Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00354)

In a message dated 03/14/02 2:12:14 PM, bri_mue@yahoo.com writes:

>(LeonMaurer) LHM: The seven fold (energy field) nature and the concept
>of unified Field Theory -- as described thoroughly in the SD, and 
>affirmatively interpreted, from a modern scientific point of view, in
>my Astro Biological Coenergetic field theory". 
>
>Apart from the pseudo-scientific terms it has noting to do with
>science as such what you write. Pls show statements from recognized 
>academic scientists verifying what you write by mentioning your name .
>You intent names with "quantum " in it without it having
>anything to do with at least not Quantum theory.

(Snip -- non sequitur, history of quantum physics. See below.)

>Fact is apart from the Astro-Hermetic framework, you provide no 
>evidence that your outragious claims and tirades have anything to do 
>with modern science. Where is the proof, just because you name 
>it "Astro" ?

If you are going to comment on "what (I) write," I would think you would have 
the courtesy to quote my entire writings, rather than using the sly ploy of 
taking an incomplete sentence out of context, along with using such 
unqualified and emotionally loaded terms as "outrageous" and "tirades" (which 
really seems to describe your own writings rather than mine :-). As a 
supposedly qualified researcher, you should be ashamed to use such obviously 
ad homonym tactics.

I Never said that ABC theory -- which, so far, has very little mathematical 
proof nor experimental evidence (with much left still to fill in, similar to 
what Einstein faced for 37 years after intuiting E=mc^2:-) -- had anything to 
do directly with quantum physics or any other aspect of modern science... 
Other than that it was consistent, in the limited areas of their application, 
with all validated theories and "proven" facts (including psychological, 
neurological, and physical) of currently established science. 

The theory of ABC, as described in my letters and on my web pages, is simply 
that -- a working "theory" -- tested against a logical and scientifically 
consistent analysis of all current, so called "scientific" theories of 
quantum physics, relativity, and Superstring/M-branes... Many of whose 
conclusions, however, are still contradictory and inconsistent with each 
other -- leaving many areas of reality open to question, and many paradoxes 
for which no consistent answers can be given through presently configured 
applications of these sciences. 

As far as I have tested the ABC hypothesis -- both analytically and 
synthetically and in collaboration with a number of scientists who have read 
my papers and found no reason to deny its logic and scientific consistency -- 
ABC, apparently, can answer all these questions and resolve all these 
paradoxes. 

In essence, the theory of ABC attempts to find a common basis of origin and 
evolution of the fundamental spin energy and its logical field involutionary 
and evolutionary processes (that all such so called "scientific" theories 
fundamentally rest on) -- and to arrive at a common ground between all the 
conflicting theories that attempt to answer the following question: What is 
the nature of fundamental reality that underlies all observed phenomena of 
the material world? ... And, also the unanswered "hard" questions of 
consciousness posed by philosopher, David Chalmers (that has occupied the 
attention of all scientific disciplines for the past ten years); How does 
consciousness arise from purely mechanical systems? And; How can material 
reductive science explain the experience or "qualia" of consciousness? These 
go along with the as yet unanswered "brain-mind binding" problem posed by 
many neurologists and psychologists, as well as the problems of explaining 
the mechanisms of psychic phenomena and altered states of consciousness... 
All of which have been "proven" to exist, but without explanation of the 
underlying principles or any reasonable "scientific" and/or "engineering" 
analysis of how they work and on what fundamental nature or laws of universal 
reality they are based on. 

The fact that ABC does have consistent answers to these questions, both from 
a scientific as well as an engineering standpoint, that are parsimonious, as 
well as in line with the latest synthesis of quantum and relativity physics 
known as Superstring/M-brane theory (which also confirms, incidentally, many 
of the presuppositions of theosophical metaphysics) -- makes ABC theory as 
"scientific" as any of the speculative and inconsistent theories currently 
extant... Regardless of whether or not the presenter is officially qualified 
as an "academically" credentialed "physicist." 

Although, to answer your questions about my qualifications... I have been 
studying modern physics, along with many other disciplines of conventional 
science and philosophy, on both a post graduate educational, and a practical 
technological level during the past 50 odd years -- since being certified as 
an electronic communication specialist during my military service (42-45) and 
afterwards credentialed as a graduate Chemical Engineer, with specialization's
in electronic, optical, ceramic, material and mechanical engineering systems 
(GIT-49), and while teaching highly technical subjects on a post graduate 
level at several major universities (NYIT, FIT), as well as while working as 
a technological research director and consultant for government and industry 
on many creative commercial, technical and industrial design projects 
requiring knowledge of many different, although interrelated scientific 
disciplines. Some of my inventions that have been patented or currently 
pending worldwide, especially in the area of 3-dimensional visual processes, 
require a sophisticated practical and synthetic knowledge in many diverse 
areas of science and engineering, as well as a thorough understanding of 
psychological, neurological, biochemical, biophysical, and other 
physiological and biological processes... 

