Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Quantum Mind and Classical Brain
Jul 15, 2002 00:28 AM
by leonmaurer
Friends,
For what it's worth... Since the following dialogues between myself and
several accredited scientists have correlation's with theosophical science
and philosophy as well as being based on its fundamental principles, I
thought they might be of value to some serious students of theosophy as well
as others who might be interested in this modern scientific interpretation of
the "Secret Doctrine" in ordinary English. . . Wiithout resort to any
theosophical, or much scientific jargon and its contrived mathematics
(designed to justify the materialistic bias of conventional reductive
science).
Not to say that their theories and equations don't work -- at least as far as
our current material (solid state) technology goes. Unfortunately, however,
they haven't a clue as to the "scientific" relationship between consciousness
and matter, subjectivity and objectivity, or mind and brain. Many of their
theories on "Quantum Mind" -- which consider it, as well as consciousness, as
epiphenomena of the complexity of the brain's neurology -- are perfect
examples of contrived materialistic gobbledygook.
Since they are the guru's of this modern age -- perhaps we have to do a bit
more to help them open their "third eye" -- and see the universe (or any part
of it) from its center outward, as well as from its circumference inward.
LHM
In a message dated 05/13/02 5:04:06 AM, dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk writes:
>Alfredo, I have taken the liberty of extracting a
>series of quotes from your last post:
>
>APJ: What seems to be important is the
>(quantum)information expressed in the waveform of
>entangled spins.
>... I'm taking the liberty of calling classical the
>systems that don't exhibit widespread entanglement.
>...I call the mind "quantum" in the sense that
>according to my hypothesis all mental relations are
>based on quantum entanglement in the brain (and
>therefore mental activity correspond to a part of
>brain activity).
>... the mental system only comes to existence when
>processes occurring independently inside a billion of
>neurons in the Classical Brain are connected by
>non-local entanglement. Then they become an unitary
>being, the Quantum Mind.
>
>[Alex]
>What you are hypothesising is a scientific connection
>between brain activity and the experience of
>consciousness but you are being coy about the
>subjective result. What would your "Quantum Mind" look
>like to the mind itself? I have made some suggestions
>below:
>
>You are proposing instantaneous connection between the
>parts of the mind with the "non-locality" so the first
>subjective experience is SIMULTANEITY, your quantum
>mind would be able to experience several parts of a
>visual field, for instance, at the same time.
>
>The subjective geometry of such a space is hard to
>discern. My own hunch is that, because it would take
>no time for a connection between any points or groups
>of points, these points would not seem to be spatially
>separated. They might act as a single geometric point
>composed of inward pointing vectors. Our mental view
>of the world would then be a view of the inside of a
>sphere of indeterminate radius.
>
>Do you think your hypothesis is an hypothesis of the
>conscious mind without such speculations about
>conscious experience?
[LM] If I may butt in, please...
Should the geometry of subjective visual space be as you say, "a sphere of
indeterminate radius" (which I believe is correct), and the perceptive image
(intentionally looked at) located at any selectively chosen radius on the
inside surface (virtually corresponding to the metric radial distance of the
actual "object" of perception) -- then the perceptive viewpoint, along with
the experience, as well as the willful intent, would always have to be
located at the "zero-point" in the exact center of that sphere, and also be
"entangled" with the zero-point(s) of sensory images focussed at its
circumference(s) and projected outward in exact superposition with the
objective field.
The only condition, in my opinion, that would satisfy this configuration
(with respect to all the perceptive senses) would be if the sensory images
transduced directly by the brain, and linked holographically to the fields of
mind and memory, are "carried" (as vibrational interference patterns) by
sub-quantum, multi dimensional energy fields (enfolded like bubbles within
bubbles within bubbles, as described in M-theory) -- that are analogous to,
but separated, by different orders or phases of frequency and energy (but not
inductively or resonantly), from the EM, ES or QED fields that constitute the
neural image correlatives of the brain.
