Theos-Talk Archives (July 2006 Message tt00456)

Friends,

After long disagreements and attempts to denigrate me and my theoretical 
model and scientific correlation of Cosmogenesis, as it relates to holographic 
consciousness, mind and brain, a physicist finally relents and apparently accepts 
the ABC theory -- or, at least, some of its more important conclusions.

As a relatively clear explanation of the ABC theory in my letters below that 
is entirely in accord with metaphysical fundamental principles as well as the 
leading edges of modern Maurer, Donphysics, I thought this might be of 
interest to some of my friends and associates. 

(I'll understand your disregarding this if there are more complex ideas here 
than you are willing to wade through. :-) 

Lenny

In a message dated 5/24/06 10:59:01 PM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

Leon, You should look into Killing vector fields. From the following they 
sound like your spinergy fields:
   
  Hollands, Ishibashi, and Wald offer their proof that rotating black holes, 
even the higher-dimensional ones, must be axisymmetric. In other words, they 
always admit a "rotational" Killing vector field. You should realize that the 
horizon is not necessarily spherical anymore if the number of spacetime 
dimensions exceeds four.
   
 A Higher Dimensional Stationary Rotating Black Hole Must be Axisymmetric
Authors: Stefan Hollands, Akihiro Ishibashi, Robert M. Wald
Comments: 25 pages, no figures

A key result in the proof of black hole uniqueness in 4-dimensions is that a 
stationary black hole that is ``rotating''--i.e., is such that the stationary 
Killing field is not everywhere normal to the horizon--must be axisymmetric. 
The proof of this result in 4-dimensions relies on the fact that the orbits of 
the stationary Killing field on the horizon have the property that they must 
return to the same null geodesic generator of the horizon after a certain 
period, $P$. This latter property follows, in turn, from the fact that the 
cross-sections of the horizon are two-dimensional spheres. However, in spacetimes of 
dimension greater than 4, it is no longer true that the orbits of the 
stationary Killing field on the horizon must return to the same null geodesic 
generator. In this paper, we prove that, nevertheless, a higher dimensional stationary 
black hole that is rotating must be axisymmetric. No assumptions are made 
concerning the topology of the horizon cross-sections other than that they are 
compact and connected. However, as in the 4-dimensional proof, we assume that the 
horizon is non-degenerate and that the spacetime is analytic.
 Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats

 -----Original Message-----
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 17 May 2006 20:21:27 EDT
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, 
Thinking, Mind, Brain

List members and moderators,

If this is the kind of unscientific presumptive arguments (as if Richard 
reads my mind and knows exactly where my insights come from) used by him to 
disqualify my ABC theory -- especially without quoting my previous statements he is 
attempting to refute.   I think his emotions are getting the better of his 
judgment. 

Apparently, he seems to take a personal affront to anything I say that in any 
way contradicts his almost religious belief in the infallibility of current 
physics and its contrived mathematics -- that still cannot explain the nature 
or the mechanisms of consciousness or answer the hard problems of qualia or 
brain mind binding, as well as non locality of consciousness and other anomalies, 
such as dream images that allow us to review visual images holographically in 
an inner "light" whose origin also cannot be explained -- that my ABC theory 
makes a serious effort to explain in simple logical terms that can be 
understood by any open minded, imaginative, and rational thinker -- using both left 
and right brain simultaneously. 

My ABC field theory -- while correlating and integrating both subjective 
consciousness and objective matter as two fundamental yet opposing aspects of the 
entire cosmic reality, and correlating relativity with quantum physics as 
proposed by string theories -- attempts to explain all this without violating any 
of the proven laws of conventional physics, (that in my view, apply solely to 
the physical world we experience in our waking state) ... Although, the entire 
universe, even if both physical and metaphysical or paraphysical,   would 
necessarily obey the fundamental laws of conservation and symmetry, as well as 
the basic laws of thermodynamics, electrodynamics, fluid dynamics, quantum 
dynamics, etc. -- on whatever hyperspace level of energy they might apply. (This, 
incidentally, in accord with the string physics and its unification of 
relativity and quantum physics, along with its minimal six dimensional hyperspace 
fields and one 3-dimensional metric space coupled with time, now being taught in 
many advanced physics departments at major universities.)   Incidentally, this 
almost exactly corresponds to the "seven fold coadunate but not 
consubstantial" fields of human consciousness spoken of by occultists and Eastern 
philosophers.

