Theos-Talk Archives (October 2006 Message tt00398)

In a message dated 10/23/06 9:24:52 AM, yanniru@netscape.net writes:

> Leon:  if the source of near infinite zero-point energy in the Planck 
> vacuum, that continuously feeds the fundamental particles, must come from 
> "somewhere"
>   
>  Richard: True to a certain extent: virtual particle pairs pop out of the 
> vacuum but recombine within the limits of the uncertainty principle. As the 
> time between creation and annihilation shrinks to zero, the virtual energy of 
> the particle pair can approaches infinity.  
>   
>  These virtual particles, according to Quantum Electrodynamics(QED), do not 
> 'feed' fundamental particles. Rather they limit the effective strength of 
> fundamental particles. And regarding the 'somewhere': in physics anything that 
> ls not restricted is allowed.
>   
>  In the present case the restriction is the uncertainty principle as applied 
> to measurements. So an equivalent statement is that what you cannot measure 
> can exist. The 'somewhere' is that since you cannot measure an infinitisimal 
> amount of time, a nearly infinite energy can exist within that time. But the 
> energy is entirely virtual. It does not exist in the sense that fundamental 
> particles exist; and moreover their virtual existence just serves to limit the 
> effectiveness of fundamental particles. Leon, your model is close to Lofting 
> who seems to think that fundamental particles can emerge from the chaos of 
> virtual particle pairs within the limits of the uncertainty principle. 
> According to QED that is untrue. Both your model of fundamental particles and 
> Lofting's are falsified by QED.
> 
LM:
Would QED then, also falsify Iskakov's theory of microlepton particles -- 
that, if real, must exist in a higher order sub or hyperspace field (probably 
within the Planck vacuum that is everywhere, and which we might equate with 
Einstein's aether medium)?   

I can't see how QED can falsify a theory of particles existing in a different 
dimension of fundamental space that may or may not be subject to uncertainty 
in that hyperspace-time -- which is beyond all physical measurement (using 
instruments limited only to this metric space-time).

I'm curious to know where you got the impression of my assuming that particle 
pairs limited by the uncertainty principle can emerge from the vacuum chaos?  
 

All I implied was that conventional quantum particles are apparently 
continuously and cyclically changing from existence on this physical field of space 
time, and existence as virtual particles (possibly of an opposite charge) on a 
higher order coenergetic field of hyperspace-time.   This change would have to 
pass through the quantum vacuum to the other side of the zero-point wormhole 
between our metric space-time and hyperspace-time.   That's what I meant by 
"feed."   I suspect that this characteristic of fundamental space is the cause of 
the apparent uncertainty of measurement on the physical space-time plane as 
well, as underlying the "perturbations" of zero-point energy in the quantum 
vacuum and the dual particle-wave conditions observed on the quantum level. 

In accord with the ABC model, uncertainty could also be the effect of the 
projected sub quantum (coupled, perhaps, with quantum) energy of observance 
interfering with the real-virtual particle interchange.   This could very well be 
also the cause of the apparent "collapse of the wave function" on the quantum 
plane as particles go in and out of virtual-real existence.

Additionally, I can't see how QED, which is limited to "observables" on the 
physical space-time level of existence, has anything to do with the 
falsification of hyperspace fields and their microparticles that may exist beyond the 
possibility of direct physical observation on the sub quantum levels.   If QED 
can truly falsify the coenergetic fields between the quantum world and the 
zero-point, then the world as we know it could not exist -- since there could be no 
consciousness to observe it, or mind to discover QED so as to 
technologicalize it. :-)

As for Lofting's view, I think his dichotomized differentiation and 
integration mathematical conclusions are very much in line with ABC's fractal field 
model -- which justifies all the electrodynamic linkages between consciousness 
with mind and mind with matter -- that are also implied by the 64 hexagram 
system of the I-Ching -- from which Lofting's conclusions of a binary fractalized 
chaos, out of which all (virtual and real) particles originate, as well as his 
view of human psychology (and possibly parapsychology) also appears to be 
based upon.   But, then, I understand how difficult it is for left brain (LH) 
thinkers with limited graphical (RH) imagination to understand and follow his 
reasoning. :-)