To maintain the consistency of this model with our subjective experience of
consciousness (as well as with both quantum and relativity theories)... Along
with the multidimensional spatial relationship of image fields, it would also
have to be considered that experiential awareness (or qualia) as well as will
(or intent) would necessarily be the inherent a priori characteristics and
functions of the non-metric and nonlinear primal zero-point and all its
manifest reflections in dimensional space -- while its surrounding spin (or
"spinergy") would be the precursor of all subsequent physical energies,
fields and forms. These universal properties would then be, essentially, the
root of not only all nonmaterial sub-quantum zero-point fields and
super-quantum mass-energy fields, but also of all reflected, non dimensional
and, thus, "entangled" zero-point centers of such fields. Thus, the "seer,"
the "seen," and the "seeing," as the necessary inseparable elements of
subjective consciousness, would be integrally linked within the primal
zero-point (before the "big bang") as interdependent universal givens.
If such a model (or scenario) is the actual case, the role of physical
science with respect to direct objective determination of the nature of
consciousness would extend only so far as determining the neural correlates
of consciousness, and finding the experimental means by which it can be
proven (or disproved) that the transformation of sensory image information
from the brain field to the higher order transcendental fields of
consciousness (mind, memory, etc.) is essentially a process of transferring
modulated holographic image interference patterns across such field
boundaries by inductive resonance processes -- after first being transduced
through the physical organic systems by analagous electrochemical processes
(that may or may not have quantum mechanical correlates).
Since Superstring/M-brane theorist's have already mathematically determined
the enfolded 10 dimensional, causally linked nature of both zero-point and
metric space -- down to the fundamental (post "zero-point spinergy") ray, or
stretched vibratory "string" of primal energy -- that can carry in its wave
interference patterns, the modulations of holographic sensory imagery, and
even geometric and topological "blueprints" of physical forms (from memories,
to DNA molecules to neural structures, etc.) -- it will be interesting to
see how these two, apparently paradoxical directions of current physical
science will come together at the interface between the brain's neurological
electrodynamic fields and the higher order fields of subjective
consciousness... All, linked together through their ubiquitously reflected
and entangled zero-points of origin -- which we might consider as their
centers and locations of awareness and qualia. This could also apply, with
respect to the overall surrounding body (or "auric") field, to our center of
individual Self consciousness as well as the center of our directed will or
intent (which may very well be located, as some Eastern philosophers claim,
in the region between the heart and the solar plexus).
I hope I haven't stretched things (or strings:-) too far... But -- in the
face of the sad lack of progress of conventional physics over the past ten
years to come even close to answering the "hard problems" of explaining the
"experience" of consciousness, brain-mind binding, or the mechanisms of
perception -- this approach to understanding consciousness needs some very
serious thought by established peer reviewed scientists (among whom,
unfortunately, I do not qualify, not having the requisite degrees or academic
connections). But, I hope that's no barrier to my bouncing these ideas
around where such scientists hangout with the hope that they might come up
with some scientifically credible answers to the hard problems of
consciousness and mind.:-)
Respectfully,
Leon Maurer
For a discussion on how the visual system might actually work, based on the
above paradigm, as a logical chain of holographic image transformations
between the entangled zero-points of awareness, the image fields of
subjective consciousness, and the brain's neurological field, see:
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/
In a message dated 05/16/02 1:16:24 PM, sentek1@yahoo.com writes:
>leonmaurer wrote:
>>
>> Should the geometry of subjective visual space be as you say, "a
>> sphere of indeterminate radius" (which I believe is correct), and the
>> perceptive image (intentionally looked at) located at any selectively
>> chosen radius on the inside surface (virtually corresponding to the
>> metric radial distance of the actual "object" of perception) -- then the
>> perceptive viewpoint, along with the experience, as well as the willful
>> intent, would always have to be located at the "zero-point" in the exact
>> center of that sphere,
>bj: The visual field has a center, but visual experience is not
>located at a point, and neither is intent, which is logically distinct
How so? My visual experience is as if I were seeing the surrounding world
from a point directly behind the retinas of my eyes in the exact center of my
head. Where's your visual experience centered? Also, when I have the intent
to change my direction of vision, it is based on the experience of seeing
from that point, and is the effect of its willful rotation. Where would that
intent be located, if not there (at the point of action)?
>> from visual experience. And also be "entangled" with the zero-point(s)
>> of sensory images focussed at its circumference(s) and projected
>> outward in exact superposition with the objective field.
>bj: This makes no sense to me.