Naturally, I understand Richard's inability (due to his preconceived, 
prejudicial, and supposedly infallible material science mindset) to follow the 
geometric and topological logic of the Cosmogenesis ABC explains -- that, in my 
view, is entirely scientific -- since it follows the rational progressions of the 
primal triune field radiation, their fractal involution's and expansion or 
inflation prior to the breaking of the original supersymmetry... And, 
subsequently, through their ultimate evolution after symmetry breaking, in perfect accord 
with scientific processes governed by analogous fundamental physical laws 
that would apply on each hyperspatial phase of their fractal descent... Each 
level of which would necessarily be "in coadunation but not in consubstantiality" 
with all other "coenergetic" dimensions in "hyperspace" (as string theorists 
call this multidimensional and paraphysical realm)... Since these field's 
fundamental laws of interaction would necessarily be based on electrodynamics 
initially... As well as later, with respect to the transfer of holographic 
information related to consciousness (awareness, qualia, willful intent, etc.) from 
one level or state of consciousness to another...   And finally, to raw 
consciousness itself at the "zero-point centers" of the coenergetic fields in the 
afferent direction… And from there, to the brain's neural system and muscles in 
the efferent direction.   These paths consisting of a series of 
inductive-resonance processes between each coenergetic fractal field governed by the 
fundamental laws of electricity acting analogously within each descending field's 
mass-energy order, phase, or degree of substantiality or density. 

This scientific logic starts with the basic assumption that the entire 
universe (as a holographic unity) originates from an infinitely massive 
"singularity" (as postulated by the theory of relativity) that underlies the standard 
model of the Big Bang.   It also presumes that pure consciousness (as above 
defined) is a function of the zero-point of absolute space itself.   And 
additionally assumes the possibility that all cosmic energies -- no matter in which 
dimension of fundamental space, or of whatever form they may be in, from 
particle-waves of their variable substantiality's, to their different aspects of radiant 
energy (i.e., EM spectrums, and their magnetic fields) -- radiate initially 
from the infinite angular momentum, primal force or "Spinergy" of that primal 
absolute zero-point singularity. 

It follows that this pre cosmic force must be based solely on the spin motion 
of the absolute zero-point of fundamental space at the center of the primal 
singularity.   And that this nonlinear abstract motion must be fundamentally a 
non linear spherical motion represented by infinite zero-diameter lines of 
force spinning both clockwise and counterclockwise on infinite potential axes and 
carried as wave interference patterns infinite information. It further 
follows that this information or fundamental knowledge is was and will be gathered 
through potentially infinite previous manifestations (or radiation of that 
energy from one axis), field involution's, their subsequent evolutions, and 
ultimate return back to the combined "black hole" singularities (now one super 
singularity) that gave them birth. 

Recently, some confirmation of the possibility that this ABC model correctly 
describes the initial birth of the universe and its radiation out of the 
spinergy of the primal zero-point singularity (that is the result of the collapse 
of a previous universe having the same physical characteristics as this one) -- 
comes from the work of a group of scientist at Penn State University.   The 
following is an excerpt from a press release from PSU: 
http://live.psu.edu/story/17839
     "Using quantum modifications of Einstein's cosmological equations, we 
have shown that in place of a classical Big Bang there is in fact a quantum 
Bounce," says Ashtekar. "We were so surprised by the finding that there is another 
classical, pre-Big Bang universe that we repeated the simulations with 
different parameter values over several months, but we found that the Big Bounce 
scenario is robust."
       While the general idea of another universe existing prior to the Big 
Bang has been proposed before, this is the first mathematical description that 
systematically establishes its existence and deduces properties of space-time 
geometry in that universe."