All that, coupled with an advanced knowledge of occult metaphysics, are what 
is behind and supporting the theory of ABC -- which has been successfully 
debated in several scientific foruzms over the past 7 years, and as yet has 
not been successfully refuted (even by several Nobel Prize winners in 
physics.:-). 

Consequently, the ABC hypothesis, as a complete theory of everything, stands 
on its own, and, until proven otherwise, rests solidly on the inherently 
logical and scientifically (as well as technically) valid and consistent 
interpretation of the underlying unified, multidimensional energy field 
nature of the universe -- that obeys all the fundamental laws of electricity 
and magnetism, as well as the laws of cycles and periodicity -- besides being 
in parallel with the most current and, at least, mathematically validated, if 
not "proven" theories of M-brane physics (which includes the final synthesis 
of relativity and quantum physics).

I hope this is sufficient information that may cause you to finally cease 
your incessant prejudicial, opinionated and unproved criticisms of both my 
and HPB's logical (and consistent with Nature, both subjectively and 
objectively) metaphysical scientific theories, ontology's, and 
epistemologies. 

LHM

--------------Clipped non sequitur portion of original 
message--------------------- 

(Although, quite helpful to anyone following this argument, in verifying my 
point about the indeterminate, contradictory and unproved nature of all past 
and current reductive physical science that is based on nothing more than 
mathematical symbolism's -- which are only valid from a reductive point of 
view, as far as the physical matter-energy systems they represent can be 
measured, and as far as they "work" as the basis of technology in the limited 
space of the physical world's energy phase levels.) 