In my view, QM, QED, QCD, QFT and all other aspects of quantum theory cannot 
determine or falsify any theory of fundamental spatial reality between the 
quanta and the zero-point of absolute (timeless and dimensionless) primal or 
fundamental space/spinergy -- out of which everything is dependently originating 
-- including both phenomenal consciousness and all forms of matter/substance... 
Thus, the beginning of everything is an a-priori duality which, when linked 
by mind becomes a fundamental trinity that fractalize involutionally into an 
octaval series (scales) of descending orders of electrodynamic coenergetic 
fields...   Of which there are 14 initially before this physical universe appears 
on the cosmic level prior to the breaking of symmetry. See: 
How It All Began 
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: leonmaurer@aol.com
> To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 9:13 PM
> Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Chemical clocks create DNA
> 
> In a message dated 10/20/06 8:36:02 PM, stonjek@ozemail.com.au writes:
> 
> 
> 
> For ID to take over it must forward a scientifically framed alternative 
> theory that passes the standard scientific tests BEFORE it can show that its 
> theory explains the known facts and observations better than the current theory.  
> If 'Darwinism' failed comprehensively today then science would be looking 
> around for another scientific theory to replace it.  ID would not be considered 
> unless there was some scientific component to it.  There isn't.
> 
> 
> But, if the source of near infinite zero-point energy in the Planck vacuum, 
> that continuously feeds the fundamental particles, must come from "somewhere" 
> (e.g., absolute, proto-, or primal space) and "something" (its inherent 
> compacted ±G-force) that must precede and exist, forever undiminished in its 
> "singularity" beyond (although, everywhere in, but not of) configuration 
> space...  Would not that "something" have to be in the form of an infinite abstract 
> angular momentum -- that can be reduced to fundamental spin of the 
> dimensionless zero point of that primal space? 
> 
> And, if that "spinergy" is the source of subsequent phenomenal substance, as 
> it steps down in density from near infinite mass/energy (concentrated around 
> the "singularity") to near zero mass/energy (spread throughout all of metric 
> space) -- couldn't nonlocal consciousness be considered as the functional 
> aspect of the zero-point space itself that is reflected in the center of origin 
> of every fractally involved finite field radiated initially from that 
> zero-point's inffnite spinergy?
> 
> If so, couldn't that spin force ("Spinergy") carry as holographic 
> interference patterns, all the structural and positional information related to all 
> forms of life experienced during a previous cyclic of cosmic birth, enthalpic 
> growth, involution, evolution, and ultimate entropic death?  (Wouldn't this be 
> consistent with Hawking's theory that information can never be lost, even at 
> the "singularity" in the center of a black hole?)  Also, wouldn't that 
> information still exist when that contractive black hole reverts to an expansive 
> quasar?
> 
> And, if that is so, couldn't that zero-point and its "Spinergy," as the 
> rootless root of potentially conscious life forms, be considered as having 
> inherent "intelligence" as well as both pure awareness and will (reflected 
> analogously in each of its initial conscious entities on the highest order fields of 
> initial manifestation)?  Therefore, wouldn't it be perfectly in accord with 
> scientific principles along with logical deductive reasoning, for that source 
> and its initial hierarchy of involved conscious beings to be capable of 
> determining as well as guiding the path of subsequent evolution on the lowest 
> order of phenomenal existence (our metric plane) in accord with the primal 
> source's fundamental laws of dynamics (however described mathematically on each 
> descending level) based on the cyclic nature of its original zero-point 
> "spinergy"?
> 
> If all the above can be proven by both subjective and objective evidence to 
> be the true nature of fundamental reality that is consistent with both 
> science and philosophy -- wouldn't that confirm that "Intelligent design" (without 
> a supernatural basis) is the guiding director of all evolutionary processes 
> that, in this view, along with the help of natural selection, always tends to 
> drift toward ideal forms inherent in pre-cosmic memory that can survive in 
> any type of long lasting environmental condition?   Aren't trial and error 
> methods, such as what only "appears" to be chance initiated natural selection, a 
> concomitant of intelligent purpose?  Could we not say then that the entire 
> universe appears to be it's own intelligent creator?
> 
> It's interesting that such evolutionary processes always start with a single 
> individual life form change whose complexity could not be attributed to a 
> single chance mutation of what would have to be a selective group of genes in a 
> developing zygote.  Would that not require an intelligent selection of such 
> genes?  How that change in one individual transforms to the rest of the 
> species in some of the short time periods between punctuated evolutionary changes 
> is another question that scientific evolution based on Darwin doesn't 
> answer... Just as the genetic basis of body form and patterns has also remained 
> unanswered.  Yet, both problems can easily be explained using a holographic 
> informational and electrodynamic coenergetic, fractally involved field theory...  
> With each such field enfolded within hidden inner dimensions of fundamentally 
> multidimensional space that are not subject to direct observation or 
> measurements with instruments limited to our metric 4 dimensional space time 
> continuum.  Ref.; the mathematical postulates of string theories and their enfolded 
> hyperspace field dimensions.  Although such theories do not meet the 
> scientific method's requirement of falsifiability, they are still considered as valid 
> scientific possibilities worthwhile of further study and search for 
> experimental evidence (whether ojective or subjective}.
> 
> Incidentally, such a basis of intelligence guided design, if eventually 
> provable -- even by elimination of all possible alternatives -- would also lend 
> credence not only to my ABC theory of a periodic fractal field involutional 
> cosmogenesis that is ubiquitously conscious in and throughout all its parts ad 
> infinitum, but also to Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory of evolution, 
> Bohm-Pribram's "holographic paradigm," and string theorist's "hyperspace" 
> dimensions consisting of vibrating strings, membranes, etc. ... All together, 
> forming a final and decisive theory of everything that can serve as a functional 
> basis of all biology's, physiology's and psychology's (from cognitive, 
> though transcendental, to analytical, etc.).
> 
> When science finally reaches the stage of explaining (as well as describing) 
> the causative source of both consciousness and matter, and can accept such a 
> Unified Field Theory of Everything -- which, IMHO, has to be based on 
> something very close to the above implied cosmogenetic model -- so much for the 
> unfounded assertion that (at least this non mystical, magical or supernatural 
> view of) "intelligent design" doesn't have a "scientific component". :-)
> 
> Besides, none of this implies that Darwin's theory is incorrect -- although, 
> it does offer a viable alternative to the unfounded concept of chance 
> mutation as the trigger of evolutionary change, as well as answering the problem of 
> punctuated evolution and the inability to find the missing links between 
> species changes on branches of the so called "evolutionary tree."
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Leon Maurer
> 
> 



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