Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt01680)

I don't think your calling my analogy "bad" in any way negates the statemen=
t=20
made about knowing the working of the universe -- since I was not referring=
 to=20
the theories behind its components, but how the system itself, as a whole,=
=20
actually and pragmatically works from BOTH a subjective and objective viewp=
oint.=20
  The universe, like the internet depends for its operations on consciousne=
ss=20
as well as its material and electrodynamic constituents.=20=20=20

Certainly, the construction of a jet fighter bomber, like the Internet or a=
ny=20
complex system requiring intricate hardware, software and information=20
transfer and transformation processes, requires much mathematics and theore=
tical=20
physics to determine the nature of all it's myriad parts and operating syst=
ems, as=20
well as determine the dynamics of its flight with relation to them, as well=
=20
as with its surrounding environment -- whether it be radiative fields for t=
he=20
internet or more dense media for aircraft flight systems.=20=20=20

But, nevertheless, it doesn't take much knowledge of mathematics, and=20
especially the higher mathematics of physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, fl=
uid=20
dynamics, electrodynamics, quantum dynamics, etc., etc., etc.   to learn HO=
W such a=20
jetliner works and how to fly it.   The only thing necessary for the pilot =
to=20
know is that all those components are logically consistent with respect to=
=20
chains of predictable causes and effects, and of course, obey all the laws =
of=20
physics -- without having to know the mathematics that explain those laws.

Assuredly, the designers and workers who conceived and build that airplane=
=20
can get along perfectly fine with language based instructions coupled with =
2-D=20
diagrams and 3D models.   And, those who fly it need only learn and practic=
e=20
its operational functions consistent with its purposes... All, without know=
ing=20
any of the mathematics that explains the physics of its components and syst=
ems=20
or its flight characteristics.=20

So, when it comes down to actually flying the fighter plane, the essential=
=20
component is the consciousness and mind of the pilot.   Even his brain, and=
 the=20
knowledge of how it works, is immaterial -- so long as its internal structu=
res=20
and operating systems function properly as his consciously guided internal=
=20
fly by-wire body control system and sensory transponder.   It's a fact that=
=20
science cannot explain how those internal processes actually work, since th=
ey have=20
no idea how to explain the linkage between mind and brain or that between=20
mind and both will and awareness, the functional aspects of consciousness t=
hat is=20
dependent on the subjective experience or qualia of consciousness -- that, =
in=20
itself, can never be explained, empirically or objectively (but may be=20
examined subjectively and, consequently, inferred logically).

As for the way the universe works -- down to all the artifacts in it that=20
interface with us, and are dependent on our consciousness to exist, such as=
=20
fighter-bombers and Internet's... I still say that -- since its motivationa=
l force=20
and reason for being is dependent upon consciousness, and would have no=20
purpose without it -- no amount of physical science and its mathematical th=
eories=20
based on the assumptions that matter is its dominant a priori aspect, and t=
hat=20
consciousness is an epiphenomena of that material substance, will ever be a=
ble=20
to explain how all of it works in its totality or gestalt.=20=20=20

That's because, as I see it, consciousness -- as both subjective awareness=
=20
and willful intent (which, together, have no mathematical symbologies or=20
physically measurable attributes) are entirely rootless, and beyond all met=
ric space=20
and time... And, forever exists in eternal emptiness as the primal zero-poi=
nt=20
"singularity"...   Therefore, the root of collective consciousness was ther=
e,=20
prior to the big bang, long before matter or substance first became manifes=
t=20
out of its inherent "spinergy," or infinite force of angular momentum... An=
d=20
certainly, before any of its evolved forms in its later involutional step-d=
own=20
into our metric space time continuum... That seems, almost amazingly, to be=
=20
built just for us.   (Or, I can't help asking, was it us that built it?) </=
:-)>=20=20=20


So, in any event, I can still say with full justification through simple=20
reverse engineering coupled with logical analysis and deductive reasoning .=
.. To=20
rely on mathematics and materialistic theories to explain this universe, an=
d=20
how it works in its entirety (which must include consciousness) -- is a pra=
ctice=20
in futility. Therefore, in my view, there can never be a valid reductive=20
"theory of everything" based on scientific materialism.=20=20=20

Besides, all that quantum theory can explain, even going as deep as the=20
multidimensional string theories of quantum gravity, is the properties of t=
he=20
energetic substance that surrounds the zero-point of consciousness... That,=
 in the=20
end, is not much different than my ABC theory -- which, going even further,=
=20
encompasses both the multidimensional, bubble-like coenergetic fields and t=
he=20
analog electrodynamic processes of the field surface recording of holograph=
ic=20
wave interference patterned information and its inductive resonant transfer=
 from=20
one field energy phase order to another... With the mathematics of all that=
,=20
I assume, being similar to that of Iskakov.   The only difference is that I=
=20
accept consciousness as being separate and outside of all of that changeabl=
e=20
substance, and assign 0 =3D 00 (zero =3D infinity) as the fundamental equat=
ion of the=20
universal root beness.

So, rest assured that it isn't all "science" or "mathematics" that I refer =
to=20
as being insufficient in explaining the universe and how it works or its=20
genesis -- but specifically -- "reductive material science" and ITS "mathem=
atics."=20


I hope this clears up my position in this controversy between the efficacy =
of=20
words versus math.   But, if not, at least that we can agree to disagree on=
=20
the theoretical mechanisms -- but not on the fundamental principles themsel=
ves.