>Quantum theory arose during the first decades of the twentieth
>century, with the efforts of Max Planck and Albert Einstein to solve 
>certain anomalies in physics. A peculiarity of quantum mechanics soon 
>became apparent: the theories can be expressed in a highly abstract 
>mathematical formalism and are amenable to rigorous experimental 
>research. At the same time, any attempts to express the results in 
>ordinary language or to visualize them will lead to an utterly
>paradoxical picture of the sub-atomic world. The most common 
>approach adopted by physicists has been to view quantum mechanics 
>operationally, apply its mathematical formalism to practical problems,
>
>and eschew any discussion of the philosophical issues. Writers from 
>outside the community of physicists have, on the other hand, been 
>centrally preoccupied with formulating what they see as the wider 
>implications of the "strangeness" of the subatomic world. In discussions
>
>of the metaphysical or religious implications of quantum physics, a few
>specific findings are regularly singled out by New Age writers as 
>especially interesting to the construction of an interpretive framework.
>
>These can very briefly be summarized as follows (the following is based
>on my reading of :
>
>Quantum mechanics asserts that a measurement does not simply yield 
>information about a preexisting state, but forces an indeterminate
>state to take on certain values. A property called spin can thus be given
>
>a precise value through measurement. However, contrary to the 
>behavior of macroscopic objects (in which an object will have e.g. a 
>specific length, regardless of whether this length is being meajured),
>
>spin is indeterminate until measurement. In a sense, it is meaningless
>to ask what spin the particle had before being measured.
>By deciding which properties one wishes to measure, one thus torces 
>particles to exhibit certain properties. In 1924, Louis de Broglie
>showed that at the quantum level, neutrons, electrons and other
>objects that were traditionally understood as particles seem to
>exhibit either particle or wave properties, depending on what properties
>of the object are measured. Thus, neutrons and electrons diffract 
>through small openings in the same way as waves. Nevertheless, they 
>also act as tiny particles and can e.g. loose energy in collisions with
>other particles. This wave-particle duality is known as complementarity.
>Certain values such as the position of particles obey statistical
>laws rather than the precise predictability of classical mechanics. When
>particles such as photons are forced through two slits and hit a
>screen further away, they will form an interference pattern consisting
>of light and dark bands. The process is roughly analogous to the way in 
>which waves, passing through two openings in a harbor wall, form 
>crests and troughs. If photons are sent through the two slits at a pace
>of a few photons per second, each photon will hit the distant screen at 
>some location which cannot be accurately predicted. As the photons 
>pass through, they will begin to form the familiar interference pattern.
>Thus the exact path of each photon cannot be known in advance, and it 
>is only possible to specify the probability of finding the particle at any
>given location. Nevertheless, en masse, they will strictly obey statistical
>laws that make them form the characteristic pattern.
>
>Since properties exist only through measurement, it is, by
>implication, impossible to simultaneously determine the values of certain
>pairs of properties of the same particle with equal precision, when these
>properties require mutually exclusive methods of detection. The
>classical example is the impossibility of measuring both the position and
>the momentum of the electron with equal precision, since the act of 
>measuring the electrons disturbs either their position or their 
>momentum. A number of other pairs of properties behave in the same 
>way. In 1927, Werner Heisenberg indicated a precise numerical value 
>for the amount of uncertainty involved.
>
>A final aspect of quantum mechanics to be subjected to various 
>metaphysical interpretations is non-locality. A paper written by
>Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen in 1933 presented an 
>argument that has become famous, especially in a form later developed 
>by David Bohm. The argument suggested, on theoretical grounds, that 
>two particles, even when separated by distances such that there could 
>be no communication between them at the speed of light, seem to act
>in concordance. Imagine a particle decaying and giving rise to two 
>electrons. As these race apart, spin is measured. For realolls of 
>symmetry, total spin is conserved. If one particle is measured
>to have spin "up", the other must have spin "down". However, spin is
>an indeterminate value until measured. Thus, measuring the spin of one
>
>electron would appear to instantaneously determine that of the other. 
>This effect of non-locality is often called the EPR paradox, after
>the initials of the writers of the original article.
>
>As a mathematical model, quantum theory has proved itself capable of 
>making calculations and predictions to a high level of accuracy, and
>has been amply confirmed by seventy years of experimental work and 
>practical applications. However, the philosophical issuesthe question 
>of "what it means"-have spawned a number of positions, since the 
>quantum level behaves so differently from the large-scale world with 
>which we are familiar. How can we, as human (and inherently 
>macroscopic) subjects, conceptualize the indeterminate, 
>complementary, uncertain, probabilistic and non-local behavior of 
>quantum systems? In order to understand the position of the various 
>New Age metaphysics, it is instructive to see them against the
>backdrop of mainstream interpretations.
>
>>From the 1930s and for the next several decades, the most influential 
>position was the Copenhagen interpretation, formulated by Niels Bohr, 
>Werner Heisenberg and Max Born. This interpretation of quantum 
>mechanics is thoroughly pragmatic or operational. A system that has
>not been measured is truly indeterminate. It is literally meaningless to
>ask what state a system is in before measurement has been performed. 
>This position offered a picture of quantum mechanics that was deeply 
>unpalatable to those who held a classical view of an independent
>reality that had specific properties regardless of any measurements. 
>Furthermore, the Copenhagen position basicaly avoided the question of 
>how an indeterminate value could become determinate through the act 
>of measurement.
>
>Especially from the 1950s and on, several alternative positions were 
>formulated that deviated from the Copenhagen orthodoxy. One set of 
>interpretations, first proposed by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and 
>championed more recently by David Bohm, claims that the indeterminacy 
>of quantum systems is due to "hidden" variables that in themselves
>are not indeterminate. Bohm's version of quantum mechanics describes 
>the same set of experimental data as standard formulations, but 
>achieves determinacy at the cost of increased mathematical complexity 
>and the introduction of unobservable variables.
>
>A far more spectacular interpretation is the many-worlds approach 
>proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957. Every time a quantum system
>settles" on one of several possible outcomes, the world splits. Since 
>there are as many parallel universes as there are quantum outcomes, 
>which is a truly staggering amount, Everett's interpretation is 
>unparsimonious to say the least.
>
>Still further interpretations, based on an idealistic ontology, are
>of marginal significance within the scientific community but have
>greatly influenced the quantum metaphysics of neo-Theosophy. A 
>metaphysical interpretation of this kind that has been espoused by a 
>minorityregards human consciousness as the factor that makes 
>measurements become real. John von Neumann approached such a 
>position, and in the 1960s a similar idealistic metaphysics was developed
>
>at greater length by Eugene Wigner. Still other interpretations exist,
>but the general picture that emerges of quantum mechanics during the first
>decades is that of a dominant interpretive framework (Copenhagen) and 
>a host of minor ones.
>
>Finally, all the above interpretations have increasingly receded into
>the historical annals of twentieth century physics. Since the 1980s, 
>decoherence, a version of quantum mechanics developed by Murray Gell-
>Mann, James B. Hartle and others, has emerged as the dominant 
>framework. This position attempts to come to grips with the 
>fundamental gap in the theory of Bohr and his colleagues: the
>transition from the indeterminacy of the quantum level to the familiar
>
>behavior of large-scale objects obeying the laws of classical physics.
>A quantum object can exist in two (or more) states at once. It is then said
>to exist in a "superposition of states". Every system, whether quantum or
>classical (such as any macroscopic object), is in contact with an external
>environment consisting of a vast collection of atoms. This coupling 
>between a quantum system in a superposition and the environment in 
>which it is embedded leads the system to collapse or decay with 
>extreme rapidity into one state or another. This is the process known
>as decoherence.
>
>Quantum mechanics has reached a lay audience through a filter of 
>interpretations that can be called quantum metaphysics, composed 
>partly of the above interpretations and partly of other, more
>speculative understandings."' Besides their scientific writings and more
>restrained interpretive frameworks, several of the above-mentioned 
>founders of quantum physics wrote in a more popular format, and 
>attempted to speculate on the affinities between physics and mysticism
>or a variety of Platonic, Pythagorean or Oriental philosophies in a neo-
>Theosophical vision at times reminiscent of the Romantic sciences of 
>the early nineteenth century. 
>