Re: Conceivability of Mind-Independent Reality
Jan 26, 2003 02:18 AM
I thought you all might be interested in this dialogue with a member of a
scientific e-mail discussion group questioning my arguments for a
multidimensional holistic hyperspace metaphysical universe based on the
assumption of the unity of all things -- that was practically lifted verbatim
from the Secret Doctrine. It is followed by a theosophically pertinent
comment by another scientist.
Hope you find it useful and, possibly, enlightening.
In a message dated 01/13/03 4:03:18 AM, email@example.com writes:
>Leon Maurer asks if there are any flaws in his reasoning that defines
>mind as a product of nonconventional but "legal" physical concepts. It
>seemed to me a sincere request.
>I'm afraid I am not up to date on exotic physical concepts like
>superstrings, M-branes and spinergy. So I can't comment on the logic
>that connects those concepts.
>However, I can point out an area where the persuasiveness of the
>argument could be improved. Leon's first paragraph and apparently core
>proposition is that "... all matter is fundamentally force in motion
>acting on space. And that all forms of matter or mass/energy are,
>therefore, different complexities of the interactions of force on space.
>(Thus, force could be considered as the primal "substance" that is the
>noumena of phenomenal matter.) Since, mind also is the result of force
>acting on space, then mind would also be an aspect of substance or
>I am recalling high school physics, but isn't "force" the influence that
>produces a change in motion of a body? Force is only defined in terms
>of inertia of a body. So the phrase "force in motion acting on space" is
>just word salad for me.
The picture I have of metric "space" prior to its appearance as mass/energy
or what we commonly label "matter," is its constant motion of energy in the
zero-point vacuum within the Planck distance. If we regress this
vacuum-space to the non dimensional point source of its fundamental motion,
it can only be understood as the angular momentum or "spinergy" of that
zero-point singularity. This "spinergy" or primal "force," twisting (or
acting on) primal space (the ubiquitous zero-point) is the fundamental root
of all subsequent mind/matter/energy.
Unfortunately, when one tries to explain such inductive metaphysical
abstractions using the common language of reductive science, for purposes of
deducing subsequent involutional and evolutionary physical processes, it
requires much imagination to get past the "word salad" barrier. :-)
In the standard view, prior to this expression of space as 3-dimensional
linear motion, or mass-energy -- this force, upon emanation or radiation out
of the zero-point singularity, would inflate outward to the extreme limit of
the Cosmos and generate initial fields of near infinite frequency/energy that
geometrically must appear as triple cycle fields that would nest (like twin
bubbles within a bubble) as two spherical fields within a surrounding field
having a cross section of a figure 8 within a 0. If we follow the line of
initial force "ray" or "string" as it emanates out of the zero-point center
in any direction and follow its initial 3-cycle spiral path, we see that this
energy flow is continuous -- repeatedly circling around the outer and inner
circumferences and spiraling in and out of the central point. Thus, we can
say that the initial force is "acting on primal space" by causing it to bend
into the triple fields described.
This accounts for the statement that the initial force or the non linear spin
motion or "spinergy" of the (linear) motionless or "inertial" zero-point is
the primal "substance" that is the noumena of phenomenal matter. We might
then say that the zero-point itself is the root of "inertia" as well as the
basis of awareness and will -- both of which require an absolute reference
point of origin and destination.
To make this picture complete, we have to assume that the positive spinergy
that results in positive cosmic energy -- in order to balance and fulfill the
laws of conservation and symmetry -- must rest on an equal and opposite
spinergy that is a negative force. This could correspond to the "dark matter"
of current quantum cosmological theories. Thus, the initial force of gravity
in the zero-point, that eventually evolves into the four forces (positive
gravity, strong, weak and electrical forces) of our metric space-time, is
both attractive and repulsive or centripetal and centrifugal. Thus,
awareness requires energy coming in to the zero-point, while will requires
energy going out from that point. (So, there is a purpose for "dark matter"
in the universe, after all.)