Best wishes,

Leon

In a message dated 3/31/06 1:53:01 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:


> Leon,
>  =A0
>  "=A0Our current worldwide, multilevel, hybrid analog-digital mass media=
=20
> research, entertainment and personal and group communication network syst=
ems --=20
> whose workings can be undertood in its entirety without any mathematical =
or=20
> symbolic descriptions.
> Not a good choice for an analogy as the internet is based on signal theor=
y=20
> and system analysis, which are both highly mathematical. Words will never=
=20
> substitute for math.
>  =A0
>  Richard
> =A0
> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 23:45:27 EST
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: MindBrain Conversations on Channeling
>=20
> Richard,
>=20
> Of course, I didn't say there's "no hope for science" as it is currently=
=20
> practiced.=A0 All I inferred by the statement quoted below was that its a=
bstract=20
> symbols, mathematical or otherwise, are not the things in themselves.=A0 =
For=20
> example, the neural correlates of conciousness could never be consciousne=
ss=20
> itelf, or describe the actual cause or nature of consciousness.
>=20
> In my view, the "true picture of how the universe actually works," would=
=20
> have to be metaphysically AND physically related to some sort of=20
> multidimensional dynamic geometric or topological field structure (such a=
s my ABC model)=20
> linked to consciousness by analog wave interference patterned holographic=
al=20
> information transfer processes.=A0 All of which can be visualized or expe=
rienced=20
> mentally... With its genesis, involution and evolution -- starting from i=
ts=20
> simplest axiomatic zero-point source -- described parsimoniously by analo=
gy and=20
> correspondence in accord with Occam's razor ... Similar to the way we can=
=20
> examine the inner workings of the most complex physical system, mentally=
=20
> interconnect all its subordinate, similarly complex sub-system parts, and=
 understand=20
> its internal and external dynamics -- independently of the mathematical=20
> symbols that attempt to "scientifically" describe it.=A0 Vide; Our curren=
t=20
> worldwide, multilevel, hybrid analog-digital mass media research, enterta=
inment and=20
> personal and group communication network systems -- whose workings can be=
=20
> undertood in its entirety without any mathematical or symbolic descriptio=
ns.
>=20
> Not to say that their individual material components don't work in accord=
=20
> with the laws of quantum physics, however (which we can also know and acc=
ept=20
> without knowing the mathematics that prove them).
>=20
> Also, I implied that -- since consciousness is a subjective universal=20
> function which objective science cannot explain using reductive material =
methods or=20
> its mathematics, it therefore, offers us no hope that it will ever be abl=
e=20
> -- from the standpoint of the mathematical descriptions of the universe's=
=20
> material nature only -- to completely describe the way the universe, cons=
isting=20
> of both consciousness and matter in both their noumenal and phenomenal=20
> aspects, actually works.=A0
>=20
> That's not to say that the two universal aspects (spirit and matter=20
> "dependently arising" as the Buddhists say) -- taken as fundamental propo=
sitions in=20
> their pre cosmic primal or noumenal state -- cannot be combined into one=
=20
> overall, scientifically metaphysical, theory of everything that consisten=
tly and=20
> logically (upon careful subjective analysis) can make sense to everyone=20
> without knowing any of its mathematics, and serve as a satisfactory subst=
itute for=20
> "God made it all" or "everything is material" and that "nothing (or empty=
=20
> space, including consciousness and its perturbations of hyperspace energi=
es and=20
> their intermediate zero-point fields) doesn't exist." (Ref: Jud, Dennett,=
=20
> Dawkins, and their eliminative materialism.)=A0
>=20
> Therefore, in order to arrive at such all encompassing theory of everythi=
ng,=20
> we must assume that such "empty" space and its abstract motion or spinerg=
y=20
> must exist, at least in potentia or noumena, if this phenomenal universe =
--=20
> consisting of both consciousness and matter in continual intimate=20
> interrelationship -- can arise from it.=A0
>=20
> It follows that in this view -- which can't imagine matter and its forms =
as=20
> being more than transient, ever changing illusions (although, not to say =
that=20
> a physical elephant can't trample in the physical dust, an equally physic=
al=20
> man:-) -- those unmanifest aspects of Absolute space must eternally exist=
 in=20
> noumenal essence or potential, as the rootless root and ultimate seed and=
=20
> support of our manifest phenomenal universe ... As it periodically expand=
s out=20
> of its initial spinergy, dissipates materially (because of entropic decay=
) and=20
> contracts spiritually or consciously back to its primal zero-point=20
> singularity... To repeat the cycle endlessly in higher and higher orders =
of=20
> multidimensional spatial reality.=A0 But this is beyond the scope of unde=
rstanding by our=20
> finite minds, and indescribable by our equally limited scientific=20
> mathematics... Since Absolute space must be infinitely divisible -- which=
 leads to=20
> infinite dimensions and infinite universes beyond the limits of our finit=
e=20
> imagination.=A0 However, I can't imagine the universe being any other way=
. </:-)>
>=20
> Incidentally, this is also consistent with the ancient occult aphorism=20
> (attributed possibly to Hermes Trismagistus, Pythagorus, or Plato) that "=
matter=20
> spiritualizes and spirit materializes."
> See: http://users.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/evolution2.h=
tml
>=20
> Leon
>=20
> In a message dated 3/27/06 2:56:22 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Since science, particularly physics, is based on math and abstractions, i=
t=20
> appears that you hold no hope for science in the following statement:
> =A0
> " However, as it now appears, I don't think any mathematical or symbolic=
=20
> view could ever give us a true picture of how the universe actually works=
=A0"=A0
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]