Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00048)

In a message dated 04/02/02 8:34:41 PM, stevestubbs@yahoo.com writes:

>Hi, Leon:
>
>I appreciate your link on superstring theory. 
>Unfortunately, at the moment there is no way I can
>allocate sufficient time to read Hawkings' books. So
>may I make a suggestion. Sometime instead of merely
>referring to the superstring theory, could you outline
>at a high level how this explains consciousness and
>avoid technical terms one would have to study Hawkings
>to understand. I don't dispute the possibility that
>an 11 dimensional model could map to objective
>reality, but I am unclear how this could explain
>consciousness, since it seems to describe the contents
>of consciousness instead, or rather the noumenon of
>the contents of consciousness, since eight of those
>eleven dimensions are not phenomenal. At least I do
>not perceive them.

Can't imagine where you got the idea that anything I said about superstring 
theory has anything to do with Hawkings. As far as I know, he is a quantum 
cosmologists and limits his theories to description of the Cosmos after 
"inflation" when quantum effects come into existence. Nor, did I ever say 
that superstring theory explains consciousness. All I did say was that the 
several multidimensional string theories (consolidated into a single, 10 or 
11 dimensional unified field theory by Superstring/M-brane theory) is 
consistent with the metaphysical fields or "states of consciousness" theories 
of Cosmogenesis posited by HPB. 

As for consciousness; It's HPB's theosophical metaphysics (scientifically 
correlated by my ABC theory) that explains it all (both its roots and its 
experience) -- in spite of the fact that modern relativity and quantum 
physics cannot even come close, and superstring theorists, still wrapped up 
in their obscure mathematical "proofs," haven't yet given it much thought. 

However, there is a great difference between the "contents" of consciousness, 
the "root" of consciousness, and the "experience" of consciousness. The 
difference is that the "contents" are the sensory or mental "images" that we 
become aware of, and experience at its zero-point root. Remember, as HPB 
told us -- we must always distinguish between the "object of perception, the 
perceiver, and the perception itself." The first is the "contents," the 
second is the one pointed one (I am that I am) who is "aware" of it, or the 
"root," and the third is the "experience." 

As for the "eight non phenomenal dimensions" you speak of (non phenomenal 
only in the sense that their "actions" or karma cannot be seen or measured 
with "physical" instruments, I presume) -- these correspond to the higher 
fields of consciousness, from the astral body to the supreme spirit of 
theosophy, that only the most advanced yogis, or masters of meditation, can 
"perceive." 

>Also, I am a bit confused why, if Hawkings posits an
>11 dimensional space he is hostile to the idea of four
>dimentions, which would seem to be included in that
>model.

I also cannot remember where I said that anyone who is acceptant of the 11 
dimensions of string theory would be "hostile to the idea of four 
dimensions." There is no question that the "scientifically" described 
universe, that ignores the zero-point fields and starts with the first 
quantum particle of light, is fairly accurately explained by the 
4-dimensional "space time continuum" theories of relativity and quanta. But 
there are discrepancies and incompatibilities between quantum and relativity 
theories that Supertring/M-brane theory overcomes when the additional 6 
"invisible" spatial dimensions are taken into consideration. Incidentally, 
there is a little confusion about the actual number of dimensions, since 
there are several different string theories, and in some cases time is 
included and in others left out, since it is not a "metric" dimension. 
(Seems, that even the string theorists disagree with each other:-)

However, while the total number of dimensions is consistent with the 
theosophical theories of "coadunate but not consubstantial" fields, 
Superstring theory still considers these extra dimensions from a 
materialistic point of view, and as yet, have not correlated them in such a 
manner as to be connected with consciousness. The problem, I assume, is that 
the theory still considers the strings as being of a particulate nature and 
does not connect them with the "dimensionless" zero-point and its "spinergy" 
or "abstract motion" as the fundamental source of ALL fields -- from the 
akashic to the physical. 

For a few basic nontechnical ideas of how this new theory came about, see:
http://www.superstringtheory.net
http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/GraduateAdmissions/greene/greene.html

An excellent popular book on the subject of string theory written for laymen 
is; The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for 
the Ultimate Theory by Brian Greene. 

LHM


>SS
>--- leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> Again, you take everything I say out of context, and
>> quote one thing and 
>> answer or ask questions referring to something
>> entirely different. The link 
>> referred to makes no bones about being entirely
>> fictional and has no 
>> relationship to the theoretical scientific analysis
>> of fundamental forces 
>> underlying the ABC theory. 
>> 
>> I haven't the faintest idea what mathematics you are
>> talking about. If its 
>> the mathematics of quantum gravity or string theory
>> that confirms the logical 
>> multidimensionality of the ABC or theosophical
>> metaphysical view, it's 
>> apparently you who doesn't understand any of it.
>> 
>> Therefore, any assertions you make regarding the
>> invalidity of the zero-point 
>> originated multidimensionality of the universe in
>> the form of "coenergetic, 
>> coadunate but not consubstantial" fields, are
>> worthless -- unless you can 
>> come up with an alternate theoretical view that
>> explains the nature of 
>> consciousness, mind and matter, and their origins
>> and interrelationships, 
>> that current science along with their contrived
>> materialistic mathematics -- 
>> related to the (theoretical and as yet unproved)
>> "four dimensional space 
>> time continuum" -- cannot explain. 
>> 
>> LHM