Of course, to fully comprehend this model and all its geometrical and 
topological twists and turns, requires a deeply thoughtful and intuitive 
concentration coupled with an open minded and unlimited imagination -- which Einstein said 
was "more important than knowledge."   Doing so, will make it evident, that 
none of it could be explained by or grasped intuitively (by scientists or other 
thinkers who are not brilliant physicists with Einstein-like imaginations) 
through mathematical symbolic equations, such as those used in conventional 
quantum physics.   I suspect that this statement alone is enough to drive Richard 
off the deep end, and trigger his personal attacks on both my theory and me... 
Although the above new findings related to loop quantum gravity may serve to 
temper his response a bit. ;-)

Without going deeper into the finer points of this cosmogenesis process and 
the subtle connections between consciousness, mind, memory and brain, or the 
mechanisms of perceptive consciousness, all of which has been adequately 
explained many times in this and other consciousness study forums, I do not believe 
Richard has made any cogent case for considering banning this theory from 
intelligent discussions here related to consciousness, mind and brain. 

Apparently, these personal ad hominem attacks on my theoretical ideas and me 
related to consciousness studies are generated by Richard's personal inability 
to get his pet theories presented in this forum.   Probably, because, while 
they are based solely on quantum physics and its mathematics (that doesn't 
belong in this forum), they cannot answer any of the outstanding problems of 
consciousness, cognition, perception, etc., nor explain the relationships between 
consciousness, mind and brain, that are the subjects of this forum -- which 
none the materialistic physical sciences can answer or explain using their 
essentially limited, incomplete and obscure mathematics. 

For example, how can any purely objective physical theory empirically codify 
subjective aspects of qualia or experiences of consciousness?   How could it 
also determine the method of assembly and transfer of sensory images processed 
in scattered areas of the brain, as coherent holographic images perceived in 
the field of mind by a singular point of awareness in the exact center of our 
brain directly behind the eyes and between the ears? 

My ABC concepts, however, meet all those requirements and can be discussed -- 
from the points of view of cognitive or transcendental, psychology as well as 
neurology, biology, physiology, biochemistry, psychophysics, or other 
scientific disciplines related to the studies of consciousness, mind and brain, etc. 
-- without necessity for any knowledge of mathematics or quantum physics.

Additionally, to meet the objection by conventional physicists with 
materialistic biases, that it is not scientific -- the ABC model is fundamentally 
identical with the holographic Paradigm of Bohm-Pribram, in that it offers a 
logical dynamic geometric and topological basis of cosmology and its cosmogenesis -- 
that not only stays consistent with relativity and quantum physics when 
synthesized by string theory, but fully justifies all the concepts of the 
Holographic Universe put forth by Bohm and Pribram and other similarly perceptive 
physicists such as Sheldrake and his "Morphogenetic Fields," Hawkings with his 
"Flexiverse," and Ashtekar with his "Big Bounce."
See: http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html#Stanislav

Best wishes,

Leon Maurer
(Additional comments in text below)

In a message dated 5/15/06 10:20:41 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

[Richard]
Leon is a victim of 19th century thinking found in Madam Blavatsky's Secret 
Doctrine. Here is a relevant quote from SD that has apparently influenced Leon:

"[[Vol. 1, Page]] 512 THE SECRET DOCTRINE.
Whether "force" or "motion," (Occultism, seeing no difference between the 
two, never attempts to separate them) it cannot act for the adherents of the 
atomo-mechanical theory one way, and for those of the rival school in another way.
[514] Light and heat are the ghost or shadow of matter in motion."

This is the kind of thinking that leads Leon to claim as below "All energy 
derives from motion." and to reject any notion of a mass as having rest energy. 
That kind of fallacious 19th century thinking pervades his ABC Theory. That 
theory is totally unscientific and should not be allowed presentation on the 
MindBrain Forum.

[Leon]
This argument is particularly insidious and self serving, since there is no 
reference below to my previous statement -- which did NOT reject the 
"scientific" concept of mass having a purely theoretical, "absolute rest energy" ... But 
only commented that, as I see it, there is no such thing as mass at so called 
"rest" without "motion"-- which I do say, going back to the origination of 
all "energy" from the motion of the zero-point spinergy, or of fundamental 
"space" itself, as Einstein pointed out, and therefore -- IS the fundamental root 
of all energy)... And also, since all mass is equivalent to energy as proven by 
E=mc^2, and that even a mass at rest relative to the Earth, is still in 
motion relative to the Sun and the Galaxy, and therefore, is constantly in motion 
and expending potential energy.   I further commented that any mass would also 
have spin, and even if that mass-energy were at linear rest relative to an 
absolute fixed point in space, it would still have inherent spin motion or 
potential energy relating to its mass in accord with E=MC^2.