Sorry about that. Maybe it's because your "sense" is unable to create a
visual image in your mind of what I said. If so, maybe you should ask me
what I meant. There may be other words that I could use to picture it to
those without an artist's (or yogi's) visualization capability. But, it
would be easier if I could show you a diagram. It might also help if you
could imagine the non-dimensional zero-point as being everywhere, and thus in
coadunation with each other (or, in other words, "entangled") by being in the
same place in fundamental zero-point space -- the all enfolding container of
at least ten enfolded dimensions (according to M-theory) -- as well as
consistent with my own subjective multidimensional geometric and topological
visualizations that initially inspired my search for a unified field theory
in which all coenergetic fields (no matter what dimension or order of space
they act in) are objective, while their points of origin and intersection are
subjective.
Thus, if we actually see a subjective visual image from a point directly
behind the retinas (as a reconstructed holograph carried as vibrational
interference patterns in a higher order enfolded field) -- then, that image
could very well appear (due to its small size and closeness to the point of
awareness) as if it were projected out in front of our eyes in exact
superposition with the actual *object* of perception (as contrasted with the
perception itself). It's like looking at one inch wide movie screens placed
one inch in front of our eyes, which would appear as if the combined image
was overlaid on a 60 foot screen sixty feet in front of us. It follows that
the analogy is perfectly consistent with the nature of light image
propagation, projection, reflection and perception on both the objective
(physical) and subjective (consciousness) levels of multidimensional reality.
This explains why both binocular stereography and holographic imagery (as
well as their perception) are identically simulative of the objective reality
that gave them birth. Incidentally, it would help in visualizing the
reconstruction of the visual hologram in the mind field (which, in this view
is of a separate order of space than the brain's EM field if we consider that
all light rays impinging on the individual rods and cones of the retinas are
essentially coherent.
>> The only condition, in my opinion, that would satisfy this configuration
>> (with respect to all the perceptive senses) would be if the sensory images
>> transduced directly by the brain, and linked holographically to the fields
of
>> mind and memory, are "carried" (as vibrational interference patterns)
>> by sub-quantum, multi dimensional energy fields
>
>bj: Sub-quantum? Are you sure you haven't been watching too much Star
>Trek?
"Sub-quantum" is simply a coined compound word that I used to describe the
fields of energy below the quantum level or within the so called "vacuum of
space" between the quantum particles (i.e., within the Planck distance
between the particles and the zero-point). (Pardon me if I say that quantum
physics can't see beyond the end of their 4 dimensional particle-waves. :-)
In my view all these fields are connected to each other coenergetically
(inductively, resonantly, rhythmically, etc.)
Too bad you haven't been watching enough Star Trek to figure out how some of
its high tech stuff might work in conjunction with a multidimensional
coadunate and coenergetic field theory that is lawfully consistent across a
completely unified 10 (or more) dimensional (plus time) spatial reality. :-)
If such a theory is a correct model of the total implicate and explicate
reality, then there are many new technological possibilities (some, perhaps,
psychically based) yet to be discovered.
>> (enfolded like bubbles within
>> bubbles within bubbles, as described in M-theory)
>
>bj: How do you get here from M-theory?
How else do you enfold multidimensional fields (10 of them at least,
according to M-theory) within the overall field of the entire universe --
when all such fields are originated from and connected through their zero
points of origination to the same coadunate zero-point source of infinite
frequency-energy, or momentum? In order to form the first spherical field
from an initial zero point center that can maintain itself indefinitely in 4
dimensional space time as well as in multidimensional zero-point "vacuum"
space, it would have to take a (2-D cross sectional) shape of two circular
fields inscribed tangentially within a surrounding field -- like bubbles
within a bubble. All subsequent involved fields would follow this pattern
analogously.
>>that are analogous to, but separated, by different orders or phases of
>>frequency and energy but not inductively or resonantly from
>>the EM, ES or QED fields that constitute the neural image correlatives of
>>the brain.
>
>bj: What does "different orders or phases of frequency and energy"
>mean?
Well, we know that energy and frequency are directly related (i.e., the
higher the energy the higher the frequency). Since the energy (or angular
momentum) at the zero point is infinite, its frequency (or spin cycles) would
also be so. As this energy-frequency order steps down from that point,
through the transcendental coenergetic fields, to the physical
energy-frequency level (or spectrum) we observe, it must do so in accord with
a common cyclic or electrical law of fundamental harmonics. This implies that
it steps down in harmonic patterns that create involved multidimensional
energy fields that are at different phases (or frequency-energy spectrums)...
