of understanding Plato’s physical dimensiology, at least to a
certain degree. The result of this research is of a certain interest for
History of Science because of the knowledge about fundamental in-
sights in complex mathematics and mechanical physics Plato had al-
ready 2350 years ago.

References
Aristotle. Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, translated by Hugh Treden-
nick. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London 1933, 1989.
Gaiser, Konrad. Platons ungeschriebene Lehre. E. Klett, Stuttgart 19682
Hausdorff, Felix. Zwischen Chaos und Kosmos. Agis, Baden-Baden 1976
Kant, Imanuel. Prologemena zu einer jeden vernünftigen Metaphysik, die als
Wissenschaft wird auftreten können. Hrsg. K. Vorländer, Leipzig 1920
Kostro, Ludwik. Einstein and the Ether. Apeiron, Montreal 2000
Plato. In: The Dialogues of Plato Translated into English with Analysis and
Introductions Jowett, Benjamin.. University Press, Oxford 1892
Plato. In: Platonis Opera. Ed. John Burnet. University Press, Oxford 1903
Plato. In: Plato in Twelve Volumes. Transl. R.G. Bury, H. N. Fowler, W.R.M.
Lamb, P. Shorey, et al., Harvard UP, Cambridge MA 1921–1969
Schweitzer, Eugen. The Atlantis Irony. Plato’s Humorous Legacy. ENTA-
Verlag, Kirchheim / Teck 2007

22