Theos-Talk Archives (June 2000 Message tt00173)

In a message dated 06/18/00 5:58:41 PM, IamIou writes:

>Theories are a dime a dozen...Beautiful theories cost a quarter. Some,
>like yours, have a certain plausibility due to being at least literate...But
>in the end, no matter what you or I may think, theories are only as good
>as their tests...I would therefore suggest that you augment your list of
>"readings" with a list of tests that could be performed to validate the
>theory, in the form:

Thanks for the kudos. Also, for your good suggestions.  

To show objective proof sure would be nice if it were possible.  But, 
actually, as far as I'm concerned, scientific theories are only as valid as 
their closeness to truth (or their usefulness in creating beneficial 
technologies).  However, their usefulness, insofar as they add to or subtract 
from our knowledge and wisdom, as well as contribute to our lives as freer, 
more honorable, ethical, moral, and happy human beings (or the opposite) -- 
is quite another matter -- and where my primary interests really lie.  The 
one thing that the theory of ABC could set out to prove, however, would be 
that Universal Brotherhood is a fundamental law of Nature.  

Unfortunately (for scientists or intellectuals who require empirical proofs), 
ABC is based on an extremely old, logically scientific paradigm that 
considers the universe as far more complex in one direction (although far 
simpler in another) than materialistically oriented, reductive or empirical 
science has yet to understand. 

Therefore, as far as I can see, no current "scientific methods" (other than 
pure mathematics, or the acceptance of "subjective" evidence through 
controlled "altered states" experiments) will ever be able to "physically" or 
"objectively" determine or explain the actual nature of (nonmaterial) 
consciousness and mind, or the actual "processes" of their causative 
interrelationships with (material) brains and bodies... 

For one reason -- that such groupings are made up out of entirely different 
substances (or modes of energy) and exist on entirely different levels, 
dimensions, or phases of coenergetic fields that are, essentially, involved 
and evolved from the fundamentally eternal source of primal vibrational 
(cyclic) energy, or "spinergy" --  that forever obeys the fundamental laws of 
cyclic motion -- as expressed throughout all coenergetic fields derived from 
this primal source.  (From consciousness, mind and memory to the 
electromagnetic, weak, strong and gravitational fields of matter).  And, 
which: 

[1] periodically starts its expansion holistically, from, non dimensional, 
ZERO-point space (and time), and INFINITE energy -- with the capability of 
containing, in potentiality or in expression, infinite degrees of 
holographically linked patterns of form, intelligence, and information (or 
knowledge). And,
[2] is infinitely divisible as well as infinitely extensible when inflated 
out of the initial abstract spinergy of the "Void."  And,
[3] underlies "everything" that can occur (according to the fundamental laws 
of both energy fields and cycles) prior to and after the "big bang" -- which 
is only the beginning of our lower physical/material level of energetic 
existence and evolution, as well as the end stage of the inflation process 
that started at the zero-point of infinite awareness, and its initial 
spinergy's invisible involution and evolution... First, into the fields of 
consciousness [universal mind and memory]...  And, then, descending into the 
lower energy, higher density fields of "tangible" matter... (Where we play 
around with measurements and such.:-)  

Unfortunately, except for the advanced post-quantum theorists (who, BTW, are 
not so far away from ABC theory), science, as a whole, is now at the same 
stage -- with reference to explaining awareness, and how we actually see, 
think, imagine, or consciously experience, and their relationship with mind 
and matter -- as it was almost a hundred years ago with respect to their 
understanding of relativity and quantum theoretical physics.  Then, they were 
so much in love with the materially mechanistic theories of Newton and his 
crowd, that they couldn't see the forest for the trees when Einstein came 
along to give them a new paradigm.  Now, the story is still pretty much the 
same -- although there are many scientists around these days who are 
beginning to see that Einstein merely opened the door, and that the universe 
that begins where relativity and quantum physics leave off, is far more 
subtly complex and yet more simple than they could ever prove by objective 
evidence.

How long did it take science to prove, by experiment, the validity of E=Mc^2? 
... 0r, that light could be bent by gravitational force? ... Or that the 
observer could effect the physical state or characteristic of a quantum 
particle? .How long will it take for them to prove that an accelerating 
physical body shortens toward zero length (in the direction it is traveling) 
as its velocity approaches the speed of light?  Or, what about the many 
things taken for granted today by science, based on the mathematical formulas 
of relativity and quantum mechanics -- that have not yet been proven by any 
sort of scientific experiment?  

>If ABC is true, then x y and z will be found to be the case.

Not necessarily. How do you objectively detect a "quanta" of astral light?  
However, we do it all the time, internally and subjectively.  Actually, the 
theory of ABC cannot be proven by any means that require instruments that can 
only detect energies or fields that are functioning on the material levels... 
Since, scientifically, it is based on the same pure mathematics that underlie 
the multidimensional Superstring, M-brane and ZPE theories of postmodern 
physics -- for which, as yet, no one has come up with any measurable proofs 
(other than the "Casimir Effect" which seems to prove the existence of 
invisible and immeasurable amounts of zero-point energy in the apparent 
"vacuum" of so called, "empty" space). But, even the bulk of quantum 
theories, today, have nothing more solid behind them than mathematical 
equations.  Besides, I am not an academic scientist with access to 
laboratories and grants, nor a mathematician, and really have no interest in 
trying to prove the ABC theory.  (But, I would be happy to contribute 
whatever I know about it to help any scientist who might wish to do so.)

The actual credibility of the ABC theory, along with most all of the 
post=modern, holographic universe and multidimensional field theories rest on 
several basic assumptions.  Firstly, that physical scientific methods cannot 
falsify these concepts. Secondly, that these theories answer all the 
presently unanswered scientific questions -- such as, explaining the bais of 
extra sensory perception, psychic healing, the causative nature of 
consciousness, the source and operation of the qualia of consciousness, the 
transfer of information from brain to mind, the causative linkages between 
body, brain, mind, awareness and free will, etc.  ABC, therefore, in 
conjunction with the mathematics of some post modern physics and cosmological 
theories, can completely explain these scientific mysteries, and is, at the 
same time, fully in conformance with all relativistic and quantum 
cosmological theories -- from Einstein to the latest quantum field, quantum 
gravity and other post-quantum and sub-quantum theories of today. 

>In other words, make a list of logically inferred events, occurrences, 
>measurable quanta that can be perceived or registered by instruments. 
>Tell us what cannot happen in your theory (for example, Einstein predicted 
>that "straight" light couldn't be found passing a large body; it would be 
>bent, curved).

All I can say is that I haven't approached this theory from the point of view 
of a professional scientist -- but simply to express my views that the 
universe goes far deeper than any scientists working with events, occurrences 
and measurable quanta can even imagine.  Nevertheless, since any statement 
made by Einstein also applies to ABC, which incidentally shows, 
diagrammatically, that all field lines of force must be curved, I will leave 
those predictions for the scientists who now are working around the fringes 
of it all.  In the meantime, all ll I am really interested in, is that 
ordinary people come to realize, on the basis of the rational theory of 
coenergetic fields and its ultimate acceptance by accredited scientists (of 
which I am not), that they -- as an individualized awareness in temporary 
control of their own, ordered or disordered (as the case may be) coadunate 
but consubstantial fields of energetic forces that make up their minds and 
bodies -- are each as eternal in their spiritual consciousness and awareness, 
as the universe is, was, and ever will be -- which, in itself, as the pure 
and infinite essence of all manifest energy and its "images" -- that can 
neither be created, nor destroyed -- but simply changed from one form or 
state to another.

Hope that clarifies things a bit further.

LHM  
http://www.tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.