Much like the musical notes and octaves, or the different phases of color in
the light frequency spectrum. Thus, the harmonic relationships *between*
energy-frequency phase orders of each descending field -- starting from zero
and ending with our metric field phase order -- would also be analogous to
the phase changes of the energies within each enfolded sub-field.
On our level (or metric field phase of 4-dimensional reality) this frequency
extends from the longest radio wave to the highest gamma wave. Beyond that
are the frequency phase orders of the other 7 enfolded spatial dimensions
described in M- theory. In my view, there's no need to understand its
quantum mathematics to figure that out -- since I am claiming that its the
vibrational wave nature of energy that carries all experiential information
from field to field and ultimately to our awareness... And, therefore, this
vibrational information can only be comparatively understood by this center
of "awareness" if it can be referenced against a static baseline of non
motion -- which is the stillness of the zero-point itself.
In this model, all local phenomenal fields (in any hyperspatial or spatial
dimension or order) would be the derivatives solely of the zero-point's
surrounding "spinergy"... With the non local zero-point itself remaining
forever immutable and indivisible -- no matter how apparently smeared out
through our metric space-time continuum (yet appearing to be at the centers
and conjunctions of each coenergetic field).
Thus, if that simplicity is the basis of all universal complexities,
consciousness is inherent in the primal zero-point (and all its reflections
in configuration space) right from the get go... While, energy–matter is
inherent in its spin momenta. Why should the involution of the universal
fields, starting from the zero point and extending as a continuous manifold
to the experiential universal gravitational field of our metric space time
continuum, be more complicated than that? As Einstein said, "God doesn't
play dice."
>> To maintain the consistency of this model with our subjective experience
>> of consciousness (as well as with both quantum and relativity theories)...
>> Along with the multidimensional spatial relationship of image fields,
>
>bj: What does "multi-dimensional spatial relationship of image
>fields" mean?
It means that all the fields (according to this model) are in different phase
orders of primal space ranging from the 6 enfolded or compacted hidden
dimensions in zero-point space ("implicate order" in Bohm's terminology) to
the 4 metric dimensions of our unfolded objective space time continuum
("explicate order”). Each of these fields are at a different internal order
or spectrum phase of energy vibration, or frequency range, between zero and
infinity (starting from the first "instant of time"and extending numerically
in an endless series of repetitive or cyclic harmonic transformations). In
this model, time (as a measure of change) would begin with the highest order
field first emanated or radiated out of the primal zero point's "spinergy"
prior to the big bang. It would become "metric" and treatable as a vector
only after the first moment of inflation is completed and symmetry is broken.
>> it would also have to be considered that experiential awareness (or
>> qualia) as well as will (or intent) would necessarily be the inherent
>> a priori characteristics and functions of the non-metric and nonlinear
>> primal zero-point and all its manifest reflections in dimensional space --
>> while its surrounding spin (or "spinergy") would be the precursor of all
>> subsequent physical energies,
>
>bj: You're babbling -- why not try your hand at simple declarative
>sentences until you get the hang of it?
Ad homonym remarks about a statement taken out of context do not an argument
make. Maybe the above discussion will bring you into a better focus of
understanding of what I am attempting to explain. If not, I'm sorry that
your reductive scientific biases are getting in the way.:-)
>> fields and forms. These universal properties would then be, essentially,
>> the root of not only all nonmaterial sub-quantum zero-point fields and
>> super-quantum mass-energy fields, but also of all reflected, non
>> dimensional and, thus, "entangled" zero-point centers of such fields.
>
>bj: This is all gaseous nonsense. Stringing together a bunch of words
>lifted from pop science books does not an argument make.
Well, that's your subjective opinion -- for what it's worth. Again, I'm
sorry you can't follow my logical argument based on nonlinear
multidimensional geometrical imagery (which is hard to explain in linear
language) no matter how complex its wording. To understand this without any
mathematics (except, perhaps, fractal geometry and topology) requires the
ability to visualize the primal field's continuous lines of force from its
zero point of origin outward to its circumference, while simultaneously
visualizing it from its circumference inward to its point of origin.
