Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00703)

Dear Leon,

It seems to me that today's Science is dependent on the ability to 
measure something, not on it being material. Examples of non-material 
objects like gravitational wells and energy feilds seem to point to 
this. I wonder if a measurement is dependent on a "materialality." Or 
maybe something is defined as a scientific reality once one can 
quantify it and then plug it into a mathamatical equation. I wonder 
if there are scientists today researching the possability of 
measuring conciousness.

Ariel



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> Friends,
> 
> Here's some more scientific approaches toward confirmation of 
theosophical 
> metaphysics. 
> 
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?
chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-
> 1085-94F483414B7F0000 {See intro below}
> 
> They still overshoot the mark, however. The missing link is that, 
because of 
> conventional science's inbred materialism, they start with the 
plane (brane) 
> or line (string) and forget the essential circular spin momentum 
(spinergy) of 
> the zero-point that contains the holographic information for the 
evolutionary 
> construction of the entire Universe -- empowered, upon each 
awakening, by the 
> intent (will) and consciousness (awareness) of the empty zero-point 
itself. 
> Unfortunately, all their scenarios trying to explain the 
transition of 
> the physical universe from a prior state of opposite condition or 
rest depends 
> upon chance and probabilities rather than involution (during 
initial inflation) 
> based on fundamental laws of cycles and periodicity, governed by 
initial 
> spinergy, and guided by conscious will.
> At least, however, science has begun to acknowledge that the 
universe 
> preexisted before the big-bang and that time is eternal. Could we 
infer from 
> that; The universe "reincarnates" periodically? If so, what does 
that say to the 
> materialists about the possibility of human reincarnation, or that 
mind 
> guided by spirit or consciousness, can control matter -- especially 
when, at the 
> beginning (prior to emanation) consciousness and will was all that 
was?
> Best Wishes, Lenny
> 
> 
> 
> April 27, 2004
> FEATURE ARTICLES - Scientific American 
> May 2004 issue 
> 
> COSMOLOGY 
> 
> The Myth of the Beginning of Time
> String theory suggests that the big bang was not the origin of the 
universe 
> but simply the outcome of a preexisting state 
> By Gabriele Veneziano
> Image: ALFRED T. KAMAJIAN
> Sidebar: Overview/String Cosmology
> Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe 
exist 
> before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a 
decade ago. Most 
> cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to 
contemplate a time 
> before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north 
of the North 
> Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise 
of string 
> theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has 
become the 
> latest frontier of cosmology. 
> The new willingness to consider what might have happened 
before the bang 
> is the latest swing of an intellectual pendulum that has rocked 
back and 
> forth for millennia. In one form or another, the issue of the 
ultimate beginning 
> has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. 
It is 
> entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in 
an 1897 painting 
> by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-
nous? "Where do 
> we come from? What are we? Where are we going?" The piece depicts 
the cycle of 
> birth, life and death--origin, identity and destiny for each 
individual--and 
> these personal concerns connect directly to cosmic ones. We can 
trace our 
> lineage back through the generations, back through our animal 
ancestors, to early 
> forms of life and protolife, to the elements synthesized in the 
primordial 
> universe, to the amorphous energy deposited in space before that. 
Does our family 
> tree extend forever backward? Or do its roots terminate? Is the 
cosmos as 
> impermanent as we are? 
> (Continued on web site)