Of course, this is only the first stage of the material expansion and
involution of the Cosmos, since the emanated spinning energy is continually
spiraling vortically into smaller and smaller triune fields or Monads...
Until, after a series of harmonic (octaval) frequency/energy phase changes,
our metric or physical space time continuum would appear (as "the big bang").
After the initial appearance and subsequent microwave inflation of this final
low frequency/energy phase, the space-time symmetry would break and the
expansion and evolution of our metric universe would commence, starting from
spinning galaxies down through spinning solar systems, to spinning planets,
to whirling dervishes, spiraling DNA, and twisted viruses, etc., etc.
(Doesn't that make your head spin. :-)
>If you could define how you are using terms like force, motion, inertia,
>body, space, etc., then it might be possible for an ordinary person like
>me to understand what you mean and therefore to evaluate your argument.
Having defined all that above, I might go on to say that if we assume that
the first triple field of Cosmogenesis contains within it the root of
consciousness, mind, and matter, then it is obvious that the "body" of both
mind and matter was there from the beginning, even prior to the birth of our
phenomenal metric universe. (I could also say "material" universe, since
everything emanating from the zero point spinergy is substantial, including
mind -- which is also "matter") Therefore, the only mind independent reality
there can be, is the reality of the zero-point itself -- which, however, is
non existent without its accompanying spinergy. Therefore, it must be
directly linked to matter. Consequently, while we can say that mind is
material, we cannot say that there is any "thing" that can be a MIR -- since
mind, matter, awareness, and will were, all four aspects of "reality," bound
together there, right from the get go.
>Assuming that you could define your primitive terms in compatibility
>with generally-accepted physical concepts, I would still have a problem
>with your last sentence above. No matter what you think "force" is, you
>would have to justify the claim that mind is a result of it. I would not
>accept that claim without some sort of explanation, reasons, arguments,
>or evidence, because it just restates the thesis of eliminative
I think my above description of zero-point force, as spin, as energy, as
mass, as mind, as matter, etc., is a logical description of the most probable
source of all material phenomena, including, mind/matter as well as
consciousness or awareness and will -- which could logically be attributed to
the static zero-point itself. For example, we can argue that consciousness
requires a stationary base to determine relative time, distance, velocity,
acceleration, frequency, force, energy, mass, etc. Since our point of visual
awareness is stationery with respect to the body, for example -- all outer
motion relative to that stationery observer (regardless of the motion of the
body) can be calculated as an absolute value of changing coordinates using
the inertial base of that point of consciousness as a prime reference. Thus,
the point can be considered as absolutely inertial relative to the motion
observed. If this were not the case, the ball player could never catch that
We could go even further and logically use this fundamental model of reality
to explain all the unanswered questions and hard problems of consciousness
study, as well as derive a unified field theory of everything by correlating
this model with Bohm's theory of implicate and explicate orders, Einstein's
special and general theories of relativity and photoelectricity, Heisenberg's
indeterminacy, Barrow's psychophysics, Feynman's quantum chromodynamics,
Pribam's holographic universe, Green's Superstring/M-brane theory, etc.,
If such an idea can make sense to a layman, it certainly should give some
clever young scientist enough incentive to assemble all the currently known
and proven theories of physical science and come up with both the necessary
equations and some suitable experimental research projects that would include
both subjective and objective data, to arrive at a final unified field theory
of everything. Anybody out there have some grad students looking for a
thesis that could win a Nobel? ;-)
Some more food for thought
In a message dated 01/20/03 5:02:40 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
>Almost a week ago Jim Newell suggested that there may exist an Absolute
>Consciousness as a field that:
>(1) is everywhere (and at all times, I might add),
>(2) integrates information in all brains, and
>(3) usually makes conscious in individual brains not only individual
>information, but occasionally also non-individual information.
>So far, nobody has seriously challenged this proposition. What I find
>fascinating is that this view is exactly what Advaita Vedanta teaches. It
>proclaims that, when reflecting long enough on the question of who I am,
>I will find this "field" of Absolute Consciousness as my ultimate identity.
>John K. Landre
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application