Accordingly, in this multidimensional visual analysis, I can't see any other
way for such a field to maintain itself throughout the life of the universe
as it expands out of the primal zero-point -- unless each line of force defini
ng its outer circumference initially followed a three cycle path passing
through the center point twice in each direction of propagation across its
polar axis.
Thus, the first or primal field would have to exist in three separate
(although connected through their outer polar points) orders, manifolds, or
dimensions of space -- like two bubbles within a single surrounding bubble.
It follows that the inner "bubbles" would follow an identical pattern of
triple field propagation, as they further involve to the ten (or more)
dimensions or orders of primal phenomenal space prior to the breaking of
symmetry. (See diagrams at the AOL web page below.)
Leon Maurer
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
In a message dated 06/04/02 4:50:06 PM, sentek1@yahoo.com writes:
>
>> >bj: The visual field has a center, but visual experience is not
>> >located at a point, and neither is intent, which is logically distinct
>>
>> How so? My visual experience is as if I were seeing the surrounding
>> world from a point directly behind the retinas of my eyes in the exact
>>center of my head.
>
>bj: The visual field is a construct; you may imagine it centered in
>the middle of your head, but that does not entail it being thus
>centered.
Where else would it be located? In my view, the visual field is not an
imaginary construct but a direct projection. If I rotate my eyes or turn my
head to change my direction of view, isn't that axis of rotation located ata
point equivalent to the center of projection of the entire visual field? If
not, the perceptual image would move relative to the object of perception.
>>Where would that intent be located, if not there (at the point of action)?
>
>bj: This does not follow at all.
Why not? When a drive wheel turns, isn't the impulse (force or "intent" if
you will) to so move located at the exact zero-point center of rotation?
>> Sorry about that. Maybe it's because your "sense" is unable to
>> create a visual image in your mind of what I said.
>
>bj: Yes, and maybe you are thoroughly confused.
Confused about what? There is no question about the apparent geometry of the
visual field as a projection on the inside surface of a sphere relative to
its subjective center of perception or projection located in the middle of
our head behind the window of the eyes.
>
>> If so, maybe you should ask me what I meant.
>> There may be other words that I could use to picture it to
>> those without an artist's (or yogi's) visualization capability.
>
>bj: Yes, no doubt your ideas are beyond the grasp of ordinary mortals.
You can speak only for yourself. I'm sure that there are many people
(including scientists:) who have such a visionary capability. Your sarcasm
only adds to your inability's in those areas. Such remarks don't fit into
any reasonable scientific discussion -- regardless of whether my theorizing
is right or wrong.
>> But, it would be easier if I could show you a diagram. It might also help
>> if you could imagine the non-dimensional zero-point as being everywhere,
>> and thus in coadunation with each other (or, in other words, "entangled")
>> by being in the same place in fundamental zero-point space -- the all
>> enfolding container of at least ten enfolded dimensions (according to
>> M-theory) --
>
>bj: M-theory is largely innocent of Bohm's work; if you think
>otherwise, please produce a reference to the literature.
What has Bohm's work have to do with what I said? Did I mention Bohm with
reference to M-theory? However, Bohm's work pertaining to the concept of an
implicate and explicate order (of space), could very well be related to the
unfolded 4-dimensional local metric space time continuum and the enfolded
7-dimensional non local, non-metric zero point space -- both, in coadunation
but not in consubstantiality -- as implied by M-theory. Thus, consciousness
and matter may just be two opposite sides of an 11 dimensional coin, or
unified, fundamentally triune, primal Space. i.e., Absolute space,
surrounding and containing both subjective consciousness space and objective
material space -- with "awareness" located or reflected at the zero-point,
and all its fields subject to fundamental laws of cyclic harmonics,
electrical transformation, and holographic information storage and retrieval.
>
>> This explains why both binocular stereography and holographic imagery
>> (as well as their perception) are identically simulative of the objective
>> reality that gave them birth. Incidentally, it would help in visualizing
the
>> reconstruction of the visual hologram in the mind field (which, in this
view
>> is of a separate order of space than the brain's EM field if we consider
that
>> all light rays impinging on the individual rods and cones of the retinas
are
>> essentially coherent.
