Theos-Talk Archives (April 2002 Message tt00058)

Leon:

Thanks for the clarifications. Obviously I was not
getting some of what you were saying (which is why I
wrote) and your answers are most helpful.

Steve

--- leonmaurer@aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


Mi