Let Richard, if he wishes to contest this, use a scientifically sound as well 
as logical argument instead of such blatant ad hominem methods -- based, 
apparently, on his resentment that my definitive theory of consciousness related 
to a paraphysical cosmogenesis leading to brain mind binding might be 
considered as worthwhile to discuss in this forum, and his purely quantum theories, 
not.

But, what has any of that to do with an obscure statement made by Blavatsky 
(and incidentally taken entirely out of context) -- that may very well be true 
if understood properly?   Arbitrarily calling it and my theory that comes to 
similar conclusions "fallacious 19th century thinking" is like saying that 
Einstein's theory of relativity -- which he wrote an essay on when he was 16 years 
old, and therefore, might have had it in his mind some years before the end 
of the 19th century (since it is known that he corresponded with Robert 
Millikan about his ideas of light during that time, and also read Blavatsky's works, 
as Millikan was also noted to be a mystic who probably gave the young Einstein 
that book) -- is therefore, fallacious.   Such arguments, implying that all 
19th century thinking is fallacious, are laughable and not worth paying any 
attention to, if not sad -- especially when coming from the mouth of a supposedly 
open minded and knowledgeable scientist.   

Apparently, Richard likes to take statements out of context, misinterpret 
them, and then attribute it to something someone else with little scientific 
credibility said, that he claims, with no logical foundation whatsoever, and with 
the intent to discredit me by association -- that that is where my logical 
theory of ABC came from. 

I hope those reading my letters in this forum can see that such ad hominem 
methods of argument and attempts at discrediting by association don't belong in 
this open forum devoted to serious consciousness, and mind-Brain studies.

Leon



-----Original Message-----
From: leonmaurer@aol.com
To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 10 May 2006 21:42:29 EDT
Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Re: The "TIME" factor related to Dreams, 
Thinking, Mind, Brain


I suppose I'm entitled to answer in the first person this generally negative 
third person commentary about my ideas and me. :-)   My responses are below. 
LM

In a message dated 5/4/06 2:31:46 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:
 
One of the problems in trying to understand Leon's ABC theory is that its 
"propositions, conclusions, and other elements" have seemingly never been fully 
written out. The best source I have found is an article that describes his 
fundamental assumptions plus brief remarks on the theory that comes from these 
assumptions.   Here is the link:
http://www.theos-world.com/archives/show.php?NAME=tw200203&PATH=txt&;
DESC=XXXtwtw200203%20Issue or: http://tinyurl.com/7rub5 
And here are the paragraphs outlining his assumptions:

THE PRIMAL ZERO POINT by Leon Maurer


This was not written for scientists, but specifically for serious 
theosophists who already were steeped in occult philosophy that, for some strange reason, 
seem to be in perfect agreement with our basic assumptions -- which from my 
point of view, as well as the physicist and Nyingmapa Lama, Dr. Sebastian 
Perchion, who collaborated with me in the beginning -- was derived completely 
logically, based on fundamental principles which were in complete accord with both 
relativity and quantum physics (according to Dr. Perchion who was instrumental 
in the design of the trigger for the Fat Boy and Trinity Atomic Bombs).   
Naturally, we also did a serious study of occultism prior to our development of 
the ABC model since it had metaphysical aspects that had to be corroborated... 
And, incidentally, while doing so, we found evidence that Einstein may have 
also done so.   This was pointed out to several Russian physicists, one of who, 
Zel'dovitch, took a copy of our notated Secret Doctrine back to Russia.   We 
later find several Russian scientists, namely Zel'dovitch, Iskakoff and 
Sakharov who have presented theories and conclusions that seem to have been inspired 
by that book.

Best wishes,

Leon


<Snip>








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