>
>bj: No, the vast majority of light we see is chaotic. See Loudon's
>recent 'Quantum Theory of Light.'
Regardless of any theories... Not so when we consider the single ray of light
reflected from a point on the object that impinges on a single rod or cone in
the retina of the eye. This point source ray is, in fact, coherent in
itself, and thus remains so in all further transduction through the neural
processing until it replicates itself in the brain's holographic
(interference patterned) EM field, and thence, reconstructed in the mind
field (according to my holographic "analog" theory of visual perception --
which has nothing to do with the quantum or particle nature of "physical"
light -- but refers only to its optical wave form patterns and their
electrical and magnetic transformational properties throughout all
multidimensional, coadunate, but not consubstantial "coenergetic" fields).
>
>> "Sub-quantum" is simply a coined compound word that I used to describe the
>> fields of energy below the quantum level or within the so called "vacuum
of
>> space" between the quantum particles
>
>bj: Virtual particles are not "sub-quantum.'
They are if we consider the quanta as a "metric particle." Virtual particles,
being non metric are a mathematical contrivance that has no relationship
(other than coenergetic) to what I call "sub-quantum" non-metric field
energies. Again, I wish to make it clear that its the wave nature of these
"sub-quantum" coenergetic fields that my ABC theory refers to. If this
disagrees with current quantum particle and field theories, then I'm afraid
it may be time to advance to the next stage of a new physics that incorporate
both quantum metric and zero-point non-metric sub-quantum fields as special
cases of a GUFTOE (Grand Unified Theory of Everything).
>> >> (enfolded like bubbles within
>> >> bubbles within bubbles, as described in M-theory)
>> >
>> >bj: How do you get here from M-theory?
>>
>> How else do you enfold multidimensional fields (10 of them at least,
>> according to M-theory) within the overall field of the entire universe --
>> when all such fields are originated from and connected through their
>> zero points of origination to the same coadunate zero-point source of
>> infinite frequency-energy, or momentum?
>
>bj: Infinite energy equals infinite mass, which entails infinite
>gravity. Are you suggesting a black hole resides inside your head?
One could very well be there and everyplace else in unified space, if we
consider that all zero-points are essentially "singularities," with some
within the realms of the 7 invisible (and non metric) dimensions of primal
fields postulated objectively by M-theory, and (looking from a different
direction) examined subjectively by my ABC theory.
Since such zero-point energies are in different dimensions (or field phase
orders) than our 4 dimensional space-time continuum, they would have no
physical relationship to the metrics of the material "mass-energies"
described by reductive quantum theories... Although, governed by similar
electrodynamic laws which are analogous but not necessarily metrically or
dimensionally equivalent
Accordingly, I'm sure you understand that a physical "black hole describes
only the "event barrier" around a singularity, and not the singularity
itself. The equivalent black hole in a non metric higher order field would
have a different order of event barrier altogether. This would also relate to
its higher order speed of light, its time constant, as well as the
gravitational constant in that field. (I am not referring here to metric, or
photonic light considered by current quantum theories, but to the
corresponding frequencies of analogous "astral" light energy within the total
frequency spectrum of each higher order non-metric zero-point field.)
>
>> In order to form the first spherical field
>> from an initial zero point center that can maintain itself indefinitely in
4
>> dimensional space time as well as in multidimensional zero-point "vacuum"
>> space, it would have to take a (2-D cross sectional) shape of two circular
>> fields inscribed tangentially within a surrounding field [...]
>
>bj: O, and what physical principles are you imagining here?
None related to current physical science that does not consider the existence
of enfolded, non metric zero-point fields underlying and supporting the
metric quantum fields. These principles are simply based on logical,
multidimensional geometric thought processes. Since when does there have to
be known "physical principles" behind the axioms of any such "non physical"
geometry's? I wonder why you continue to confuse logical thinking with
imagining. Although, in a universe of infinite possibilities (ref; fractal
geometry's, chaos and complexity theories, etc.) any imagination must have a
basis in reality no matter how implausible it might seem to the unimaginative
(who can't see beyond the ends of their noses, or understand the existence of
what they can't measure with a ruler. :-)
>> >bj: What does "different orders or phases of frequency and energy"
>> >mean?
>>
>> Well, we know that energy and frequency are directly related (i.e., the
>> higher the energy the higher the frequency). Since the energy (or angular
>> momentum) at the zero point is infinite, its frequency (or spin cycles)
would
>> also be so.
>
>bj: Infinite energy equals ... never mind.
Such responses get you nowhere. So far, you have not shown any counter
argument that gives any comment you make any meaning. If you have to make a
negative comment, why don't you falsify my theory using the same basis of
logic it is presented in, or even quote a scientific reference that provably
contradicts it?
Infinite energy at infinite frequency and infinite velocity must exist at
every zero point in metric space -- since these aspects of energy had to be
there prior to the expansion of the near infinite (but still finite) energy
of the Cosmos out of the initial zero-point singularity prior to the big
bang. We have to assume accordingly, since infinity cannot be diminished by
extracting a finite amount of energy from it, that each zero-point in space
is still infinitely energetic. This infinite energy potential can only be
related to the angular momentum of fundamental spin of absolute primal space
itself... Something that is essential as the underlying basis of all
subsequent physical phenomena -- spatial, inertial, energetic, physical or
otherwise.
>>As this energy-frequency order steps down from that point,
>> through the transcendental coenergetic fields, to the physical
>> energy-frequency level (or spectrum) we observe, it must do so in
>> accord with a common cyclic or electrical law of fundamental harmonics.
>>This implies that it steps down in harmonic patterns that create involved
>>multidimensional energy fields that are at different phases
>>(or frequency-energy spectrums)...
>
>bj: Phase relations are precisely defined in physics. I suggest you
>learn their proper meaning.
Just what are you talking about? Physical phase relationships are only
referable to the lowest order 4(?)-dimensional space time continuum contrived
by physical science and related only to its objective observations and
measurements. What has that to do with the nonmaterial field energy phase rel
ationships discussed in my multidimensional (or, rather, multiphase, higher
ordered) unified coenergetic field theory -- that includes non metric fields
that are outside the dimensions of this metric (physical-phenomenal)
space-time dimension (or field phase of "fundamental reality" that
encompasses many other coadunate but not consubstantial field phases
logically and geometrically linked to the primal, and all subsequent
zero-points that are "everywhere")? Incidentally, this implies that the
zero-point supports the entire phenomenal universe.
Although the phase relationships in my coenergetic theory are analogous to
the phase relationships defined in physics, they are of an entirely different
order of reality constituting an entirely new paradigm of science that does
not contradict ordinary material physics theories (quantum, relativity,
etc.), but simply considers them as special cases, similar to the special
case of "modern" physics we call "classical" physics. Why does this idea or
hypothesis of field phase relationships have to conform with the limited
concepts of current material physics? It's interesting, in this respect,
that material physics still cannot get a handle on explaining the "mechanism"
or the "experience" of consciousness on one, if not all of its sensory levels.
As an added thought, I don't think that conventional science has come even
close to explaining all the relationships between matter and consciousness as
thoroughly as my theory of ABC -- which considers the ubiquitous zero-point
as the center of awareness and the source of intent or will power, with its
spin being the source of all matter-energy fields -- without resort to
mysticism, fundamental duality's, or homunculi.
Nevertheless, I welcome any reasonable objection to this theory which
questions its plausibility or shows how it contradicts any *validated* theory
of quanta, relativity, superstring, chaos, or simplicity-complexity theory.
Best wishes,
Leon Maurer
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics/ABC_bw.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/einstein.html
http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Since this last letter, there has been a thundering silence pertaining
to this subject on the Mind-Brain forum... (except for the following lonely
letter of acknowledgment written to me personally)
LHM
Subject: RE: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: Quantum Mind and Classical Brain
In a message dated 07/14/02 10:39:26 AM, drmiller@bigplanet.com writes:
>Dear Mr. Mauer:
> It is so nice to read your descriptions of mind
>function theory. The process of examining the
>mind examining the mind examining the mind is
>the critical component of the manifestation of
>world peace, in my estimation. Thanks for your
>braving the wrath of the forces of ignorance
>(a highly active state and debilitative malady).
> Am continuing to progress on imaging for spinal
>cord repair. Will continue to project an opening
>for you on our technical advisory board, without
>your objection.
>Don Miller
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
